Drink + Independent Inquiry petition + £1million questions (8 Viewers)

[Nick]

What is the hidden meaning here then nick?

So where in that did I say it is the fans fault?

There is no hidden meaning.

I said fans are refusing to give them money so SISU are using that money to plug gaps. The fans can't really moan can they while they refuse to give them money? Did you want them to go and sign Messi? Did you want them to spend money they don't have like we have in the past?

People just like moaning about whatever they can, they love being outraged.

 

---

[duffer]

The money in rent, the matchday rvenues that should be the Clubs, without the Club there is no matchday revenues.

The money in rent goes to ACL, not the Council. ACL have never declared a dividend, so no money to the council as shareholders of ACL either.

The club sold its matchday revenues (and its 50% share in ACL).

So again, how much money have the Council sponged off the club?

 

[Nick]

How is it not neutral? If it isn't neutral why has TF and ML signed it?

Some are just too scared to lose face.

I was replying to the fella who said people off GMK wont sign because they dont agree. My point being make it so everybody agrees and everybody signs.

READ what is said, not what you want to read.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

The money in rent goes to ACL, not the Council. ACL have never declared a dividend, so no money to the council as shareholders of ACL either.

The club sold its matchday revenues (and its 50% share in ACL).

So again, how much money have the Council sponged off the club?

The land deal with Tesco..

 

[lewys33]

So where in that did I say it is the fans fault?

There is no hidden meaning.

I said fans are refusing to give them money so SISU are using that money to plug gaps. The fans can't really moan can they while they refuse to give them money? Did you want them to go and sign Messi? Did you want them to spend money they don't have like we have in the past?

People just like moaning about whatever they can, they love being outraged.

Fuck me you really cannot see the wood for the trees can you?

People are refusing to give them money out of principle! They are not going to a CCFC home game in Northampton.

I am not arguing that they "should try and sign messi". I want us playing back in Coventry. Why SHOULD the money be used to plug gaps from losses at Northampton when the money COULD be spent on matchday costs at the Ricoh resulting in a better return because more fans would turn up?

 

[lewys33]

I was replying to the fella who said people off GMK wont sign because they dont agree. My point being make it so everybody agrees and everybody signs.

READ what is said, not what you want to read.

I know you were. What have I failed to understand here?!

I was not directly asking you the questions. But while we are on the subject please explain how it should be made so everybody agrees? Do you see anything wrong with the wording?

 

[duffer]

Also the land deal with Tesco, seems like the club was expecting something and got nothing.

According solely to Fletcher, who seems to claim that there was some king of agreement to give the club a share of the profit from the sale to Tesco, even though it was the council who bought the land.

How would that agreement work exactly? How would that fit into the Council's legal duty to maximise a return from public assets, which the land became at the point it was bought by the council?

And that 'profit' from the sale of the land was used to fund the build of the Arena (total cost ~£118m). So again, no one made money out of the Ricoh build (except the builders), did they?

 

[Nick]

I know you were. What have I failed to understand here?!

I was not directly asking you the questions. But while we are on the subject please explain how it should be made so everybody agrees? Do you see anything wrong with the wording?

At the time I said that it was only aimed at club owners. I think if it had things even if it said "all parties involved" to at least cover all bases. The CET report then said "it will get all parties involved" but when you read the petition it doesn't actually say that.

 

[Astute]

No, it wasn't a shock. Does that mean we got the money for him any earlier. And do you know if we even got all the money up front. Fair enough you disagree but neither of us know who Pressley wanted/wants and whether they were available, do we? Or do you know different? If you know all the financial arrangements of the Clarke sale then please let me know. I'd rather have loans than players like Dagnell who weren't up to the job. We'll have to agree to disagree.

And I'm not going to go into any ridiculous house analogies. We're not selling or buying houses.

No we don't know how quickly the money will be coming to our club. We might have it now. We might have half now and the other half in 6 months. Yes you are right. But are you saying that we couldn't have done a similar deal to get a player in? Is it only us that would accept payment at a later date......and that is if we have? Are we going to be waiting 6 months or a year for the Arsenal money?

And no. We are not buying or selling houses. Lets make it more simple then. If you were selling something you needed but wanted an upgrade or just fancied a change would you wait until you had sold what you had before starting to look for another one?

 

[duffer]

The land deal with Tesco..

Right, so you accept that the Council haven't made money out of the rent or the matchday revenues.

Now it's just about the land deal.

I've asked the relevant questions to that above, I think. But again, what profit did the council make out of the land deal?

According to the books, not only was all of the profit used to fund the build, but the Council also put in a £10m grant.

Sorry to be like a dog with a bone - but it's a common complaint this cash cow/sponging thing, and I'd just like to understand where the evidence is.

In what way was the land deal sponging off the club?

 

[Ashdown1]

I was replying to the fella who said people off GMK wont sign because they dont agree. My point being make it so everybody agrees and everybody signs.

READ what is said, not what you want to read.

You honestly think that at any time from now until judgment day that everybody will agree on anything !??

 

[Ashdown1]

Fuck me you really cannot see the wood for the trees can you?

People are refusing to give them money out of principle! They are not going to a CCFC home game in Northampton.

I am not arguing that they "should try and sign messi". I want us playing back in Coventry. Why SHOULD the money be used to plug gaps from losses at Northampton when the money COULD be spent on matchday costs at the Ricoh resulting in a better return because more fans would turn up?

Truth is I think, with current player budget/wage structure, lower rent at the Ricoh and the Success SP has had this season which would have encouraged higher crowds in Coventry plus the Clarke sale and the Arsenal revenue, the club would have been able to break even this year !! Although only if debt interest was kept to a minimum and management charges were about 1/10th of recent history !

 

[Astute]

I actually think Sisu did ok over the window. The only person we lost was Clarke who engineered himself a move. Let's remember there was speculation around plenty of others.

Clarke was replaced by 2 strikers on loan which SP thought were the best he could get. Not the clubs fault one of them cleared off after 1 day.

And why were they the best that he thought he could get? Maybe if he was given a part of the takings from the Arsenal game and the sale of Clarke he would have been able to bring in an able replacement that wanted to play for our club.

 

[lewys33]

At the time I said that it was only aimed at club owners. I think if it had things even if it said "all parties involved" to at least cover all bases. The CET report then said "it will get all parties involved" but when you read the petition it doesn't actually say that.

It was worded in such a way so that support and signatures could be rallied from all across the Country. Obviously we are the only severe Owner vs. Council case. An independent Inquiry would look at ALL parties.

 

[duffer]

I was replying to the fella who said people off GMK wont sign because they dont agree. My point being make it so everybody agrees and everybody signs.

READ what is said, not what you want to read.

Blimey Nick, PWKH agrees with it enough to sign, Fisher agrees with it enough to sign, Ainsworth agrees with it enough to sign.

It would seem that all of the main protagonists want it signed - so there's no logic to the argument that people shouldn't sign because the petition is insufficiently neutral, is there?

 

[Nick]

It was worded in such a way so that support and signatures could be rallied from all across the Country. Obviously we are the only severe Owner vs. Council case. An independent Inquiry would look at ALL parties.

Yes, but I am saying it doesn't say anything about that on the petition. If it said all parties in running of football clubs or investigation into the running of football clubs rather than just football club owners.

I am not saying they won't look at them, I just mean the wording doesn't really say that all parties will be looked at and it is a petition into football club owners.

I had better go into hiding after slightly saying something not in line with the "majority" and before I get PM's with a whiff of a threat again.

 

[Nick]

Blimey Nick, PWKH agrees with it enough to sign, Fisher agrees with it enough to sign, Ainsworth agrees with it enough to sign.

It would seem that all of the main protagonists want it signed - so there's no logic to the argument that people shouldn't sign because the petition is insufficiently neutral, is there?

Again, I was asking the poster a question who said people off GMK wont sign because they disagree.

 

[lewys33]

Yes, but I am saying it doesn't say anything about that on the petition. If it said all parties in running of football clubs or investigation into the running of football clubs rather than just football club owners.

I am not saying they won't look at them, I just mean the wording doesn't really say that all parties will be looked at and it is a petition into football club owners.

I had better go into hiding after slightly saying something not in line with the "majority" and before I get PM's with a whiff of a threat again.

Like I said, our case is unique because it is a row between the council and the club owners. Most others just have issues with the club owners. If people dont want to sign it based on their issues with wording then that is their problem.

Some would rather the club come home than bicker about wording - not directly aimed at you, but if the boot fits

 

[Grendel]

Like I said, our case is unique because it is a row between the council and the club owners. Most others just have issues with the club owners. If people dont want to sign it based on their issues with wording then that is their problem.

Some would rather the club come home than bicker about wording - not directly aimed at you, but if the boot fits

I think my new friends in Sunderland would have managed at least 50,000 signatures now.

The petition is a double edged sword. If as a body we fail to get anywhere near the requirement it shows an abject lack of interest in the city. Personally I think this is a loaded gun which will explode in our face.

 

[Nick]

Like I said, our case is unique because it is a row between the council and the club owners. Most others just have issues with the club owners. If people dont want to sign it based on their issues with wording then that is their problem.

Some would rather the club come home than bicker about wording - not directly aimed at you, but if the boot fits

Some need to feel that signing a petition or holding a bit of paper up will bring the club home. I am pretty sure if they did there would be more signing it.

Look at the protests as an example.

Anti ACL - a few blokes
Anti SISU - more people turn up but phase out over time
March that was just about CCFC, no sort of anti anything just PRO CCFC - shit loads of people

Yes the petition may well get all parties but people need to know why and how it will help our situation. I really do hope it reaches the target, it gets people talking and the truth all comes out.

 

[dongonzalos]

Or sometimes it's about looking at the bleeding obvious staring you right in the face and accepting that the actions we fans are taking have consequences.

Asking for people to sign a petition so Every key decision maker in this process becomes accountable in a debate. There is a consequence of this action alright a good one.

You are right it is staring you in the face it is bleeding obvious. Anyone who cares enough to set this up. Deserves praise.

You will always get a small minority who criticise from a far. However I would hold back my criticism unless it is something really significant or I was prepared to do something about it myself.

 

[dongonzalos]

I was replying to the fella who said people off GMK wont sign because they dont agree. My point being make it so everybody agrees and everybody signs.

READ what is said, not what you want to read.

There are Cov fans who don't want a public debate with all the key players?

I assume that is not many?

 

[Nick]

There are Cov fans who don't want a public debate with all the key players?

I assume that is not many?

Responsible department: Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Football is our national game but the interests of fans are being disregarded by club owners and ruling bodies - government action is needed. UK football clubs are not financial franchises: they are rooted in their local communities and are an important part of local identity and heritage. But a new type of club owner is disregarding all that, pricing many people out of the game with inflated ticket and other costs, alienating people by seeking to change clubs’ names, colours and so on. Football's governing bodies are failing to address the situation. We therefore ask that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee revisits its work on football governance and illustrates growing problems by undertaking a short Inquiry into one particular club, Coventry City, whose owner has relocated the club from the City of Coventry to Northampton, 35 miles away. This will highlight concerns shared by football fans across the country, and the need for action.

That doesn't say anything about all key players, this is my point.

IF people on GMK aren't signing or won't or any CCFC fan won't then we need to find out what is stopping them and resolve that issue.

 

[lewys33]

That doesn't say anything about all key players, this is my point.

IF people on GMK aren't signing or won't or any CCFC fan won't then we need to find out what is stopping them and resolve that issue.

You can't stop stubborness.

 

[Nick]

You can't stop stubborness.

No, you find out why people won't and what their issue is and resolve it.

If lots of people won't because they don't know what it will achieve then tell them...
If they don't because of the wording....edit the wording.....

 

[dongonzalos]

Some need to feel that signing a petition or holding a bit of paper up will bring the club home. I am pretty sure if they did there would be more signing it.

Look at the protests as an example.

Anti ACL - a few blokes
Anti SISU - more people turn up but phase out over time
March that was just about CCFC, no sort of anti anything just PRO CCFC - shit loads of people

Yes the petition may well get all parties but people need to know why and how it will help our situation. I really do hope it reaches the target, it gets people talking and the truth all comes out.

Nick the largest chant in that March was 'we want SISU out.'

The march was popular because the reality kicked in that SISU were going ahead with the move and they did not have to.

It was a simple idea and easy for all to do.

It was not popular because of the reasons you explained above.

 

[torchomatic]

Yep, interesting read this from Fans' favourite Bob Ainsworth:

COVENTRY North-east MP Bob Ainsworth yesterday welcomed the prospect of a public court battle between ousted Sky Blues chairman Bryan Richardson andCoventry City Football Club.

He said fans would be fascinated to find out exactly how the club has ended up with debts which reached nearly pounds 60 million, without a ground it owned and being relegated to the First Division.

Mr Richardson is suing the club for pounds 350,000 after he was summarily dismissed in a boardroom coup in January - the equivalent of a year's salary, bonus and perks. The club is planning to counter-sue.

Mr Ainsworth said: "I don't think people have a huge amount of sympathy for Mr Richardson, but I think they'll be fascinated to know the inside story of what's happened at their club.

"If he'd care to tell us, either in court or elsewhere, I'm sure he'll have the ears of Coventry. I don't think any more damage can be done to the football club than that which has already been done."

Mr Ainsworth said a court case would probably be the only way the fans would find out what has happened at the club.

He said: "Only a few years ago the club owned its own ground and the land on which it was to build a stadium and Bryan Richardson was saying there were exciting prospects for the Foleshill gasworks site.

"Over a relatively short period they've come to a position where they don't own the ground, they don't own the contaminated land on which they hope somebody is going to be able to build a stadium and they don't own all their footballers.

"All they own is a pile of debt.

"Whether or not they've got there because of heroic attempts to keep them in the Premier League and the necessities of paying wages to top flight players or whether or not there are other reasons for the demise, it would be very nice to understand in detail."

The council now owns the Foleshill site and is hoping to develop an arena with Advantage West Midlands and the club.

Also the land deal with Tesco, seems like the club was expecting something and got nothing.

 

[Monners]

If Cov fans aren't going to sign this due to being pinickety about the wording, then what chance of getting the wider population in and around Cov to do so. Nit picking small mindedness springs to mind. All parties invovled would be expected (altough don't have to) attend. That is the whole point.

 

[Nick]

It was a simple idea and easy for all to do.

Exactly, simple and easy to do.

People could have been singing N Dubz, they were out in numbers.

 

[Nick]

If Cov fans aren't going to sign this due to being pinickety about the wording, then what chance of getting the wider population in and around Cov to do so. Nit picking small mindedness springs to mind. All parties invovled would be expected (altough don't have to) attend. That is the whole point.

But the point is people who don't have knowledge about independent enquiries don't know that all parties wont be there? They go by the wording.

It isn't nit picking, it is pointing something out that could prevent people signing.

 

[lewys33]

No, you find out why people won't and what their issue is and resolve it.

If lots of people won't because they don't know what it will achieve then tell them...
If they don't because of the wording....edit the wording.....

I think you are wrong.

I think some (GMK) are so anti-council they wont stand for anything remotely anti-sisu. LIke I said, they would rather save face.

 

[torchomatic]

Yes it's simple and easy to do. Takes all of two minutes. So why aren't the people of Coventry and Warwickshire doing it?

Nick the largest chant in that March was 'we want SISU out.'

The march was popular because the reality kicked in that SISU were going ahead with the move and they did not have to.

It was a simple idea and easy for all to do.

It was not popular because of the reasons you explained above.

 

[torchomatic]

That is odd. But then again you have those on here who would rather go bust than have SISU here. I don't. Get back to the Ricoh with or without them for me.

I think you are wrong.

I think some (GMK) are so anti-council they wont stand for anything remotely anti-sisu. LIke I said, they would rather save face.

 

[Jack Griffin]

The land deal with Tesco..

Remind me was this done & dusted when SISU took over or still a possibility?

Yes that is right, it never came into the equation, when SISU took over the deal was done and they bought CCFC in full knowledge of the situation & should have accounted for it in their business plan.

 

[Nick]

I think you are wrong.

I think some (GMK) are so anti-council they wont stand for anything remotely anti-sisu. LIke I said, they would rather save face.

Ask them why they think it is anti sisu? Is it the wording? Explain to them ALL parties would be called.

But no, it is easier to say fuck them, they have a different opinion.