Sky Blue Sports & Leisure 2013 accounts (22 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

They still said no though when CCFC said "we will build our own stadium, can we play here while we do it".

They had the issue of planning etc though? If they could have just built a stadium without ACL knowing and then dropping the bomb at the end of the season they could have, could ACL have readied for it if they had waited that long?

Of course they did. Firstly no-one believes they will actually build it, they think it's brinkmanship. Secondly, they don't want the club to leave and believe(d) that there was no way out of the relationship.

Why should the club be able to back out of legal contracts? Especially ones that entire regeneration projects for whole swathes of the city were built around?

There's always been a symbiotic relationship between club and city, until Joy arrived.

 

---

[shmmeee]

its all about getting CCFC in a position to move forward.

rent/freehold its all same thing, change is needed to help the club.

this was always gonna happen at some point. be it these owners or some new ones down the line.

Even if that's the case. Why do it like this? Doesn't it show spectacularly bad management? Not to mention the fact that they were there 5 years before they noticed change was required? Are these people you want making possibly the biggest decision in the club's history?

 

[Nick]

Of course they did. Firstly no-one believes they will actually build it, they think it's brinkmanship. Secondly, they don't want the club to leave and believe(d) that there was no way out of the relationship.

Why should the club be able to back out of legal contracts? Especially ones that entire regeneration projects for whole swathes of the city were built around?

There's always been a symbiotic relationship between club and city, until Joy arrived.

The same could then be said about why should ACL be able to hold the club to ransom because they have no other option? I know that originally the lease deal was agreed to and it was signed before that happens. Originally if the club were asking for lower rent, asking to talk about it but being told to piss off then what could they do?

I don't believe in the stadium, but on the other hand I never thought we would leave the Ricoh so trying to second guess them isn't that easy. God knows how long they planned the "get out of the lease" thing so they may have plenty of tricks up their sleeve.

 

[shmmeee]

ACL must believe they have the upper hand hence why they have left the door open to the Club, my guess would be that ACL believe it will be nigh-on-impossible for the Club to build a new Stadium.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or (and this is a bit out there I know) maybe, just maybe, an organisation owned by two groups of people dedicated to the wellbeing of the city (legally), and staffed by a large portion of CCFC fans, wants the club back because they want the club in Coventry. For no reason other than they think it's a good idea.

I really don't understand the logic that suggests that a group of bankers has the club's interests at heart over a group of people from Coventry. Why is it always ACL that must have some other reason, yet Sisu genuinely want what's best for the club? How do you even begin to arrive at that conclusion?

 

[shmmeee]

The same could then be said about why should ACL be able to hold the club to ransom because they have no other option? I know that originally the lease deal was agreed to and it was signed before that happens. Originally if the club were asking for lower rent, asking to talk about it but being told to piss off then what could they do?

They're not being "held to ransom", they're being asked to honour a contract they signed. In fact, they're not even being asked to do that, they're being asked to accept massively reduced terms on a contract they signed. Why not refuse to pay all those injured players who are "holding us to ransom"? Or refuse to pay the £1.8m in interest to ARVO who are "holding us to ransom"?

By what criteria can we pick and choose which contracts to rip up and which to honour?

I don't believe in the stadium, but on the other hand I never thought we would leave the Ricoh so trying to second guess them isn't that easy. God knows how long they planned the "get out of the lease" thing so they may have plenty of tricks up their sleeve.

Not the point. In fact the longer they've been planning it, the shitter they are for not being further along.

I suspect in fact they "planned it" the day they stopped paying rent and since then they've been making it up as they went along.

So you'll lose millions in moving to Sixfields, but you won't throw a few grand at an architect as soon as you think of a new stadium?

How much better to announce the new stadium option with images and details? How much more power does that give you over the council and fans? And for what? a few thousand pounds?

Bunch of fucking amateurs.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Firstly the last thing CCFC have been in this is "honest". First it was about rent. Then lower rent. Then revenues. Then freehold. Then matchday costs. They intentionally kept their plans for CCFC Ltd hidden until the last minute. They deliberately timed it so the FL had to act.

I'd have had just as many issues with their methodology. I'm a person with strong morals in certain areas and I don't like the club I associate with going against them.

However, I'd probably have a season ticket there and be a fan, if a slightly unhappy one. As I expect would many others. More to the point, in our first two seasons in League 1 we wouldn't have lost 20 points and we wouldn't have lost 9000 fans and we wouldn't have lost a significant chunk of our wage budget.

We could realistically been in the Championship, and far more fans would be supportive of the owners after a promotion.

It was badly handled all around, even if you agree with the tactics they used (which I don't) and the overall aims (which I don't).

I am not discussing about the past I am discussing about this issue with the new Stadium or the possibility of.

You asked whether it would be appropriate for the Club in essence to stick two fingers up to everyone build Legoland and not reveal this to anyone until the point they moved us in? Yet it would not be better to inform the fans that the Club are planning to do this, it would not be better for the fans to have input on any new Stadium that could be the Clubs potential home?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lordsummerisle]

Fuck this I'm off to support QPR!







Shit.....

 

[Nick]

Or (and this is a bit out there I know) maybe, just maybe, an organisation owned by two groups of people dedicated to the wellbeing of the city (legally), and staffed by a large portion of CCFC fans, wants the club back because they want the club in Coventry. For no reason other than they think it's a good idea.

I really don't understand the logic that suggests that a group of bankers has the club's interests at heart over a group of people from Coventry. Why is it always ACL that must have some other reason, yet Sisu genuinely want what's best for the club? How do you even begin to arrive at that conclusion?

Surely if they really had the club's interest at heart they would have lowered the rent when the club was asking for help? (going back before SISU if it is true we asked then). Surely if they can now offer all of these amazing things like "free" rent, they could have helped the club out?

Surely the theory that for SISU to make any money, they need some sort of success / football ground.

How could they have done this new stadium in secret when they need CCC for planning? Would CCC have ever given any planning?

 

[magic82ball]

It's not just a recent "SISU thing" though is it? The club has been in decline for decades.

My point is other teams have still maintained a good level of support regardless of how well they are doing.

So what? I don't support another league club. Presumably no one else who attended the Ricoh or HR over the years does either

 

[shmmeee]

I am not discussing about the past I am discussing about this issue with the new Stadium or the possibility of.

You asked whether it would be appropriate for the Club in essence to stick two fingers up to everyone build Legoland and not reveal this to anyone until the point they moved us in? Yet it would not be better to inform the fans that the Club are planning to do this, it would not be better for the fans to have input on any new Stadium that could be the Clubs potential home?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, I think we're at crossed purposes. I mean announce the new stadium, get fans input, etc. But don't announce how you're getting out of the lease until you have to. Why would you?

 

[Nick]

So what? I don't support another league club. Presumably no one else who attended the Ricoh or HR over the years does either

Plenty I know who did against Crewe...

 

[Nick]

Sorry, I think we're at crossed purposes. I mean announce the new stadium, get fans input, etc. But don't announce how you're getting out of the lease until you have to. Why would you?

Wouldn't that give people time to prepare / block holes? How could they have done that without CCC anyway for planning?

 

[Paxman II]

I think based on these accounts and what will come in the next set any prolonged stay at Sixfield's is surely not in their best interest? I never believed they would fund the club for up to five years and now I'm sure they won't remain at Sixfield's beyond next season if at all.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Surely if they really had the club's interest at heart they would have lowered the rent when the club was asking for help? (going back before SISU if it is true we asked then). Surely if they can now offer all of these amazing things like "free" rent, they could have helped the club out?

Surely the theory that for SISU to make any money, they need some sort of success / football ground.

How could they have done this new stadium in secret when they need CCC for planning? Would CCC have ever given any planning?

The wise Northern Wisdom said that the council should have bent over bacwards to help the club with a new ground, offerering suitable sites, stating would be no objections from them with regards to planning permission etc.

Would have flushed out Sisu's real intentions a bit sooner than refusal to deal with them and put Sisu on the spot regarding a new ground.

 

[Godiva]

Not a bad guess I would think Robbo but what is in the best interests of the club ? Keep being told people (including TF & ML) are only interested in what is best for the club. Keeping the loans is to SISU's benefit not the Clubs and that is a separate interest to CCFC. There is always the words "No its not for sale" quite simple, clear and to the point. Also wouldn't expect their "Bank" Arvo to convert much more than they have so that's a barrier to any potential purchaser that wont go away

First of all - it's naïve to think sisu have any altruistic motive. They're doing what is best for them. In most cases that would also mean doing what is best for the club.
But your sentence in bold may hold the key to most confusion ... sisu have build that barrier on purpose, they are not inviting any potential takeover. We saw that clearly during the administration.

 

[Nick]

The wise Northern Wisdom said that the council should have bent over bacwards to help the club with a new ground, offerering suitable sites, stating would be no objections from them with regards to planning permission etc.

Would have flushed out Sisu's real intentions a bit sooner than refusal to deal with them and put Sisu on the spot regarding a new ground.

The ultimate bluff calling

 

[shmmeee]

Surely if they really had the club's interest at heart they would have lowered the rent when the club was asking for help? (going back before SISU if it is true we asked then). Surely if they can now offer all of these amazing things like "free" rent, they could have helped the club out?

Surely the theory that for SISU to make any money, they need some sort of success / football ground.

I agree completely. But neither you nor I know how true that was, or what efforts were made and no-one (other than PWKH) is willing to tell us. The counter argument (and just as flimsy) is why didn't the club accept the rumoured sliding scale? The thing is that both parties will make plans based on the deal that's agreed. That's why you sign a contract. The club can be blamed for poor judgement, but I'm not sure the council or ACL or Higgs can for accepting it. But again, we know so little about this period, it's all really speculation.

And as I've said, I'd have loved the club to be given free rent all day long. I actually supported the rent strike, when I thought it was about rent. I think Sisu had won the moral argument there and as I said, if they took a reduced rent as a win then I would've been happy. But they didn't

How could they have done this new stadium in secret when they need CCC for planning? Would CCC have ever given any planning?

Well, the point is they apparently don't need or want CCC, but if they'd wanted to CCC couldn't have stopped a new stadium application if it's valid. I'm not saying keep the stadium secret, I'm saying keep the breaking of the lease secret if you must. What would ACL have done, other than look a bit bemused? And surely every step you take towards a new stadium, the more pressure it puts on the council, if the Ricoh is your real aim.

The only reason I can see is that the whole Ltd/Holdings thing wasn't likely to stand up to any kind of scrutiny and if anyone had caught wind early then they could've blown the case apart and kept CCFC in the lease.

 

[shmmeee]

Wouldn't that give people time to prepare / block holes? How could they have done that without CCC anyway for planning?

So you're saying that CCFC did something illegal when breaking the lease?

(GTG, parents evening)

 

[Nick]

So you're saying that CCFC did something illegal when breaking the lease?

(GTG, parents evening)

I have no idea, if they had then they haven't been done for it have they? I just mean that if they sort of gave notice that something was going on, ACL could have countered it somehow.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Quite honestly FP, I have no idea.

Normally you try to predict the future by assuming that people will act rationally - which would suggest one of my two alternative scenarios - but we are playing at Sixfields....

Rational would be winding it all up...

 

[Deleted member 5849]

The wise Northern Wisdom said that the council should have bent over bacwards to help the club with a new ground, offerering suitable sites, stating would be no objections from them with regards to planning permission etc.

Would have flushed out Sisu's real intentions a bit sooner than refusal to deal with them and put Sisu on the spot regarding a new ground.

Yup, oppose?

Or play the game...

 

[Nick]

I agree completely. But neither you nor I know how true that was, or what efforts were made and no-one (other than PWKH) is willing to tell us. The counter argument (and just as flimsy) is why didn't the club accept the rumoured sliding scale? The thing is that both parties will make plans based on the deal that's agreed. That's why you sign a contract. The club can be blamed for poor judgement, but I'm not sure the council or ACL or Higgs can for accepting it. But again, we know so little about this period, it's all really speculation.

Of course, if I was renting a house worth £500 but I could get £5000 then of course I would as it is business. I then wouldn't claim to have only the tenants best interests at heart and claim my love for them etc though..

If CCFC had started building a new stadium, surely it become obvious that SISU would need to wriggle out of it somehow as things wouldn't add up.

 

[James Smith]

Surely if they really had the club's interest at heart they would have lowered the rent when the club was asking for help? (going back before SISU if it is true we asked then). Surely if they can now offer all of these amazing things like "free" rent, they could have helped the club out?

Surely the theory that for SISU to make any money, they need some sort of success / football ground.

How could they have done this new stadium in secret when they need CCC for planning? Would CCC have ever given any planning?

Could ACL afford to offer a lower rent at the beginning though as they were just starting out in the world of business? Now that they can and are offering much better deals our club doesn't want to know and tout the new stadium as our salvation.

Given we don't know what the sliding deal scale that (Sir Higgs?) proposed actually consisted of we don't know if rejecting it was a good idea or not.

 

[duffer]

Rational would be winding it all up...

The root of one of our oldest disagreements NW - I can't see any way in which it's more rational to wind a business up for nothing, than sell it for something.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

The root of one of our oldest disagreements NW - I can't see any way in which it's more rational to wind a business up for nothing, than sell it for something.

And that's because nobody wants to listen to the context.

Because it's not what they'd do.

So we sleepwalk to oblivion because nobody wants to listen and front up to the possibility.

 

[chiefdave]

Surely if they really had the club's interest at heart they would have lowered the rent when the club was asking for help? (going back before SISU if it is true we asked then). Surely if they can now offer all of these amazing things like "free" rent, they could have helped the club out?

I was under the impression the reason they could now offer these terms was due to the ACL restructuring and refinancing.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

Rational would be winding it all up...

Really can't see that.

You'll always find someone willing to a pay a few million.

 

[fernandopartridge]

So you're saying that CCFC did something illegal when breaking the lease?

(GTG, parents evening)

I'm sure your Mum and Dad will be very proud of how you've done so far this term

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Sorry, I think we're at crossed purposes. I mean announce the new stadium, get fans input, etc. But don't announce how you're getting out of the lease until you have to. Why would you?

Maybe so, I apologise if I have read your post incorrectly, you could do that but how would you get past planning permission and building the stadium without CCC noticing? On top of that the press jump on every single rumour nowadays do you think a new stadium could have stayed between the eyes and ears of the CCFC board room for 3-5 years?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RoboCCFC90]

I'm sure your Mum and Dad will be very proud of how you've done so far this term

I know I shouldn't but that was an epic if not obvious come back


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[oldskyblue58]

First of all - it's naïve to think sisu have any altruistic motive. They're doing what is best for them. In most cases that would also mean doing what is best for the club.
But your sentence in bold may hold the key to most confusion ... sisu have build that barrier on purpose, they are not inviting any potential takeover. We saw that clearly during the administration.

Oh I know they have no altruistic motive here, no naivete on my part just pointing out a contradiction in many fans thinking...... The club is a means to an end, a tool to be used in their scheme. Then we agree that the purpose of this is first and foremost their investors and that the club just happens to get a supposed benefit only if it coincides with their aim? Just saying no was possible if it was primarily about the club - it isn't. Just my opinion the owners might say otherwise

 

[Monners]

Oh I know they have no altruistic motive here, no naivete on my part just pointing out a contradiction in many fans thinking...... The club is a means to an end, a tool to be used in their scheme. Then we agree that the purpose of this is first and foremost their investors and that the club just happens to get a supposed benefit only if it coincides with their aim? Just saying no was possible if it was primarily about the club - it isn't.

This sums it up for me also. Not aout serving the best interests of the club, merely their investors. Nothing to stop Sisu/Otium offering a rental proposal to ACL based on ACL's frily sound financial footing i.e. this can be favourable perhaps compared to wha they pay NTFC now. They won't one suspects, because it doesn't benefit their investors (Sisu's customers).

 

[Godiva]

Oh I know they have no altruistic motive here, no naivete on my part just pointing out a contradiction in many fans thinking...... The club is a means to an end, a tool to be used in their scheme. Then we agree that the purpose of this is first and foremost their investors and that the club just happens to get a supposed benefit only if it coincides with their aim? Just saying no was possible if it was primarily about the club - it isn't.

I agree completely - and it really wasn't aimed at you, more aimed at the general public

But then let me also add that as long as the club is 'a professional football club' money will always be involved and any owner will either be a sugar daddy for the love of the club or someone who will try to run everything in a professional fashion to make a few bucks while here and sell on with a profit. Sisu are certainly not in the first category!

 

[duffer]

And that's because nobody wants to listen to the context.

Because it's not what they'd do.

So we sleepwalk to oblivion because nobody wants to listen and front up to the possibility.

I'm all ears (genuinely, they're the size of dinnerplates - still can't hear the missus when the football's on though).

Anyway, joking aside, what's the context where SISU wind us up instead of selling?

 

[DaleM]

I always preferred Stadium of Joy or the Fishbowl myself, but this seems to have stuck.

I really like Legoland (the actual one).

Yes Fishbowl. We could sit the away fans in the Bellend