Marilyn Knatchbull Hugessen answers questions (1 Viewer)

[Grendel]

The rumour has always been, and Robinson has always chosen not to comment on it, that Robinson made a significant amount more out of the club than he wrote off thanks to a combination of interest payments and his cut of profits on player sales. As with much from that era I don't think we'll ever know the full story.

He lost circa £20 million. There is a counter argument you could use but to suggest he made money is borderline libellous.

 

---

[Grendel]

You don't seem to have grasped the facts. sisu have no interest in Football or CCFC. They have made an almighty mess of the Football Club and seem
clueless on how to repair the self inflicted damage. Massive investment is needed and has not been forthcoming.

You certainly haven't grasped any facts. The council have no interest in the club a d they own the only stadium in town.

 

[bigfatronssba]

You certainly haven't grasped any facts. The council have no interest in the club a d they own the only stadium in town.

Not that I agree with that statement, but could you explain why the council should have an interest in the football club?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

He lost circa £20 million. There is a counter argument you could use but to suggest he made money is borderline libellous.

It is well known that the board of that time mostly had reputations that were unimpeachable.

 

[Grendel]

Not that I agree with that statement, but could you explain why the council should have an interest in the football club?

I suggest you plod along to Swansea and find the benefits it can bring. One things for sure a successful football team (which Swansea were far from when the council got behind them) is a lot more commercially beneficial than some sad bastards running on the pitch naked.

I was with someone recently who was heavily involved in the club and he said the council were only ever interested on making money from then in the short term and never saw long term potential.

The football club is far more a community asset than a building that attracts a couple if cheap tacky events every year.

 

[bigfatronssba]

I suggest you plod along to Swansea and find the benefits it can bring. One things for sure a successful football team (which Swansea were far from when the council got behind them) is a lot more commercially beneficial than some sad bastards running on the pitch naked.

I was with someone recently who was heavily involved in the club and he said the council were only ever interested on making money from then in the short term and never saw long term potential.

The football club is far more a community asset than a building that attracts a couple if cheap tacky events every year.

Ok, so as a community asset, doesn't that give the council (the community leaders) a moral right to have a say in its running?

Therefore, as we all agree sisu are unsuitable owners of ccfc, wasn't the council right to have allegedly try and force sisu out?

 

[Grendel]

Ok, so as a community asset, doesn't that give the council (the community leaders) a moral right to have a say in its running?

Therefore, as we all agree sisu are unsuitable owners of ccfc, wasn't the council right to have allegedly try and force sisu out?

No because the council wouldn't care if the owner was suitable or not you idiot.

It was only interested in someone who would build the biggest hotel on car park C.

Especially if it has a ski slope.

 

[chiefdave]

This has only happened since CCFC left.

There was definitely charity matches at the Ricoh before we left. And of course there's the Ricoh Arena Community Space project which has been there since the very early days of the stadium.

 

[chiefdave]

He lost circa £20 million. There is a counter argument you could use but to suggest he made money is borderline libellous.

Seeing as you're the only Coventry fan I've ever know who has access to all Robinsons accounts can you let us know the net figure from all his dealings with the club.

 

[martcov]

I suggest you plod along to Swansea and find the benefits it can bring. One things for sure a successful football team (which Swansea were far from when the council got behind them) is a lot more commercially beneficial than some sad bastards running on the pitch naked.

I was with someone recently who was heavily involved in the club and he said the council were only ever interested on making money from then in the short term and never saw long term potential.

The football club is far more a community asset than a building that attracts a couple if cheap tacky events every year.

Someone heavily involved in the club says that the council were only ever interested in making money..... Wow, that's it then...

Joy has said that her priorities are her family and her investors. Where is CCFC in that list? Or the community of Coventry?

The football club should indeed be liked to the community and playing at the Ricoh.

Being owned by Cayman Isles investors is exactly the opposite of what we need and probably one reason why CCC don't like SISU.

 

[bigfatronssba]

No because the council wouldn't care if the owner was suitable or not you idiot.

It was only interested in someone who would build the biggest hotel on car park C.

Especially if it has a ski slope.

Idiot? For asking a question?

So if the council was interested in the club does that morally give it a right to have a say in its running?

 

[skybluefred]

You certainly haven't grasped any facts. The council have no interest in the club a d they own the only stadium in town.

You still haven't learned to reply to questions relating to your dubious statements made on other threads. When you have done that you will have a right
to question my posts.

 

[Ian1779]

Ok, so as a community asset, doesn't that give the council (the community leaders) a moral right to have a say in its running?

Therefore, as we all agree sisu are unsuitable owners of ccfc, wasn't the council right to have allegedly try and force sisu out?

I don't really think the council are in any position to be the moral compass? They have plenty of their own issues that need to be addressed outside of this particular area

 

[bigfatronssba]

I don't really think the council are in any position to be the moral compass? They have plenty of their own issues that need to be addressed outside of this particular area

Not really answered my question has it?

Let me ask in a hypothetical way.

Have the leaders of a community a moral right to have a say in how a community asset is run?

 

[Ian1779]

Not really answered my question has it?

Let me ask in a hypothetical way.

Have the leaders of a community a moral right to have a say in how a community asset is run?

Hypothetically - Yes.

Do the council have the right to try and force out someone because they don't like them? No

 

[bigfatronssba]

Hypothetically - Yes.

Do the council have the right to try and force out someone because they don't like them? No

Do the council have a moral right to try and force someone out because they are unfit owners?

 

[Ian1779]

Do the council have a moral right to try and force someone out because they are unfit owners?

How do you define unfit?

If you use the measure of the law then it would suggest they are acting illegally? Just look at Leeds to see how difficult that could be, and i'm sure if they had acted illegally by now it would have been reported and they would be charged accordingly.

Deplorable, unprofessional, alienating its fanbase - yes. Breaking the law - no.

 

[stupot07]

Do the council have a moral right to try and force someone out because they are unfit owners?

No. .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[cloughie]

Ultimately then its a couple of loans which pale into insignificance compared to that lent by Robinson? So accordingly Robinson has done far more for the club as his writing off of loans was far greater? Yes?

here we go again Now you champion Robinson yet previously have called him a culprit in our demise and a demon.

Interesting to see the consistency of False statements and at times blatant lies still continue

 

[Grendel]

here we go again Now you champion Robinson yet previously have called him a culprit in our demise and a demon.

Interesting to see the consistency of False statements and at times blatant lies still continue

I haven't defended anyone. I've merely pointed out if someone holds someone on some moral high ground as they've lent money then apply it consistently.

I only deal in the truth - its just the truth hurts doesn't it cloughie?

 

[Grendel]

Do the council have a moral right to try and force someone out because they are unfit owners?

Most definately no

 

[cloughie]

I haven't defended anyone. I've merely pointed out if someone holds someone on some moral high ground as they've lent money then apply it consistently.

I only deal in the truth - its just the truth hurts doesn't it cloughie?

Originally Posted by cloughie
That's it resort to abusive comments when you are found out telling lies.

Originally Posted by cloughie
That's it resort to abusive comments when you are found out telling lies.
No doubt you will be high and mighty berating someone for being abusive again in the future, as in the past

HYPOCRITE


This is Copied from another thread that you are a proven liar, yet people will have to check back for themselves.


You have been found out out to be untruthful previously

So facts may hurt you , not me

 

[Grendel]

Originally Posted by cloughie
That's it resort to abusive comments when you are found out telling lies.

Originally Posted by cloughie
That's it resort to abusive comments when you are found out telling lies.
No doubt you will be high and mighty berating someone for being abusive again in the future, as in the past

HYPOCRITE


This is Copied from another thread that you are a proven liar, yet people will have to check back for themselves.


You have been found out out to be untruthful previously

So facts may hurt you , not me

You sound deranged.

 

[Astute]

Deplorable, unprofessional, alienating its fanbase - yes. Breaking the law - no.

So you agree with just about all of us about SISU. Yet you continue to attack Higgs. All they have done is try to help our club. They can only do it within charity laws. And as you can see they were willing to lose another 1m to our club. But SISU, the ones you constantly try to defend, didn't want to pay even that much. It looks like their so called road map failed because of that. It would have given them a half share in ACL for less than they lost last season.

SISU has threatened litigation in the past against Higgs. But they didn't go through with it as they knew Higgs were right. They tried to lie to the judge in the recent case but the judge saw straight through it. Nothing has ever been proved against them. Nothing has even looked credible against them. Take your SISU glasses off and look again on what has been going on.

Our club could easily be made homeless. ATM we could go back to the Ricoh. But it seems unlikely as ACL/CCC can't give everything over for a pittance after paying everything off for them. That is what Joy says she would accept. What a fucking disgrace. She holds our club to ransom asking for what she can't have by law. Yet we have a few.......is idiots too much of a strong word............saying it should happen. It would need lots of what SISU are accusing of illegal lending with no chance of getting it back for it to happen. The Ricoh has moved on. How long should they leave things open for our club whilst Joy and her nodding dogs carry on doing what they are whilst saying it is the unencumbered freehold or they will build a new stadium?

I have about reached the stage where I would be happy for ACL to fully book the arena and force SISU to build a proper white elephant. At least we have a couple of pictures of what it will look like. I can't see them doing anything until their hand is forced. It might leave us somewhere like Northampton for an extra year playing games whilst the bookings are in place, but at least we would be home once Joy sacked her nodding dogs and blamed everything on them so she could save face.

 

[Astute]

You sound deranged.

Talking to yourself again Grendel?

 

[bigfatronssba]

No. .

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Most definately no

But they have a moral right to help?

Heres my point. You cant have it both ways.

If the council has a moral obligation to do what it believes is right for the football club, then you cant complain when it does something you don't like.

Or, like me you can believe that the football club has nothing to do with the local authority and the council shouldn't intervene with anything at the football club.

However this means that the council should be treating the football club like any other business in the city.

What you pair seem to want is a council that helps the football club but only on certain terms. Well I'm afraid that is not acceptable.

 

[Ian1779]

So you agree with just about all of us about SISU. Yet you continue to attack Higgs. All they have done is try to help our club. They can only do it within charity laws. And as you can see they were willing to lose another 1m to our club. But SISU, the ones you constantly try to defend, didn't want to pay even that much. It looks like their so called road map failed because of that. It would have given them a half share in ACL for less than they lost last season.

SISU has threatened litigation in the past against Higgs. But they didn't go through with it as they knew Higgs were right. They tried to lie to the judge in the recent case but the judge saw straight through it. Nothing has ever been proved against them. Nothing has even looked credible against them. Take your SISU glasses off and look again on what has been going on.

Our club could easily be made homeless. ATM we could go back to the Ricoh. But it seems unlikely as ACL/CCC can't give everything over for a pittance after paying everything off for them. That is what Joy says she would accept. What a fucking disgrace. She holds our club to ransom asking for what she can't have by law. Yet we have a few.......is idiots too much of a strong word............saying it should happen. It would need lots of what SISU are accusing of illegal lending with no chance of getting it back for it to happen. The Ricoh has moved on. How long should they leave things open for our club whilst Joy and her nodding dogs carry on doing what they are whilst saying it is the unencumbered freehold or they will build a new stadium?

I have about reached the stage where I would be happy for ACL to fully book the arena and force SISU to build a proper white elephant. At least we have a couple of pictures of what it will look like. I can't see them doing anything until their hand is forced. It might leave us somewhere like Northampton for an extra year playing games whilst the bookings are in place, but at least we would be home once Joy sacked her nodding dogs and blamed everything on them so she could save face.

Yes I do agree that the actions of SISU are ridiculous, at no point have I ever defended their decision to move the club. But I'm sorry I don't subscribe to the anti-SISU love in on here. There are thousands of comments and threads about what SISU have fucked up. However in this whole debacle there are other parties, namely CCC, ACL and Higgs.

These parties are held up as heroes and victims in some quarters, and I take real issue with this. They were on the scene long before SISU, and as such have contributed to our predicament, in conjunction with the current and previous owners of our club. Why should their actions be unquestioned? I am merely trying to offer a different point of view. It does not mean I am defending or absolving SISU of responsibility, far from it.

My original point about Higgs was that I was criticising the 'emotive aspect' of the article. The article had just as much spin as a SISU press release, yet people take it as absolute gospel.

There seems to be a simple formula in place - everything said by SISU is complete bollocks and deceitful lies, everything said by CCC or ACL is infallible. Am I so wrong because I have dared to criticise this notion?

One things that grates me more than anything is when you think about the original lease deal that the club had. It was for 50yrs at £1.3m pa. So if the club were to go the full length of the lease - they would have paid £65 million. And what would they have got for that? No revenue other than match day tickets for 50 seasons, and 0% ownership the stadium. How was that a fair deal for CCFC? Even if they hadn't sold their share in ACL, they would have had access to additional revenue, but still would be no closer to owning their own stadium. Meanwhile the council paid off their mortgage and made plenty of income aswell.

So that's why I seem critical of the council and their partners. The problems were there long before SISU. Yes SISU have made them much worse, and their original strategy for the club was poor.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Yes I do agree that the actions of SISU are ridiculous, at no point have I ever defended their decision to move the club. But I'm sorry I don't subscribe to the anti-SISU love in on here. There are thousands of comments and threads about what SISU have fucked up. However in this whole debacle there are other parties, namely CCC, ACL and Higgs.

These parties are held up as heroes and victims in some quarters, and I take real issue with this. They were on the scene long before SISU, and as such have contributed to our predicament, in conjunction with the current and previous owners of our club. Why should their actions be unquestioned? I am merely trying to offer a different point of view. It does not mean I am defending or absolving SISU of responsibility, far from it.

My original point about Higgs was that I was criticising the 'emotive aspect' of the article. The article had just as much spin as a SISU press release, yet people take it as absolute gospel.

There seems to be a simple formula in place - everything said by SISU is complete bollocks and deceitful lies, everything said by CCC or ACL is infallible. Am I so wrong because I have dared to criticise this notion?

One things that grates me more than anything is when you think about the original lease deal that the club had. It was for 50yrs at £1.3m pa. So if the club were to go the full length of the lease - they would have paid £65 million. And what would they have got for that? No revenue other than match day tickets for 50 seasons, and 0% ownership the stadium. How was that a fair deal for CCFC? Even if they hadn't sold their share in ACL, they would have had access to additional revenue, but still would be no closer to owning their own stadium. Meanwhile the council paid off their mortgage and made plenty of income aswell.

So that's why I seem critical of the council and their partners. The problems were there long before SISU. Yes SISU have made them much worse, and their original strategy for the club was poor.

Do you not agree that much of what the sisu side have said over the last few years has been proven to be untrue, whilst very little of what the council/higgs/acl have said has been proven to be untrue?

I suggest you read the boy who cried wolf.

 

[Ian1779]

Do you not agree that much of what the sisu side have said over the last few years has been proven to be untrue, whilst very little of what the council/higgs/acl have said has been proven to be untrue?

I suggest you read the boy who cried wolf.

There are more than sufficient 'mistruths' from both sides to suggest that all comments are to be read with a certain amount of cynicism.

 

[bigfatronssba]

There are more than sufficient 'mistruths' from both sides to suggest that all comments are to be read with a certain amount of cynicism.

I cannot think of many from the council/acl side. And by proven I don't mean where Fisher has contradicted them.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

One things that grates me more than anything is when you think about the original lease deal that the club had. It was for 50yrs at £1.3m pa. So if the club were to go the full length of the lease - they would have paid £65 million. And what would they have got for that? No revenue other than match day tickets for 50 seasons, and 0% ownership the stadium. How was that a fair deal for CCFC? Even if they hadn't sold their share in ACL, they would have had access to additional revenue, but still would be no closer to owning their own stadium. Meanwhile the council paid off their mortgage and made plenty of income aswell.

Why is it still grating you more than anything else? That deal no longer exists, actually well done to SISU for that. The deals that were offered most recently seem very fair to me.

I'm yet to hear a convincing argument for stadium ownership, especially as the club has no money to buy it.

I wasn't aware the Council had made plenty of money, and I didn't know ACL was now mortgage free, please explain.

 

[CCFCSteve]

Ian you're correct to question both sides, however, the lease argument is a poor one. People and companies sign leases all the time and not get any ownership of the premises or any additional benefits other than those stipulated in the lease they signed.

The club signed the lease, they should have owned the stadium but fucked up royally and/or could have negotiated or attempted to renegotiate the terms of it better than they did. They also had the opportunity to acquire higgs half share in acl, again they messed up.

There might be a small proportion of blame to be laid at acl/ccc's door, however, this is small in comparison with current and previous owners of the club. Whatever people think of acl/higgs/CCC (and yes the original lease terms were punitive following the clubs relgation(s)) they have bailed or attempted to bail the club out on several occasions and look what they have got in return. It's nothing short of disgraceful !

 

[Ian1779]

Why is it still grating you more than anything else? That deal no longer exists, actually well done to SISU for that. The deals that were offered most recently seem very fair to me.

I'm yet to hear a convincing argument for stadium ownership, especially as the club has no money to buy it.

I wasn't aware the Council had made plenty of money, and I didn't know ACL was now mortgage free, please explain.

I was saying that's what would occur had the lease arrangement gone full term. Obviously that is not the case now.

I can see the rationale for stadium ownership, but seeing as the Ricoh is there then a long term lease with all revenue streams is a far better scenario right now.

 

[Ian1779]

Ian you're correct to question both sides, however, the lease argument is a poor one. People and companies sign leases all the time and not get any ownership of the premises or any additional benefits other than those stipulated in the lease they signed.

The club signed the lease, they should have owned the stadium but fucked up royally and/or could have negotiated or attempted to renegotiate the terms of it better than they did. They also had the opportunity to acquire higgs half share in acl, again they messed up.

There might be a small proportion of blame to be laid at acl/ccc's door, however, this is small in comparison with current and previous owners of the club. Whatever people think of acl/higgs/CCC (and yes the original lease terms were punitive following the clubs relgation(s)) they have bailed or attempted to bail the club out on several occasions and look what they have got in return. It's nothing short of disgraceful !

Of course they messed up - I am in total agreement. To not deal with that at the time of purchase was absurd. But at some point in the future the club and it's long term future had to be addressed. But the club can't suffer forever because of that mistake.

I wouldn't say the lease argument is poor. We are not talking about a site on a retail park - this was a purpose built venue for the football club. Do you not think that the club at some point has to be in control of that site if it has any chance of a successful future. This problem would have existed irrespective of who the owners are.

We were let down by the previous owners as well, who basically gave whoever had the club in the future little chance of finding a way out of it's financial dependency.

 

[Astute]

Yes a purpose built stadium built for our football club and not by our football club. You keep having a go at Higgs. So what have they done wrong other than to help our club? SISU have made many allegations against them and not had a shread of evidence once. Higgs have tried to deal with them a few times. They even offered their share for 1m less than they paid for it. You admitted that SISU have been a disaster for our club but expect everyone to treat all sides the same.