sisu are not good for our club - well someone's got to say it! (4 Viewers)

[Deleted member 5849]

where have I been angry? see quote #82 and #85

You as in the generalised you

I could have used one, but then we start risking taking part in a Freddie Starr sketch.

 

---

[ccfc92]

They're part of the machine itself so I wouldn't really count them as you can basically just fob off anything they say right off the bat. Segregating people into little groups is what cements divides, and it happens far too frequently here.

completely agree, but surely I can give my own opinion on why we should not be where we are? which is what I've done on this thread have I not?

 

[ccfc92]

You've omitted some slight issues here -

The club has never managed to charge more than £10 per ticket at the Ricoh
Vat national insurance and income tax
Loan interest
Rent at £400,000 including match day costs
Payments to police, stewards, St. John's etc
Payments to agents
One Player will be receiving £400,000 next season alone
The small fact the club made a collosal loss in its first season at the Ricoh despite averaging 20,000

Back to school I'm afraid

ah, he's finally arrived to nit pick as I said, loose figures. if only we could have some real figures to look at?

 

[Ian1779]

This thread probably got the response that Michael wanted to be honest.

I think people need to read the mailout again. Forget your agenda, forget your views of KCIC, Michael, sisu and Acl. Read it as a neutral.......

It may be more "anti-sisu" (people are so fucking obsessed with that) than other mailouts but ultimately sisu haven't been good owners.

You are right - but have any of our owners since early 90's been any good? Their actions have exacerbated the shite that went before.

And given the fact as fans we can't agree on anything - I don't think we would actually do a very good job running a football club.

 

[Grendel]

ah, he's finally arrived to nit pick as I said, loose figures. if only we could have some real figures to look at?

The figures are just wrong. You assumed 50% more match day revenue then we've ever generated at the Ricoh.

If you present a scenario at least make an effort with research rather than a lazy stab where the main figure is hopelessly out.

 

[lewys33]

You are right - but have any of our owners since early 90's been any good?

And given the fact as fans we can't agree on anything - I don't think we would actually do a very good job running a football club.

No they haven't been. Let's not forget these problems stem from the cretins running us before SISU! But they were not mentioned in the mailout hence why I didn't mention them.

Fans running the club probably would bicker, but lets hope it would be about footballing matters rather than other things!

 

[ajsccfc]

completely agree, but surely I can give my own opinion on why we should not be where we are? which is what I've done on this thread have I not?

Well yeah, I'm not stopping you or even trying to.

 

[ccfc92]

You've omitted some slight issues here -

The club has never managed to charge more than £10 per ticket at the Ricoh
Vat national insurance and income tax
Loan interest
Rent at £400,000 including match day costs
Payments to police, stewards, St. John's etc
Payments to agents
One Player will be receiving £400,000 next season alone
The small fact the club made a collosal loss in its first season at the Ricoh despite averaging 20,000

Back to school I'm afraid

also, maybe reading wasn't your strong point? I suggest you read my post again

I've highlighted your points I think you need to compare to my post for you

all the points you made that I haven't highlighted are still covered by my "simple calculation" as I knew you'd be along soon

 

[Grendel]

The amusing thing is that Michael uses jimmy hill on the front.

Hill in his capacity as chairman would have got on very well with sisu and they would have indulged each other with their madcap and ultimately failed ventures.

 

[ccfc92]

The figures are just wrong. You assumed 50% more match day revenue then we've ever generated at the Ricoh.

If you present a scenario at least make an effort with research rather than a lazy stab where the main figure is hopelessly out.

so change the £15 per ticket to £10 then

 

[ccfc92]

Well yeah, I'm not stopping you or even trying to.

okay

 

[letsallsingtogether]

So change that for Northampton and what do we get then?
less then £5.00 / person/game x average 2000 supporters :thinking about:Arrr much better I take it and as for next season well who knows....

You've omitted some slight issues here -

The club has never managed to charge more than £10 per ticket at the Ricoh
Vat national insurance and income tax
Loan interest
Rent at £400,000 including match day costs
Payments to police, stewards, St. John's etc
Payments to agents
One Player will be receiving £400,000 next season alone
The small fact the club made a collosal loss in its first season at the Ricoh despite averaging 20,000

Back to school I'm afraid

 

[Sba180]

Grass is green and jose perdomo once played away at villa.

Jeez OP hows about starting a thread where you STATE THE BLOODY OBVIOUS!!





Clown

 

[Grendel]

also, maybe reading wasn't your strong point? I suggest you read my post again

I've highlighted your points I think you need to compare to my post for you

all the points you made that I haven't highlighted are still covered by my "simple calculation" as I knew you'd be along soon

I have read it - it was lazy and wrong. To blithely claim "other" costs and revenues will balance is embarrasing. Go and study the accounts and work the revenues and costs rather than make absurd and lazy assumptions. It does you no credit.

 

[Grendel]

So change that for Northampton and what do we get then?
less then £5.00 / person/game x average 2000 supporters :thinking about:Arrr much better I take it and as for next season well who knows....

Excuse me? Where have I said the move makes financial sense. Please provide evidence to support the assertion.

 

[lewys33]

You've omitted some slight issues here -

The club has never managed to charge more than £10 per ticket at the Ricoh
Vat national insurance and income tax
Loan interest
Rent at £400,000 including match day costs
Payments to police, stewards, St. John's etc
Payments to agents
One Player will be receiving £400,000 next season alone
The small fact the club made a collosal loss in its first season at the Ricoh despite averaging 20,000

Back to school I'm afraid

Yes we should consider the fact we pay less for policing and facilities at Sixfields. In fact we should move there permanently.

EDIT: I know you didn't say the above, I am just performing a Grendel troll

 

[ccfc92]

I have read it - it was lazy and wrong. To blithely claim "other" costs and revenues will balance is embarrasing. Go and study the accounts and work the revenues and costs rather than make absurd and lazy assumptions. It does you no credit.

come on then almighty G, let's see you accurate calculations

my original point with those figures was we were earning more revenue at the Ricoh than Sixfields, but hey, you take that comment out of context for your own satisfaction and your click

 

[Ian1779]

If this is the stance from KCIC then I'm afraid they have lost all credibility as a supporters group aiming to find a solution to all this.

 

[lewys33]

If this is the stance from KCIC then I'm afraid they have lost all credibility as a supporters group aiming to find a solution to all this.

Do you ever consider your own agenda? You have just basically agreed that our current owners are not very good. Now KCIC has lost all credibility because they have said the owners are not very good??

 

[Grendel]

If this is the stance from KCIC then I'm afraid they have lost all credibility as a supporters group aiming to find a solution to all this.

I don't really think they had credibility anyway.

 

[Ian1779]

Do you ever consider your own agenda? You have just basically agreed that our current owners are not very good. Now KCIC has lost all credibility because they have said the owners are not very good??

KCIC's agenda is a little something like this:

People that are entitled to a return on their investment: Higgs, ACL, CCC

People that are NOT entitled to a return on their investment: SISU

People that must give away their interest in CCFC/Ricoh for free: SISU

People who must NOT give away their interest in CCFC/Ricoh for free: Higgs, ACL, CCC

Their approach is inconsistent. Hence my comment.

 

[martcov]

KCIC's agenda is a little something like this:

People that are entitled to a return on their investment: Higgs, ACL, CCC

People that are NOT entitled to a return on their investment: SISU

People that must give away their interest in CCFC/Ricoh for free: SISU

People who must NOT give away their interest in CCFC/Ricoh for free: Higgs, ACL, CCC

Their approach is inconsistent. Hence my comment.

In fairness, CCC and Higgs did not buy into a stadium in order to make money for their investors. So they would accept ( according to Higgs ) some loss so long the aims of the charity were fulfilled. They were prepared to sell at 1 million less than they paid.

Hedge funds have no legal entitlement to their money back when they screw up.

CCFC Otium SISU may have to take a loss if this goes on much longer. It may mean letting the club go for very little to stop the losses.

 

[lewys33]

KCIC's agenda is a little something like this:

People that are entitled to a return on their investment: Higgs, ACL, CCC

People that are NOT entitled to a return on their investment: SISU

People that must give away their interest in CCFC/Ricoh for free: SISU

People who must NOT give away their interest in CCFC/Ricoh for free: Higgs, ACL, CCC

Their approach is inconsistent. Hence my comment.

Wow - You must have found hidden lines in the statement that I am yet to read then. I don't see anywhere where it says the above things.

 

[edgy]

Shambles. How do I unsubscribe to this topsy turvy nonsense?

 

[Kingokings204]

I don't understand the confusion. The statement simply says

Sisu are not good owners, well someone has to say it.

It's 100% true and factual for that matter. It isn't opinion. I don't think relegation, numerous managers, resorting to academy 16 year olds, huge debts, 35 miles away in Northampton and many other facts.

My only issue is it's so obvious to state that I may start a thread titled I would like a million pounds.

Obvious but keep it up as I for one appreciate the hard work.

 

[lewys33]

I don't understand the confusion. The statement simply says

Sisu are not good owners, well someone has to say it.

It's 100% true and factual for that matter. It isn't opinion. I don't think relegation, numerous managers, resorting to academy 16 year olds, huge debts, 35 miles away in Northampton and many other facts.

My only issue is it's so obvious to state that I may start a thread titled I would like a million pounds.

Obvious but keep it up as I for one appreciate the hard work.

I think the issue people have is that it says "SISU are bad owners, and that is bad" but it doesn't follow that with "and don't get me started about the damned council!" people just assume that because it doesn't say the later it means you are some pro council anti-christ! Some people can't see the wood for the trees.

 

[Kingokings204]

I think the issue people have is that it says "SISU are bad owners, and that is bad" but it doesn't follow that with "and don't get me started about the damned council!" people just assume that because it doesn't say the later it means you are some pro council anti-christ! Some people can't see the wood for the trees.

Yes I see what you're saying and agree. I for one am a massive sisu hater and I blame them in the majority for what has happened to our football club. They are the owners and they take full responsibility as they should.

P.S I do think the council have a part to blame and they have not been helpful but I think most people who "hate" sisu like me would admit. It's just the right thing to say the clubs owners are responsible for the clubs actions and movements.

 

[edgy]

Never a truer word....

 

[MichaelCCFC]

To be fair, the views of many posters on here (including me!) have been stated many times - the point I was interested on seeing responses to on here was 'suggestions for a better, realistic, feasible way of building a positive future that puts the team and fans first'. thx

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Under our current ownership it is going to be very hard.

They need to first listen to the fans and return home, then they can maybe start to rebuild burnt bridges. But to be honest it is not there style they just want to blame everyone for all of there mistakes.
They need to admit the parts they got wrong instead of blaming ex directors, owner landlords and even the fans for all there misgivings.

Well we live in hope, something All City fans are used to.

To be fair, the views of many posters on here (including me!) have been stated many times - the point I was interested on seeing responses to on here was 'suggestions for a better, realistic, feasible way of building a positive future that puts the team and fans first'. thx

 

[dongonzalos]

To be fair, the views of many posters on here (including me!) have been stated many times - the point I was interested on seeing responses to on here was 'suggestions for a better, realistic, feasible way of building a positive future that puts the team and fans first'. thx

Unfortunately Michael you are correct during their tenure at Coventry everyone has been sacked, retired, moved on, or they have moved on to better things, this is because of failure. Be it from board members down to academy players.
Apart from (I think) two consistent people who have stayed for the entire period of failure. However I am not sure if any fan not employed by the club has met either of them.
Anyway that shows that the stewardship has been and continues to be poor.

The problem Michael is your solution is I believe at this stage is unobtainable. You are better staying focused on the MP's and the FL. They are the only ones who can exert indirect pressure that will eventually lead to a return.

 

[Chez78]

Lost me on point one...

"priority is its own profits, not the team and fans"

Tell me ONE owner that is in it for the team or fans??? They are only in it for themselves! Human nature. We only support the club for the success factor...err or the vain hope of success...or the love of moaning about our lot...or self loathing


PUSB

Steve Gibson chairman of Middlesbrough is one Chairman I can think of, the chap at forest who died, Dave Whelan, there are plenty of great chairmen out there who put there love of the club and fans first and have sunk millions of their own money into their respective clubs.

That being said I agree the club needs to be run as a sound business and anyone who doesn't think that isn't in the real world.

 

[georgehudson]

with due regard, you only have to look at the list of CEO's or persons who have been running the ship,
& therefore to draw a reasoned conclusion,
Clouting, Brody, Clarke, Dulieu, Igwe, & Fisher etc.,
there are probably a few more,.............................
if you employ people not fit for the job then what will happen ?
any business that ignores & abuses it's customers is not going to be viable,
imho, of course,
i'm amazed that a supposed astute business person in JS,
has placed faith in such a bunch of persons NOT suited to football

 

[Grendel]

with due regard, you only have to look at the list of CEO's or persons who have been running the ship,
& therefore to draw a reasoned conclusion,
Clouting, Brody, Clarke, Dulieu, Igwe, & Fisher etc.,
there are probably a few more,.............................
if you employ people not fit for the job then what will happen ?
any business that ignores & abuses it's customers is not going to be viable,
imho, of course,
i'm amazed that a supposed astute business person in JS,
has placed faith in such a bunch of persons NOT suited to football

You missed Joe Elliot of your list.

 

[skybluesam66]

Except Higgs and CCC - they have a divine right to get a return on their investment.

not 100% in agreement . CCC return will be on future benefit to the city if ccfc play at the ricoh. they are currently damaging 100s of businesses with their actuins