Kcic front bid to buy club (21 Viewers)

[skybluetony176]

Before completely writing off the offer from Michael to Sisu I would wait until Sisu respond to it.

I am not sure what Sisu will see in this offer personally.

But lets hope that for whatever reason they accept the deal and go back to the Ricoh, I think it might be in their minds as we have had many inconsistent statements from personel at the Club abnd also considering the JR.

That sounds like a sensible idea Rob.

(Edit) if they do turn it down and if (if) they then go on to explain why they turned it down we will have something to aim for in making a return to the clubs rightful place happen.

This is why the details aren't important at this stage. It's sisu's reaction that's important, as Micheal has been saying. Only from sisu's reaction will we know what's needed and only from sisu's reaction can we look at adding value to the ball Micheal has started rolling to make this happen.

Something missed completely by so many.

 

---

[Lorksalordy]

That sounds like a sensible idea Rob.

(Edit) if they do turn it down and if (if) they then go on to explain why they turned it down we will have something to aim for in making a return to the clubs rightful place happen.

This is why the details aren't important at this stage. It's sisu's reaction that's important, as Micheal has been saying. Only from sisu's reaction will we know what's needed and only from sisu's reaction can we look at adding value to the ball Micheal has started rolling to make this happen.

Something missed completely by so many.

And when SISU respond with...

"We confirm we received a letter which provided no information on which to evaluate the proposal around rental cost sharing. The situation remains unchanged. #WeAreCoventry"

Everyone will go apeshit....




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[terryhallsboots]

I rarely post on here, but how the hell does anyone think this is a serious offer. Its just more Weber Shandwick/Mr Coventry spin to keep council cock suckers frothing at the mouth and baying for sisu's blood. See you again in six months.

 

[Jack Griffin]

The troll can't even dispute that the council don't take profit from the ricoh so the troll resorts to more trolling.

Prove me wrong. Back up your claim that it will mean that the council will fill their greedy belly and then explain why the club shouldn't return while the council are involved in the Ricoh.

How can the council on the one hand be filling their belly and on the other be giving illegal state aid .. I love it when a debater (can I call Grendel that) postulates a position of inconsistency.. what is the Arena a cash cow or a financial black hole, nobody knows!

 

[Jack Griffin]

And when SISU respond with...

"We confirm we received a letter which provided no information on which to evaluate the proposal around rental cost sharing. The situation remains unchanged. #WeAreCoventry"

Everyone will go apeshit....




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sure they will give their detailed reasoning. Ermmmmm.. hold on a minute, they've never given any yet have they?

 

[Grendel]

How can the council on the one hand be filling their belly and on the other be giving illegal state aid .. I love it when a debater (can I call Grendel that) postulates a position of inconsistency.. what is the Arena a cash cow or a financial black hole, nobody knows!

The councils treatment of the club has purely been as an income generator for its management company as opposed to seeing the benefits a succesful club can bring. The state aid has nothing to do with the club does it?

There are 7 or 8 other clubs with council owned grounds who have been treated far better and not by coincidence have fared better. The council have never supported the club they have seen them as "owing" them.

You and your type have frequently shown that you care far more for the council. the club has been bankrupted twice since they became landlords and mortgage brokers under entirely separate owners. Only a fool would want them to do it a third time.

 

[RPHunt]

People here are demanding answers to their questions when there should be only one party asking questions - SISU.

Why haven't SISU asked these questions and why aren't you demanding that they do?

 

[Lorksalordy]

I'm sure they will give their detailed reasoning. Ermmmmm.. hold on a minute, they've never given any yet have they?

Totally agree but this latest one gives a very easy out. It is likely to be an opportunity missed

 

[RoboCCFC90]

That sounds like a sensible idea Rob.

(Edit) if they do turn it down and if (if) they then go on to explain why they turned it down we will have something to aim for in making a return to the clubs rightful place happen.

This is why the details aren't important at this stage. It's sisu's reaction that's important, as Micheal has been saying. Only from sisu's reaction will we know what's needed and only from sisu's reaction can we look at adding value to the ball Micheal has started rolling to make this happen.

Something missed completely by so many.

If they turn it down, I hope there is a good justification for it and that there is not a short statement that doesn't explain anything.

It wouldn't make it any better that Sisu turned down a chance to move back to the Ricoh where the finances may be better off, but at least there may be a justifiable reason and might allow people to understand the situation better.

 

[shmmeee]

Case in point.

Why are you so scared of giving your opinion? Are you that scared that you might have to defend it?

Come on, there's a list of questions a mile long for you to answer. Put the bile down and start with: why would and CCFC FAN not want this offer. Then move to When have the council ever taken money out of the Ricoh and Why do you think the rent would have gone up from the previously negotiated deals. Finishing on, exactly how high do you think the rent has to be before this is a bad deal for the club.

It's OK, we'll wait.

 

[Nick]

People here are demanding answers to their questions when there should be only one party asking questions - SISU.

Why haven't SISU asked these questions and why aren't you demanding that they do?

Ok well next time the fans ask questions about sisu or acl the fans should keep their noses out. Michael should stop demanding answers to random questions as it is nothing to do with him is it?

 

[shmmeee]

If they turn it down, I hope there is a good justification for it and that there is not a short statement that doesn't explain anything.

It wouldn't make it any better that Sisu turned down a chance to move back to the Ricoh where the finances may be better off, but at least there may be a justifiable reason and might allow people to understand the situation better.

I think this goes to the heart of all this you know.

Some fans (me included) feel that moving the club out of the City was never and will never be justifiable. Regardless of what anyone else did, depriving the fans of the club should be off the table as a negotiating tactic.

There will simply not be an acceptable answer for those fans. I'm not sure Sisu realise/care about this.

 

[shmmeee]

Ok well next time the fans ask questions about sisu or acl the fans should keep their noses out. Michael should stop demanding answers to random questions as it is nothing to do with him is it?

If we thought you were serious Nick, but it's the usual suspects doing their usual thing, not sure why you should be taken seriously TBH.

 

[skybluetony176]

The councils treatment of the club has purely been as an income generator for its management company as opposed to seeing the benefits a succesful club can bring. The state aid has nothing to do with the club does it?

There are 7 or 8 other clubs with council owned grounds who have been treated far better and not by coincidence have fared better. The council have never supported the club they have seen them as "owing" them.

You and your type have frequently shown that you care far more for the council. the club has been bankrupted twice since they became landlords and mortgage brokers under entirely separate owners. Only a fool would want them to do it a third time.

So your now saying that the council won't fill their greedy belly.

There are just as many clubs (if not more) who own their grounds who are or have been in financial ruin. How do you explain that? If the club owned it's own ground again (which it is yet to be confirmed by sisu that the club or any holding company owned by the club would) how will that offer any financial gain over the right rental deal?

You constantly show that you would rather see the council fail than ccfc succeed. Hence you're a troll.

 

[Nick]

If we thought you were serious Nick, but it's the usual suspects doing their usual thing, not sure why you should be taken seriously TBH.

Read the thread, lots of constructive questions being asked but it seems a crime to question Michael.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

I think this goes to the heart of all this you know.

Some fans (me included) feel that moving the club out of the City was never and will never be justifiable. Regardless of what anyone else did, depriving the fans of the club should be off the table as a negotiating tactic.

There will simply not be an acceptable answer for those fans. I'm not sure Sisu realise/care about this.

That situation will never be justifiable.

However it would be better knowing the reasons for applying for a Judicial Review or sellling young talented players other than trying to appease the fans as it doesn't help. However I for one doubt we will get with Sisu..

 

[Astute]

The councils treatment of the club has purely been as an income generator for its management company as opposed to seeing the benefits a succesful club can bring. The state aid has nothing to do with the club does it?

There are 7 or 8 other clubs with council owned grounds who have been treated far better and not by coincidence have fared better. The council have never supported the club they have seen them as "owing" them.

You and your type have frequently shown that you care far more for the council. the club has been bankrupted twice since they became landlords and mortgage brokers under entirely separate owners. Only a fool would want them to do it a third time.

A good basic post.

That is the problem though. Basic. Making points that sound good without the truth behind it.

Income generator for its management company? So how much cash has been generated for CCC and how much have they taken out? All money generated so far was used to pay the debt off. And the money raised from the rent was to cover the mortgage repayments. CCC put 10m into the build from reserves. They have not taken a penny of this out.

So how many of these council owned grounds are new builds from the local council that need paying for? Never supported our club? Who got the Ricoh built and gave CCFC a 50% share of ACL?

So you say that our clubs finances are all to blame on CCC? We all know this isn't true. When SISU took over our average attendances were about 22,000. Times this by 23. It works out as about £2.50 per ticket to pay the rent. This left plenty of money for our club. Our club that was left without a ground to play in. We are now playing in Northampton. Our average payment per ticket to pay the rent is now about £3. Average ticket price about £9? Average gate a little over 2,000? Bloody councils fault. They have been at our club for long enough to not be able to say that contracts given out were not by them. Yet you want to blame others as usual. Or you can be realistic and admit that the trouble our club is in was started by previous chairmen and completed by SISU. They have seen our average gate reduce by about 20,000 to the lowest in our history. The money they have lost trying to get the freehold on the cheap would have paid for a ground by now. Would most probably have negotiated a good deal by now if they hadn't taken the piss out of everyone to do with our club, and this includes ourselves.

 

[Astute]

Ok well next time the fans ask questions about sisu or acl the fans should keep their noses out. Michael should stop demanding answers to random questions as it is nothing to do with him is it?

I agree.

We should all do what a dog does. Roll over and get our bellies rubbed and enjoy it no matter how much our owners are bastards to us.

 

[Paxman II]

Uncle Tom Cobley and his dog could make a silly offer knowing it was a joke or for that matter I could make an offer and we would still all get hung up about it because we believe any offer must be a good one? It's pie in the sky. Does not solve anything but creates more aggression towards SISU and paints others in glory hunting nonsense.

Those who want to believe will accept anything as doable without considering the true implications.

When a serious offer comes in for the club we can start drooling and shouting at SISU to accept. Problem is there are no serious offers just empty rhetoric designed it seems to serve ego and stir the pot some more.

 

[Nick]

I agree.

We should all do what a dog does. Roll over and get our bellies rubbed and enjoy it no matter how much our owners are bastards to us.

I think you miss the point... Michael is openly angry because he doesn't get answers from the club.... Yet he does exactly the same thing.

You would think somebody who has such an issue with it would go out of their way to do it properly wouldn't they?

I just hope who ever these backers are just aren't lining him up to look a fool.

 

[Nick]

Uncle Tom Cobley and his dog could make a silly offer knowing it was a joke or for that matter I could make an offer and we would still all get hung up about it because we believe any offer must be a good one? It's pie in the sky. Does not solve anything but creates more aggression towards SISU and paints others in glory hunting nonsense.

Those who want to believe will accept anything as doable without considering the true implications.

When a serious offer comes in for the club we can start drooling and shouting at SISU to accept. Problem is there are no serious offers just empty rhetoric designed it seems to serve ego and stir the pot some more.

Exactly, people go on about how we don't need to know the details and should just acceptit.

The same people ten years down the line may well say "oh well it's the clubs fault for accepting it" like they did with the high rent.

 

[chiefdave]

The same people ten years down the line may well say "oh well it's the clubs fault for accepting it" like they did with the high rent.

this offer is only for 3 years so its not going to be a problem 10 years down the line. all it will do is get the club back to Coventry on a temporary basis and allow 3 years for our owners to either build their new stadium or come up with a plan that allows us to stay at the Ricoh long term. if we get to the end of the 3 years and are no further forward and end up back at Sixfields would any actual harm have been done compared to staying there for another 2 - 4 years?

 

[Grendel]

this offer is only for 3 years so its not going to be a problem 10 years down the line. all it will do is get the club back to Coventry on a temporary basis and allow 3 years for our owners to either build their new stadium or come up with a plan that allows us to stay at the Ricoh long term. if we get to the end of the 3 years and are no further forward and end up back at Sixfields would any actual harm have been done compared to staying there for another 2 - 4 years?

Do you know for a fact an offer has been agreed with ACL?

 

[Nick]

this offer is only for 3 years so its not going to be a problem 10 years down the line. all it will do is get the club back to Coventry on a temporary basis and allow 3 years for our owners to either build their new stadium or come up with a plan that allows us to stay at the Ricoh long term. if we get to the end of the 3 years and are no further forward and end up back at Sixfields would any actual harm have been done compared to staying there for another 2 - 4 years?

My point was that the people saying the club should take it without even knowing the terms are the same ones who say the high rent was the clubs fault because they didn't do due dilligence etc...

 

[torchomatic]

You're not being abusive anonymously from behind your keyboard, are you? :claping hands:

Another keyboard warrior youn spout your shit on here but nobody knows who you are and YOU can say somebody is talking bollocks you're having a laugh you c**t

 

[Deleted member 5849]

this offer is only for 3 years so its not going to be a problem 10 years down the line.

No clauses like one of the rent offers, where the rent reverted to £1.3mil after 3 years?

We don't know, as Michael won't answer anything!

 

[wince]

My point was that the people saying the club should take it without even knowing the terms are the same ones who say the high rent was the clubs fault because they didn't do due dilligence etc...

IN corner again

 

[Nick]

IN corner again

What corner?

 

[torchomatic]

Do you really think that some fans think moving the club outside of the city was justifiable? I don't think it was justifiable. I don't think they should have stopped paying the rent. It was crippling the club yes, but they should have negotiated while we were still there. That has always been my view.

Some fans (me included) feel that moving the club out of the City was never and will never be justifiable. Regardless of what anyone else did, depriving the fans of the club should be off the table as a negotiating tactic.
.

 

[Nick]

You're not being abusive anonymously from behind your keyboard, are you? :claping hands:

It's funny the people who give abuse and come on just to argue but whinge about the abuse and arguing. I think that translates as people aren't allowed different views to them.

 

[Nick]

No clauses like one of the rent offers, where the rent reverted to £1.3mil after 3 years?

We don't know, as Michael won't answer anything!

No, it's more than enough just to assume for the best without knowing the facts, just assumptions

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

You're not being abusive anonymously from behind your keyboard, are you? :claping hands:

Am I? People know who I am clearly visable at away games the hill marches etc I've never hidden, you on the other hand:thinking about:

 

[chiefdave]

Do you know for a fact an offer has been agreed with ACL?

No I don't and nowhere have I claimed I do. As I've already said several times all SISU need to do is say we will consider the offer fully once we have seen proof of funds from KCIC and have confirmed with ACL the rental deal on offer. I would be more than happy with that response. Its a win win for SISU, if it all comes good we're back at the Ricoh and significantly financially better off, if the deal collapses for the first time in years it won't be SISU getting the blame.

My point was that the people saying the club should take it without even knowing the terms are the same ones who say the high rent was the clubs fault because they didn't do due dilligence etc...

I'm not saying they shouldn't look at the contract and just blindly sign up to something. I'm saying they shouldn't dismiss it out of hand, all I want is for the club to say they will give it serious consideration and if they feel they need more details then ask for them. If KCIC then refuse to give them the details requested nobody can lay the blame for the deal collapsing with SISU.

No clauses like one of the rent offers, where the rent reverted to £1.3mil after 3 years?

The proposed deal is only for 3 years and to be honest if you compare the likely revenues from playing at the Ricoh to playing at Sixfields even if it was £1.3m we would still be better off financially.

All I want is the club back in Coventry, preferably at the Ricoh as that will allow for an immediate return. I couldn't care less about SISU, ACL, CCC. I'm not particularly fussed about Higgs although I would prefer not to see a charity out of pocket. I welcome anything that could possibly move us towards that. To me this offer removes something SISU have stated is a problem, them dealing with ACL, with someone else in the middle they don't need to deal with them. They can accept this deal without it looking like a total climbdown and you never know, once back at the Ricoh things might start improving, 3 years gives a lot of time to come up with a permanent solution.

 

[wince]

No, it's more than enough just to assume for the best without knowing the facts, just assumptions

Or what ? the ship has sailed and you and others are still arguing if the the price of the fare is too high , its too late to argue if its a good deal or bad deal , we are 35 miles away and have lost 90% of or fans , If there is a life raft with a hole in and its the only way back to the ship you have to get in and worry about the size of the hole after. or if you wait for another life raft , one might not come , or the ship will be too far away to catch it, I know you will probably say that's what got us into this mess but football now is a different game now , with sky tv ect not just ccfc are loosing fans, but we are loosing more than most and unless something drastic happens l really fear for the future of our club

 

[Grendel]

Or what ? the ship has sailed and you and others are still arguing if the the price of the fare is too high , its too late to argue if its a good deal or bad deal , we are 35 miles away and have lost 90% of or fans , If there is a life raft with a hole in and its the only way back to the ship you have to get in and worry about the size of the hole after. or if you wait for another life raft , one might not come , or the ship will be too far away to catch it, I know you will probably say that's what got us into this mess but football now is a different game now , with sky tv ect not just ccfc are loosing fans, but we are loosing more than most and unless something drastic happens l really fear for the future of our club

Problem is this life raft was created by kcic and may not even exist.