Rico h Arena Move Will Break Partnerships (7 Viewers)

[Moff]

such a great post moff it actually made me laugh at our desperate position.

don't know you but I can imagine you with about 8 pints in you shouting and spitting that post out in a pub.

Sadly I am stone cold sober. It was written in a moment of desperate clarity, with a liberal use of some Anglo Saxon language!

 

---

[Nick]

Just because in someones opinion they say that there were valid reasons it doesn't mean that there were valid reasons.

Meaningful negotiations should have come first. Involvement of us supporters should have come a close second. But we always came a distinct last.

And when was the last time they put us or our club first?

It also doesn't mean they aren't if somebody says itdoes it??

 

[Noggin]

It also doesn't mean they aren't if somebody says itdoes it??

when one side can argue clearly why they arn't valid reasons and the people proposing the reasons can't argue why it is valid then it's a bloody good indication.

 

[olderskyblue]

Did you read what I quoted? It isn't being divisive, it's saying what is happening.

Me being divisive would be insulting people.

Plenty of council ones on here then who accept moving teams

But that clearly is not happening, so you are making up what you say is happening.

Once again, the overwhelming view on here is that the council are wrong to allow wasps to buy ACL.

divisive (dɪˈvaɪsɪv) adj1. causing or tending to cause disagreement or dissension

Doesn't mention insulting people Nick.... and my response to your post is proving out the dictionary definition isn't it??

 

[Nick]

But that clearly is not happening, so you are making up what you say is happening.

Once again, the overwhelming view on here is that the council are wrong to allow wasps to buy ACL.

divisive (dɪˈvaɪsɪv) adj1. causing or tending to cause disagreement or dissension

Doesn't mention insulting people Nick.... and my response to your post is proving out the dictionary definition isn't it??

Ah sorry so we all must agree with everything everybody else says. I get it now

 

[Nick]

when one side can argue clearly why they arn't valid reasons and the people proposing the reasons can't argue why it is valid then it's a bloody good indication.

It depends who they are valid to, moving us away to distress acl and try and get the stadium on the cheap would have been valid to sisu but not to us.

 

[olderskyblue]

Ah sorry so we all must agree with everything everybody else says. I get it now

Not everybody Nick, just me...

 

[Skyblueweeman]

Whats the best situation then? as its all a complete clusterfuck and i cant see it improving.

Owners = Shit
On the pitch = Shit
Playing Squad = Shit
Mountain Of debt = Shit
Possibility of New Owners = No Chance/Shit
Owing Own Stadium = Shit
Revenues For Club = Shit
New Stadium = No Chance/Shit
Possibility of Moving Again Out of The City Boundary's = Possible/Shit
Prospect of any bright outlook on the horizon, or success on the pitch = No chance/Shit

Now you've put it like that Moff, my Monday doesn't look so bad.

Cheers chief,

WM

 

[Noggin]

It depends who they are valid to, moving us away to distress acl and try and get the stadium on the cheap would have been valid to sisu but not to us.

I responded to that point earlier, a reason that is for the benefit of sisu but to the detriment of ccfc is not a valid reason because the directors of ccfc have the legal responsibility to act to the benefit of ccfc.

So yes I'm sure sisu did have reasons that they at least felt were valid for us moving to northampton, but this whole conversation came from me saying that sisu said we were moved away for the survival of the football club and there were no valid reasons for doing so and I'm convinced that is the case with respect to ccfc there were no valid reasons for moving to northampton.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

I see a successful Wasps here at the Ricoh both on and off the pitch at the moment as the only way to sort this now becoming horrendous sisu situation out. Wasps doing well and Sky Blues the opposite will not be accepted. I wonder if the Wasp ceo will have a chat to Ms. Sepalla, alone, and give alternative options to those Fisher and Waggott are pursuing, which clearly are not working.

RB - A couple of points on the highlighted sections:

* Wasps doing well/Sky Blues not so, won't be accepted - By who...the fans? If so, what difference will that make? The CEO of Wasps shouldn't care if we don't do well. If we bomb down to Conference North (or South...which one would be in?!) he won't care. He's admitted as much that they can survive without us at the Ricoh.
* CEO speaking to JS - Again, why? As per the above, I don't reckon he gives two hoots about us staying or not. I think everything that is being said in public at the moment is because it's what people want to hear. If I was the stadium owner, the additional revenue would be nice but I'd want full control over my own facility and not have to factor in annoying tennants...which is what we could quite rightly be termed.

WM

 

[Otis]

I responded to that point earlier, a reason that is for the benefit of sisu but to the detriment of ccfc is not a valid reason because the directors of ccfc have the legal responsibility to act to the benefit of ccfc.

So yes I'm sure sisu did have reasons that they at least felt were valid for us moving to northampton, but this whole conversation came from me saying that sisu said we were moved away for the survival of the football club and there were no valid reasons for doing so and I'm convinced that is the case with respect to ccfc there were no valid reasons for moving to northampton.

Agree with that. They moved away for their own self interest and in no way for the survival of the club.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

RB - A couple of points on the highlighted sections:

* Wasps doing well/Sky Blues not so, won't be accepted - By who...the fans? If so, what difference will that make? The CEO of Wasps shouldn't care if we don't do well. If we bomb down to Conference North (or South...which one would be in?!) he won't care. He's admitted as much that they can survive without us at the Ricoh.
* CEO speaking to JS - Again, why? As per the above, I don't reckon he gives two hoots about us staying or not. I think everything that is being said in public at the moment is because it's what people want to hear. If I was the stadium owner, the additional revenue would be nice but I'd want full control over my own facility and not have to factor in annoying tennants...which is what we could quite rightly be termed.

WM

They are now in the business of attracting tenants. They will be financially better off with ccfc there, ccfc will be better off there if comparing to funding a new stadium. I guess that's why the club are already wanting to extend the rental agreement.

If you were in charge you'd have the stadium to yourself, but not enough money coming in, you won't last long.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

They are now in the business of attracting tenants. They will be financially better off with ccfc there, ccfc will be better off there if comparing to funding a new stadium. I guess that's why the club are already wanting to extend the rental agreement.

If you were in charge you'd have the stadium to yourself, but not enough money coming in, you won't last long.

But they've said they'd be fine without us?

 

[Skyblueweeman]

On another note, at least we can laugh at away fans when they sing "Your grounds too big for you"....

 

[Rusty Trombone]

But they've said they'd be fine without us?

Tesco will be fine without me, but they still spend money on trying to attract me.


*obviously Tesco are having some bad press at the moment, but you get the idea.

 

[Otis]

But they've said they'd be fine without us?

Hang on, WM.


'I think everything that is being said in public at the moment is because it's what people want to hear.'

If everything is said is because it's what people want to hear, then .....

'They'd be fine without us' is what people want to hear.

 

[stupot07]

If they were gifted it without the debt it could be a win win situation.

Perhaps administration is required again unfortunately to get rid of Sisu and the debt.
Sisu have no leverage now, other than they may have their arse in their hands.

Win win? The wasps owners have move to the Ricoh as they don't want to fund wasps losses. Why would they want to fund ours? In a breakeven model we're a league one/two team, and without 100% of the ricoh's 365 day year revenue and owners would need to inject £6-10m equity/loans into the club per annum to survive in the championship and £20-25m equity/loan per annum to push on to the Pl, and if we got there inject similar levels of funding for PL survival.

Doesn't sound like Wasps owners bag to me


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

 

[stupot07]

Nick Eastwood on BBC radio 5live. Saturday 1.30.

Interviewed via telephone.

Asked ,why did you have to move from Adams Park?

His reply ... "Ground Sharing for any Prem Rugby club is not an option"




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

 

[Jack Griffin]

Can I ask seriously why a team (Wasps) that nearly went out of business, and that have only stayed in business due to the money of their owners, who have taken on huge expense to purchase the Ricoh, would even be remotely interested in a debt ridden, loss making football club?

They might be interested in a debt ridden, break even football club provided a substantial portion of the debt is written off or only repayable on reaching the Premiership.

 

[stupot07]

They might be interested in a debt ridden, break even football club provided a substantial portion of the debt is written off or only repayable on reaching the Premiership.

Ha ha that will be payable after hell has frozen over.


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

 

[Jack Griffin]

Nick Eastwood on BBC radio 5live. Saturday 1.30.

Interviewed via telephone.

Asked ,why did you have to move from Adams Park?

His reply ... "Ground Sharing for any Prem Rugby club is not an option"

Can't trust anyone can you.

 

[rupert_bear]

RB - A couple of points on the highlighted sections:

* Wasps doing well/Sky Blues not so, won't be accepted - By who...the fans? If so, what difference will that make? The CEO of Wasps shouldn't care if we don't do well. If we bomb down to Conference North (or South...which one would be in?!) he won't care. He's admitted as much that they can survive without us at the Ricoh.
* CEO speaking to JS - Again, why? As per the above, I don't reckon he gives two hoots about us staying or not. I think everything that is being said in public at the moment is because it's what people want to hear. If I was the stadium owner, the additional revenue would be nice but I'd want full control over my own facility and not have to factor in annoying tennants...which is what we could quite rightly be termed.

WM

Because a Ricoh with a football club going the right way up the leagues and not down will bring in extra support and therefore extra income to his employer.

 

[Otis]

Nick Eastwood on BBC radio 5live. Saturday 1.30.

Interviewed via telephone.

Asked ,why did you have to move from Adams Park?

His reply ... "Ground Sharing for any Prem Rugby club is not an option"




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

I'm getting very confused with all this.

One minute all the positive things he says are just spiel and not to be believed, the next minute, when he says anything slightly negative we need to embrace that all as true?

:laugh::facepalm::facepalm::laugh::claping hands:ointlaugh::laugh:

 

[torchomatic]

We should use the Fisherism rationale prevalent on this site. If it suits us then it's the truth, if it doesn't then it's a lie. Vice versa too, of course.

I'm getting very confused with all this.

One minute all the positive things he says are just spiel and not to be believed, the next minute, when he says anything slightly negative we need to embrace that all as true?

:laugh::facepalm::facepalm::laugh::claping hands:ointlaugh::laugh:

 

[Otis]

We should use the Fisherism rationale prevalent on this site. If it suits us then it's the truth, if it doesn't then it's a lie. Vice versa too, of course.

Everything out of Fisher's mouth is one of two things.


A lie

Or

An untruth.

 

[stupot07]

I'm getting very confused with all this.

One minute all the positive things he says are just spiel and not to be believed, the next minute, when he says anything slightly negative we need to embrace that all as true?

:laugh::facepalm::facepalm::laugh::claping hands:ointlaugh::laugh:

No, I believe he meant in wasps current tenant, little/no access to revenue model that they have at Wycombe which is consistent with the other comments about needing to move or bust.

Put the shoe on our foot, and Eastwood is saying pretty much was Fisher is. Ground sharing/tenant little/no access to revenue is unsustainable.


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

 

[Otis]

No, I believe he meant in wasps current tenant, little/no access to revenue model that they have at Wycombe which is consistent with the other comments about needing to move or bust.

Put the shoe on our foot, and Eastwood is saying pretty much was Fisher is. Ground sharing/tenant little/no access to revenue is unsustainable.


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

Well we'll have to disgaree.

I'm very confident this Eastwood will be as much of a success here as the last Eastwood we had.

 

[Astute]

It depends who they are valid to, moving us away to distress acl and try and get the stadium on the cheap would have been valid to sisu but not to us.

If their plan to distress ACL had worked and they got the Ricoh cheaply I would have seen it as a valid reason.

They lost millions and made the vast majority of their paying customers dislike them (being polite here), couldn't have had things go any worse in the JR and the Ricoh has been taken over by a rugger club with nothing to do with Coventry.

This tells me that they didn't have a valid reason.

 

[Nick]

If their plan to distress ACL had worked and they got the Ricoh cheaply I would have seen it as a valid reason.

They lost millions and made the vast majority of their paying customers dislike them (being polite here), couldn't have had things go any worse in the JR and the Ricoh has been taken over by a rugger club with nothing to do with Coventry.

This tells me that they didn't have a valid reason.

Well they did have a valid reason like you said it just didn't work as they thought?

No reason is doing it for shits and giggles.

 

[Otis]

No reason is doing it for shits and giggles.

Ahh, one of my favourite top shelf magazines.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Can't trust anyone can you.

Never a truer word spoken

 

[Astute]

Well they did have a valid reason like you said it just didn't work as they thought?

No reason is doing it for shits and giggles.

Well Fisher got giggles.....and loud laughter when he told us how many of us would turn up in Northampton

 

[Nick]

Well Fisher got giggles.....and loud laughter when he told us how many of us would turn up in Northampton

Should have got lucas to announce, would have been jizz and groans.

 

[Astute]

Should have got lucas to announce, would have been jizz and groans.

Can you keep your fantasies of Ann Lucas to yourself please?

 

[shy_tall_knight]

Nick need to explain what valid reason they had - if its a point of principle I'm sorry that don't count, that decision is one of the most idiotic ever and may have ruined our club beyond repair.