This needs saying - SISU have saved the club (2 Viewers)
mds
Well-Known Member
Foff now ive really got a headache.
Evo1883
Well-Known Member
Yes they saved the club , instead of buying the shares in the stadium and investing a few million in the first couple of seasons to get us into the premier league and benefit from 60-100 million in payouts and parachute payments even in the event of relegation , they chose to do it the way they have , spend 70 million , and still end up with fuck all to show .
saved us , they have destroyed us and they didnt even have to , bad bad business if you ask me
saved us , they have destroyed us and they didnt even have to , bad bad business if you ask me
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
2 pages in and no-one has called NW a SISU apologist.... has your test failed NW? 
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
2 pages in and no-one has called NW a SISU apologist.... has your test failed NW?
A wanker smiley kept my faith in SBT nature
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
A wanker smiley kept my faith in SBT nature
Wouldn't you have got that whatever you said??
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
The Reverend Skyblue
Well-Known Member
SISU caring about the future of the club,now I have read it all.
as I have said the new stadium if built should be a maximum of 5000 capacity,that's all they will need even for the big games.
They will never be forgiven for taking this club to Northampton ,and the shameful way they have treated their customers.
as I have said the new stadium if built should be a maximum of 5000 capacity,that's all they will need even for the big games.
They will never be forgiven for taking this club to Northampton ,and the shameful way they have treated their customers.
Houchens Head
Fairly well known member from Malvern
Share it round NW!! imp:
imp:
señor Santiago
Well-Known Member
Would give anything to turn the clock back and do something to fuck up the sisu takeover in 2007. Would rather of gone into administration and start a clean slate.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I am going to take this as a serious discussion piece despite a definite suspicion it isn't. I am not going to lay the blame solely on SISU, life is not so simplistic, but I wont focus on the actions of others.
I am also going to preface this by saying not everything that SISU have done has been wrong. They are right to drive down costs, they are right to have the club live within its means, the breaking of the lease was necessary even if the chosen tactic was possibly not. Costs now appear under control, the lease is broken, the club is apparently cash positive. But at what cost? You see whilst I agree the general principles it is the tactics I have a problem with
Yes they saved us, but to my mind they even got that wrong in how they did it. I have never understood why they did the deal that way. Had the club gone in to administration in 2007 then it could most likely have been purchased far cheaper (in the end the actual initial net cash flow from SISU was less than £3m including costs). However they went a different route with an off balance sheet purchase that then introduced a net position in to the SBS&L group. Doing that created £9.5m goodwill that really had no value and there was our first loss heading our way. Then they did something similar with the option, valued it at £1m and wrote it down to nil. So with no trading at all the "saving" by our owners created £10.5m in losses and debt.
The costs well yes they have saved up to £1.5m per year on the rent and licence. Not to be sniffed at certainly but also not the most important saving over the years. The single most important saving has been the reduction in the wage costs for the business. In the year to 31/05/09 wage costs in total were £12.2m today they sit at between £4m and £5m I would guess (2013 accounts showed £7m but surely they have reduced since then) for all players, staff & employees. That is a significant saving but it has a sting in the tail - it is set up for League 1 and because of other actions no real prospects of being able to finance the team at a higher level as it stands. It appears a vicious circle don't pay the higher wages, get lesser calibre of players, find a lower level of performance, sit in a lower division, take less income, look for savings ........
In the meantime the loans to finance the "losses"/debt are in place in favour of the owner/creditor and there is a high annual interest burden that there is no obvious way of bringing down. Interest now runs in excess of the old lease/licence rental
SISU have stabilised the finances yes. The biggest driving force for that is that no one including the owner/creditor was willing to put further funds in to the bottomless pit that is CCFC. Therefore the club has to live within its means and that let alone any other reason meant a return to the Ricoh where there was the prospect of greater gate receipts etc. But even then breaking the lease and the aggressive legal attitude adopted cost the club income sources when they returned like car parking that they used to have a right to. But the tactic also cost something more - the loyalty of many fans was stretched and broken that has serious consequences for income, success and the future. Did it have to be that way?
There has also been a shedding of value in order to finance losses that SISU had control of creating. There is no value to the squad. It has taken cash to clear out players but also players that had value in the balance sheet incurred us losses (yes there were notable profits Fox Dann Wilson etc) but overall the ins are less than the outs by approx. £2m last time I looked. As with many teams they got lucky and a couple of players had good seasons and they cashed in heaven help us had they not but there was no real plan to it - it was more needs must.
League position - from mid to lower Championship to mid to lower L1 is not what many fans expected when SISU saved us
Then there is the whole Ricoh ownership thing. The intention we are told by the stakeholders of ACL was that ACL would eventually become CCFC's. There never was an intention to sell the freehold it was always a stake in ACL. Indeed the club in the shape of CCFC Ltd was ahead of any other potential investor in ACL - CCFC Ltd had an option to purchase 50% at a formula price. The lease solution chosen by SISU (in my opinion it was a very clear plan and set of legal steps taken from March 2012 to break the lease) meant they couldn't use the formula price calculation because if CCFC Group owed ACL outside the normal terms it could not use the formula. The current waving of the first option to buy is to my mind legal dotting i's and crossing t's nothing more. So SISU effectively broke all links with the Ricoh and set up the potential for others to come in and take what should have been the clubs. Did it have to be that way? was there other tactics they could use? could SISU have been partners at ACL not adversaries?
That means that SISU now have the choice. Do they negotiate a better long term deal at the Ricoh knowing they can not ever own it or do they go for a smaller stadium of their own that doesn't have anything like the same level of income potential? There is no real asset base to CCFC - there are few assets. So a new build will involve more debt, more interest cost, on an asset that is depreciating, that is half the size and will not have the large additional money making spaces that the Ricoh has. Does the prospect of more debt, more interest with no great increase in income bode well for the ambitions of the club for 10, 20 or even 5 years ahead? Any new deal at the Ricoh could include a share of other incomes but it will cost to acquire them - will SISU want to do that or will they park CCFC there and let it bump along in L1 so long as SISU gets an income return for its investors from the interest on loans because that is an option they could take
So in "saving" CCFC in 2007/2008 what have SISU achieved. Yes we are still here. But we are loaded with massive debt controlled and largely created by SISU decisions, restricted our income, lacking in assets, no new sources of income or finance likely, no prospect of owning the Ricoh, broken connection to the fans and business community, perhaps the biggest amount of suspicion and broken trust I have seen at CCFC since I started supporting them, no expectation of success on the pitch in a poor L1 etc......
I can not help but think there were other choices that could and should have been made, that things should now have been so much better not so much worse, that the early years of SISU ownership were a shambles and that recent years have had nothing to do with the well being of CCFC. That CCFC has been a tool not a reason for SISU in a failed strategy. A long time back in this whole saga I asked a question what comes first the distress of ACL or the distress of CCFC? I still wonder on that.
Sorry NW if your post wasn't with the intention of getting such a reply and was some what more ironic but I just needed to get that off my chest
I am also going to preface this by saying not everything that SISU have done has been wrong. They are right to drive down costs, they are right to have the club live within its means, the breaking of the lease was necessary even if the chosen tactic was possibly not. Costs now appear under control, the lease is broken, the club is apparently cash positive. But at what cost? You see whilst I agree the general principles it is the tactics I have a problem with
Yes they saved us, but to my mind they even got that wrong in how they did it. I have never understood why they did the deal that way. Had the club gone in to administration in 2007 then it could most likely have been purchased far cheaper (in the end the actual initial net cash flow from SISU was less than £3m including costs). However they went a different route with an off balance sheet purchase that then introduced a net position in to the SBS&L group. Doing that created £9.5m goodwill that really had no value and there was our first loss heading our way. Then they did something similar with the option, valued it at £1m and wrote it down to nil. So with no trading at all the "saving" by our owners created £10.5m in losses and debt.
The costs well yes they have saved up to £1.5m per year on the rent and licence. Not to be sniffed at certainly but also not the most important saving over the years. The single most important saving has been the reduction in the wage costs for the business. In the year to 31/05/09 wage costs in total were £12.2m today they sit at between £4m and £5m I would guess (2013 accounts showed £7m but surely they have reduced since then) for all players, staff & employees. That is a significant saving but it has a sting in the tail - it is set up for League 1 and because of other actions no real prospects of being able to finance the team at a higher level as it stands. It appears a vicious circle don't pay the higher wages, get lesser calibre of players, find a lower level of performance, sit in a lower division, take less income, look for savings ........
In the meantime the loans to finance the "losses"/debt are in place in favour of the owner/creditor and there is a high annual interest burden that there is no obvious way of bringing down. Interest now runs in excess of the old lease/licence rental
SISU have stabilised the finances yes. The biggest driving force for that is that no one including the owner/creditor was willing to put further funds in to the bottomless pit that is CCFC. Therefore the club has to live within its means and that let alone any other reason meant a return to the Ricoh where there was the prospect of greater gate receipts etc. But even then breaking the lease and the aggressive legal attitude adopted cost the club income sources when they returned like car parking that they used to have a right to. But the tactic also cost something more - the loyalty of many fans was stretched and broken that has serious consequences for income, success and the future. Did it have to be that way?
There has also been a shedding of value in order to finance losses that SISU had control of creating. There is no value to the squad. It has taken cash to clear out players but also players that had value in the balance sheet incurred us losses (yes there were notable profits Fox Dann Wilson etc) but overall the ins are less than the outs by approx. £2m last time I looked. As with many teams they got lucky and a couple of players had good seasons and they cashed in heaven help us had they not but there was no real plan to it - it was more needs must.
League position - from mid to lower Championship to mid to lower L1 is not what many fans expected when SISU saved us
Then there is the whole Ricoh ownership thing. The intention we are told by the stakeholders of ACL was that ACL would eventually become CCFC's. There never was an intention to sell the freehold it was always a stake in ACL. Indeed the club in the shape of CCFC Ltd was ahead of any other potential investor in ACL - CCFC Ltd had an option to purchase 50% at a formula price. The lease solution chosen by SISU (in my opinion it was a very clear plan and set of legal steps taken from March 2012 to break the lease) meant they couldn't use the formula price calculation because if CCFC Group owed ACL outside the normal terms it could not use the formula. The current waving of the first option to buy is to my mind legal dotting i's and crossing t's nothing more. So SISU effectively broke all links with the Ricoh and set up the potential for others to come in and take what should have been the clubs. Did it have to be that way? was there other tactics they could use? could SISU have been partners at ACL not adversaries?
That means that SISU now have the choice. Do they negotiate a better long term deal at the Ricoh knowing they can not ever own it or do they go for a smaller stadium of their own that doesn't have anything like the same level of income potential? There is no real asset base to CCFC - there are few assets. So a new build will involve more debt, more interest cost, on an asset that is depreciating, that is half the size and will not have the large additional money making spaces that the Ricoh has. Does the prospect of more debt, more interest with no great increase in income bode well for the ambitions of the club for 10, 20 or even 5 years ahead? Any new deal at the Ricoh could include a share of other incomes but it will cost to acquire them - will SISU want to do that or will they park CCFC there and let it bump along in L1 so long as SISU gets an income return for its investors from the interest on loans because that is an option they could take
So in "saving" CCFC in 2007/2008 what have SISU achieved. Yes we are still here. But we are loaded with massive debt controlled and largely created by SISU decisions, restricted our income, lacking in assets, no new sources of income or finance likely, no prospect of owning the Ricoh, broken connection to the fans and business community, perhaps the biggest amount of suspicion and broken trust I have seen at CCFC since I started supporting them, no expectation of success on the pitch in a poor L1 etc......
I can not help but think there were other choices that could and should have been made, that things should now have been so much better not so much worse, that the early years of SISU ownership were a shambles and that recent years have had nothing to do with the well being of CCFC. That CCFC has been a tool not a reason for SISU in a failed strategy. A long time back in this whole saga I asked a question what comes first the distress of ACL or the distress of CCFC? I still wonder on that.
Sorry NW if your post wasn't with the intention of getting such a reply and was some what more ironic but I just needed to get that off my chest
Last edited:
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
In fairness OSB the formula must have v overvalued the half stake in ACL anyway. Going off the figures bandied around on here.I am going to take this as a serious discussion piece despite a definite suspicion it isn't. I am not going to lay the blame solely on SISU, life is not so simplistic, but I wont focus on the actions of others.
I am also going to preface this by saying not everything that SISU have done has been wrong. They are right to drive down costs, they are right to have the club live within its means, the breaking of the lease was necessary even if the chosen tactic was possibly not. Costs now appear under control, the lease is broken, the club is apparently cash positive. But at what cost? You see whilst I agree the general principles it is the tactics I have a problem with
Yes they saved us, but to my mind they even got that wrong in how they did it. I have never understood why they did the deal that way. Had the club gone in to administration in 2007 then it could most likely have been purchased far cheaper (in the end the actual initial net cash flow from SISU was less than £3m including costs). However they went a different route with an off balance sheet purchase that then introduced a net position in to the SBS&L group. Doing that created £9.5m goodwill that really had no value and there was our first loss heading our way. Then they did something similar with the option, valued it at £1m and wrote it down to nil. So with no trading at all the "saving" by our owners created £10.5m in losses and debt.
The costs well yes they have saved up to £1.5m per year on the rent and licence. Not to be sniffed at certainly but also not the most important saving over the years. The single most important saving has been the reduction in the wage costs for the business. In the year to 31/05/09 wage costs in total were £12.2m today they sit at between £4m and £5m I would guess (2013 accounts showed £7m but surely they have reduced since then) for all players, staff & employees. That is a significant saving but it has a sting in the tail - it is set up for League 1 and because of other actions no real prospects of being able to finance the team at a higher level as it stands. It appears a vicious circle don't pay the higher wages, get lesser calibre of players, find a lower level of performance, sit in a lower division, take less income, look for savings ........
In the meantime the loans to finance the "losses"/debt are in place in favour of the owner/creditor and there is a high annual interest burden that there is no obvious way of bringing down. Interest now runs in excess of the old lease/licence rental
SISU have stabilised the finances yes. The biggest driving force for that is that no one including the owner/creditor was willing to put further funds in to the bottomless pit that is CCFC. Therefore the club has to live within its means and that let alone any other reason meant a return to the Ricoh where there was the prospect of greater gate receipts etc. But even then breaking the lease and the aggressive legal attitude adopted cost the club income sources when they returned like car parking that they used to have a right to. But the tactic also cost something more - the loyalty of many fans was stretched and broken that has serious consequences for income, success and the future. Did it have to be that way?
There has also been a shedding of value in order to finance losses that SISU had control of creating. There is no value to the squad. It has taken cash to clear out players but also players that had value in the balance sheet incurred us losses (yes there were notable profits Fox Dann Wilson etc) but overall the ins are less than the outs by approx. £2m last time I looked. As with many teams they got lucky and a couple of players had good seasons and they cashed in heaven help us had they not but there was no real plan to it - it was more needs must.
League position - from mid to lower Championship to mid to lower L1 is not what many fans expected when SISU saved us
Then there is the whole Ricoh ownership thing. The intention we are told by the stakeholders of ACL was that ACL would eventually become CCFC's. There never was an intention to sell the freehold it was always a stake in ACL. Indeed the club in the shape of CCFC Ltd was ahead of any other potential investor in ACL - CCFC Ltd had an option to purchase 50% at a formula price. The lease solution chosen by SISU (in my opinion it was a very clear plan and set of legal steps taken from March 2012 to break the lease) meant they couldn't use the formula price calculation because if CCFC Group owed ACL outside the normal terms it could not use the formula. The current waving of the first option to buy is to my mind legal dotting i's and crossing t's nothing more. So SISU effectively broke all links with the Ricoh and set up the potential for others to come in and take what should have been the clubs. Did it have to be that way? was there other tactics they could use? could SISU have been partners at ACL not adversaries?
That means that SISU now have the choice. Do they negotiate a better long term deal at the Ricoh knowing they can not ever own it or do they go for a smaller stadium of their own that doesn't have anything like the same level of income potential? There is no real asset base to CCFC - there are few assets. So a new build will involve more debt, more interest cost, on an asset that is depreciating, that is half the size and will not have the large additional money making spaces that the Ricoh has. Does the prospect of more debt, more interest with no great increase in income bode well for the ambitions of the club for 10, 20 or even 5 years ahead? Any new deal at the Ricoh could include a share of other incomes but it will cost to acquire them - will SISU want to do that or will they park CCFC there and let it bump along in L1 so long as SISU gets an income return for its investors from the interest on loans because that is an option they could take
So in "saving" CCFC in 2007/2008 what have SISU achieved. Yes we are still here. But we are loaded with massive debt controlled and largely created by SISU decisions, restricted our income, lacking in assets, no new sources of income or finance likely, no prospect of owning the Ricoh, broken connection to the fans and business community, perhaps the biggest amount of suspicion and broken trust I have seen at CCFC since I started supporting them, no expectation of success on the pitch in a poor L1 etc......
I can not help but think there were other choices that could and should have been made, that things should now have been so much better not so much worse, that the early years of SISU ownership were a shambles and that recent years have had nothing to do with the well being of CCFC. That CCFC has been a tool not a reason for SISU in a failed strategy. A long time back in this whole saga I asked a question what comes first the distress of ACL or the distress of CCFC? I still wonder on that.
Sorry NW if your post wasn't with the intention of getting such a reply and was some what more ironic but I just needed to get that off my chest
Senior Vick from Alicante
Well-Known Member
Great post OSB, one question I would like to ask you though is how do you see SISU extricating themselves from this, they could walk away as most of the debt is self generated and on paper could be offset against other funds, or do you see them bumping along quite content to be a lower league one club that just pays for itself.?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Not sure to be honest Vick. I think in the short term they will bump along at the Ricoh and hope for success and promotion. I don't think because of the potential doing deals off balance sheet on the loans that the potential for loss is as great as it seems. I have a feeling that some of their investors have already taken a hit and moved on. That the debt now sits at a lower value in the funds than originally.
The debt on the Clubs books remains at full value of course and interest is charged on that full value.
Long term I really do not understand where they are heading. The new ground on what we know doesn't seem to stack up, there is no evidence of any substantial movement on purchase and the time scales could easily be far greater that TF has indicated. We are told that TF wants to extend the CCFC deal at Ricoh to 5 years - why? is it he has timescale on the build or simply that he needs a longer deal to get the next accounts signed off as a going concern. But in all that how do existing loans get repaid (even if discounted in SISU books) and the wages plus interest paid too.
Not sure what they are going to do, worryingly I am not sure they know either
The debt on the Clubs books remains at full value of course and interest is charged on that full value.
Long term I really do not understand where they are heading. The new ground on what we know doesn't seem to stack up, there is no evidence of any substantial movement on purchase and the time scales could easily be far greater that TF has indicated. We are told that TF wants to extend the CCFC deal at Ricoh to 5 years - why? is it he has timescale on the build or simply that he needs a longer deal to get the next accounts signed off as a going concern. But in all that how do existing loans get repaid (even if discounted in SISU books) and the wages plus interest paid too.
Not sure what they are going to do, worryingly I am not sure they know either
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
True fp I don't disagree with you but the decision they had was do they pay a premium on that purchase knowing they would then be in pole position with a place at the table or spend that premium on legal fees knowing there was a risk they would be out in the cold. Not to mention how much a new stadium might cost
Hobo
Well-Known Member
So Wasps used the SISU business model?
Although their publicity department seems to be working better.
The first sign for me SISU had their own agenda, was the holding a gun to the head of the nominal shareholders, thus creating a closed shop on the running of the club. The communication with fans since has been perfunctory at best.
The other problem now in their 'rescue' plan is finding suitable land, which is very difficult as Wasps have found. The seven years they failed to buy into the Ricoh, before distressing tactics were required, will now be making that 'clock' tick even faster!
For me the party hat and party poppers will remain in the draw.
It's funny how when SISU took over, everyone seemed to agree that we needed "hard-nosed businessmen" to get a grip on the club and "make tough decisions that the fans don't like" in order to try and turn this club round. The fact that they had no real connection to football was seen as a good thing as it wouldn't cloud their decisions.
No doubt they have made controversial decisions, no doubt some of their decisions have been ridiculous, as lets face it a football club isn't the same as any other business. But the original post is correct in my opinion, from a business perspective we are in a better positions than in 2007, and that is what SISU came in to do.
It's disappointing that the hardcore support has slipped to such a low level for a 'big club'... but we all know they'll all come back when we have a small amount of success, whether it is later in the season or in 10 years time...
No doubt they have made controversial decisions, no doubt some of their decisions have been ridiculous, as lets face it a football club isn't the same as any other business. But the original post is correct in my opinion, from a business perspective we are in a better positions than in 2007, and that is what SISU came in to do.
It's disappointing that the hardcore support has slipped to such a low level for a 'big club'... but we all know they'll all come back when we have a small amount of success, whether it is later in the season or in 10 years time...
With all that In mind Travs ,would you say a relegation was a desired component or just a Fluke?
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Everyone says Thorn was dire, in fairness he didn't want the job but SISU wanted him to have it, he had his squad cut...most predicted relegation.
just another way of distressing ACL...it is a possibility.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Indeed. Oh to turn back the clock.
Nick
Administrator
Most of the fans were calling for him to have it also. You could say they listened to fans.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
As one of the few who in 2007/2008 was saying be careful what you wish for I am not sure all things about the business are better.
Yes we making smaller losses
yes we are trying to live within our means
yes we are more cost saving driven
Yes we no longer have an expensive lease
Its a tighter ship to be run in terms of costs
Not in immediate danger of going out of business
slate wiped all but clean in 2007
all positives and better than 2007 certainly
against that we have
Lower league, and all that entails
less income with no immediate way to increase it
poorer quality squad - directly related to its funding
liabilities heading towards £50m with no real assets except Ryton to set against it
insufficient funds to repay the loans and interest
no security of tenure above 4 years maximum
a customer base that has been disconnected for many and wont return other than for big games
serious concerns as to whether CCFC is actually a going concern
I think what we have is a company that has jumped from one deep hole in to another deep hole with different circumstances. CCFC remains a basket case with no obvious or cheap way out of it. The one constant that remains is the lack of transparency in its dealings and with fans
Last edited:
text a manager?
Seems to me that the club will pay forever more for the debts run up in the Premiership years and the unsustainable way Richardson/Strachan ran things when they were 'taking a punt'. We witnessed some excellent players or at least those of us over 30 who could remember in the late 90's before it all went tits up. In view of how other cash strapped clubs have recovered from similar precarious situations { Southampton, Leicester, Stoke} it is obvious that in our hour of need we required a true backer with some serious money, certainly not a devious fortune seeker like Ranson and his hedge fund friends from Mayfair. Unless such a gambler arrives on his white charger then I fear that the Sky Blues will be consigned to a lower league life more akin to Bradford, Portsmouth or Peterborough.
Our only other hope is a manager who can work miracles with a low budget and if successful is given the increased revenue to continue to build with and make us more attractive to a prospective buyer. Currently though I just see a hedge fund trying to recoup previous lost investment wherever possible for a few more years and the clubs fans running out of hope.
Our only other hope is a manager who can work miracles with a low budget and if successful is given the increased revenue to continue to build with and make us more attractive to a prospective buyer. Currently though I just see a hedge fund trying to recoup previous lost investment wherever possible for a few more years and the clubs fans running out of hope.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
I reckon they royally screwed up on their risk assessments..
I suspect there may be more litigation round the corner..
Last edited by a moderator:
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
Reading all this thread and fans wonder why no one turns up and we get only 7k attendances?
Really?
Really?
Nick
Administrator
Why would this thread stop them?
Moff
Well-Known Member
I thought it was because the footballs poor, the squad is poor, our owners are crap, and the stadium has just been sold to a franchise by a local council who dont really seem to care about either their Rugby Team or Football club.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
All of whom have had considerable more success in last 10 years than CCFC and I would wager will have more success in the next 10 than us.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Or SISU did a great job distressing ACL but weren't proficient enough to realise that the price was at the bottom of cycle so when someone else was they pulled the rug from under SISU's feet and did a deal while SISU are still on their arse.
Not saying you're wrong I'm right by the way. Just point out that everything is far from black and white and very open to interpretation.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Aye, sure that Wasps will be suing whoever told them that Coventry was a sporting hotbed, and a license to make money with 28,000 crowds every home game.
Maybe it was Dongle?
It sure Is going to be weird when they rock up here In December ,maybe someone should do a guess the gate thread .
I'm thinking 1500 genuine Wasps fans taking advantage of free travel and having a day out, 1500 local Coventry rugby enthusiasts and rubber neckers and 500 from the wider Midlands community = Total 3500. Although Wasps may well spend a fair bit of money promoting and marketing this launch properly with offers and cheap tickets with giveaways etc. In fact as much as I despise what has happened I expect them to be 100% more professional and proactive than the idiotic amateurs we have running our football club.
Look out for billboards, newspaper adverts, promotions in schools, colleges and local rugby clubs !! This could all lead to a first bumper gate, whether it will last though is another thing, this is Coventry......when the bandwagon, freebies and cheap tickets fail to materialise next time, so will the supporters.
Look out for billboards, newspaper adverts, promotions in schools, colleges and local rugby clubs !! This could all lead to a first bumper gate, whether it will last though is another thing, this is Coventry......when the bandwagon, freebies and cheap tickets fail to materialise next time, so will the supporters.
Nick
Administrator
Free tickets you say? To local people? Let's not start that again!