Would You Still Go ? (4 Viewers)

martcov

Well-Known Member
Doesn't make a difference does it? What happens if the OAP used to be a lawyer and should know better?

It doesn't make it excusable like some try to does it?

Of course when SISU came in they should have played hardball in terms of rent and revenues BUT it doesn't excuse the fact it was extortionate in the first place does it?

It was agreed in the first place by both sides - after the council had stepped in to Save the project. The New Stadium was CCFCs idea. Then they screwed up.
 

Nick

Administrator
It was agreed in the first place by both sides - after the council had stepped in to Save the project. The New Stadium was CCFCs idea. Then they screwed up.
Did ccfc have much choice?

I'm just going to find a homeless.bloke, make out I'm a savior but I'm charging him silly amounts of rent for helping him, I'm also taking all his wages from the job I helped him get...

Oaps agree to buying 5k burglar alarms that cost 300 quid, that ok too? I'd agree to hand over my wallet if somebody had a gun to my head, that fault too?
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
"We" surely? Anyway, they had us over a barrel.

It was agreed in the first place by both sides - after the council had stepped in to Save the project. The New Stadium was CCFCs idea. Then they screwed up.
 

albatross

Well-Known Member
But we had a home, Highfield Road. The club chose to sell it , lease it back and start the RICOH project which they then in turn could not fund.

Every other business would have been left to their own devices but due to CCFC's place in the fabric of the city CCC and Higgs stepped in.

We made ourselves homeless, Twice Now by my reckoning
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
We've learnt a hard lesson, be thankful for what you've got. We had Highfield Road and should have stayed there.

But we had a home, Highfield Road. The club chose to sell it , lease it back and start the RICOH project which they then in turn could not fund.

Every other business would have been left to their own devices but due to CCFC's place in the fabric of the city CCC and Higgs stepped in.

We made ourselves homeless, Twice Now by my reckoning
 

Nick

Administrator
But we had a home, Highfield Road. The club chose to sell it , lease it back and start the RICOH project which they then in turn could not fund.

Every other business would have been left to their own devices but due to CCFC's place in the fabric of the city CCC and Higgs stepped in.

We made ourselves homeless, Twice Now by my reckoning
Yes, the previous regime have a big part to pay in it too. Such is what I mean when People go on about it being 100% sisus fault etc etc.
 

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
Did ccfc have much choice?

I'm just going to find a homeless.bloke, make out I'm a savior but I'm charging him silly amounts of rent for helping him, I'm also taking all his wages from the job I helped him get...

First of all though set up a company and gift him 50% of it so that he can benefit from all the revenues earned from his brand new home, including the silly amounts of rent.

Hopefully he won't do something short sighted, like sell it.
 

Nick

Administrator
First of all though set up a company and gift him 50% of it so that he can benefit from all the revenues earned from his brand new home, including the silly amounts of rent.

Hopefully he won't do something short sighted, like sell it.

He probably will need to sell it to afford the rent though....
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Are people really trying to justify that the rent wasn't far too high? You couldn't make it up...


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

albatross

Well-Known Member
Yes, the previous regime have a big part to pay in it too. Such is what I mean when People go on about it being 100% sisus fault etc etc.

No. SISU are the architect of our current position. No matter the mismanagement of past regimes they knew all that when they took it on. Had much if not all of the Debt written off. All shares handed over. Guarantees for payment of Rent included from the previous directors.

Oh and 7 years to put a plan in place.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
My thoughts exactly. Despite the whys and wherefores fans of the club should be outraged that we were ripped off by ACL and CCC. They should be outraged at Richardson for selling our home of 100+ years. They should be outraged that the custodians of the club signed up to such as constricting and ultimately destructive rental agreement. But no, they'd rather talk about SISUs lack of due dilligence. Yes, that is also an important part of our disastrous story, but certainly not as important as what went on before.

Still, SISU OUT!, eh?

Are people really trying to justify that the rent wasn't far too high? You couldn't make it up...


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

Jack Griffin

Guest
Did ccfc have much choice?

I'm just going to find a homeless.bloke, make out I'm a savior but I'm charging him silly amounts of rent for helping him, I'm also taking all his wages from the job I helped him get...

Oaps agree to buying 5k burglar alarms that cost 300 quid, that ok too? I'd agree to hand over my wallet if somebody had a gun to my head, that fault too?

What a ridiculous analogy.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
But we had a home, Highfield Road. The club chose to sell it , lease it back and start the RICOH project which they then in turn could not fund.

Every other business would have been left to their own devices but due to CCFC's place in the fabric of the city CCC and Higgs stepped in.

We made ourselves homeless, Twice Now by my reckoning

Swansea and Nottingham forest are but two examples of clubs in financial peril saved by their respective councils who had a long term vision for those clubs and creating a platform for success.
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
My thoughts exactly. Despite the whys and wherefores fans of the club should be outraged that we were ripped off by ACL and CCC. They should be outraged at Richardson for selling our home of 100+ years. They should be outraged that the custodians of the club signed up to such as constricting and ultimately destructive rental agreement. But no, they'd rather talk about SISUs lack of due dilligence. Yes, that is also an important part of our disastrous story, but certainly not as important as what went on before.

Still, SISU OUT!, eh?

So I can mark you down for an I
heart-small-icon.png
SISU
tee shirt can I?
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
If the silly rent was only 10% of his costs, then it would probably be better if he cut down on something else in the first instance.

They did, the wage bill and transfer budget, that's why we got relegated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 
Last edited:

albatross

Well-Known Member
Come the start of next season we will have bee at the RICOH for 10 years , CCC were supporting this project for a couple of years before we moved , i's sure someone will know the exact dates.

I think a 10 year involvement could be classed as long term vision, just the club and successive management regimes have not delivered on their part.

There is also some debate about the legality of Swansea CC effectively subsidising a business over an above what they are allowed to do in law. Don't know about NFFC but they did not redevelop the city ground into houses.
 
Last edited:

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
No, put me down for a I Hate CCC, ACL, SISU, Richardson, McGinnity, PWKH, Fisher one.

So I can mark you down for an I
heart-small-icon.png
SISU
tee shirt can I?
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
No, put me down for a I Hate CCC, ACL, SISU, Richardson, McGinnity, PWKH, Fisher one.

Errr.. could you think of a snappier logo, that typeface would be awful small, how about..

I f****ing hate EVERYTHING!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
If the silly rent was only 10% of his costs, then it would probably be better if he cut down on something else in the first instance.

Such a false statement. It may well have been only 10% of costs.. but no one ever relates % of revenue do they, as it tells a significantly different story.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Such a false statement. It may well have been only 10% of costs.. but no one ever relates % of revenue do they, as it tells a significantly different story.

Exactly - 10% of costs is not any measure you would apply. You would look at % of revenue and in particular match day revenue. The percentage was far far higher.
 

Nick

Administrator
Are people really trying to justify that the rent wasn't far too high? You couldn't make it up...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
I think they acknowledge the high rent but it wasn't the council's fault, because the club agreed to it, whilst bent over a barrel.

So that makes it sisus fault.

The same as I bought as car that had been used in an arm Robbery ten years ago so it was clearly me who did it.
 

Covfather

Member
If we go down this season then i'm out, will not get a season ticket and maybe pick the odd game. I've had a season ticket since 84 and have only missed a season due to Northampton move.
 

Nick

Administrator
If we go down this season then i'm out, will not get a season ticket and maybe pick the odd game. I've had a season ticket since 84 and have only missed a season due to Northampton move.
Again if we went down I think sisu would need a pr transplant
 

RFC

Well-Known Member
If we go down this season then i'm out, will not get a season ticket and maybe pick the odd game. I've had a season ticket since 84 and have only missed a season due to Northampton move.


I don't make any major decisions about next season in January whatever Division we're likely to be in. PUSB!
 

Noggin

New Member
I think they acknowledge the high rent but it wasn't the council's fault, because the club agreed to it, whilst bent over a barrel.

So that makes it sisus fault.

The same as I bought as car that had been used in an arm Robbery ten years ago so it was clearly me who did it.

The rent was high but it needed to be high to make ACL viable, it wasn't the case that acl and ccc were ripping off ccfc who were over a barrel. The club were being bailed out, the only way it was possible to bail them out was with high rent, it was a shit situation and it was the best option at the time. It clearly did become the case once acl were fully established that it was in everyone's best interests for the rent to be reduced and while sisus methods were scummy it produced results unfortunately they didn't take the very fair rent and chose to run the club into the ground instead.

We've lent money to our sister in law at 5%, you can say well I can borrow on my mortgage at 2% so thats a rip off, but we arn't ripping her off, we've had to borrow money at 6.9% to lend it to her and we could have lent the money to someone else at 20%, this is the sort of thing that happened with acl. The only way the club could get what they needed was for them to pay a rent high enough to pay for the costs and loan that acl had to take out.

You and Toorch haven't half posted some nonsense over the last few pages.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
The rent was high but it needed to be high to make ACL viable

If CCFC were essentially solely responsible for ensuring ACL could meet their financial commitments shouldn't they also have had some, if not all the benefit?

If I build a block of 10 flats I don't charge the first person to move in 10 times the going rate for one flat just in case nobody else moves in!
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Ha! At least you've admitted it. So Lucas was lying when she said that ACL were fine without the club? 9% of the business I think was quoted.

So if I open a sweet shop and sell my Mars bars for a £100 a time then I would be more than viable, wouldn't I? Thanks Lord Sugar.

The rent was high but it needed to be high to make ACL viable
 
Last edited:

M&B Stand

Well-Known Member
The one thing that I can't fathom (well there's more than one but still) is why SISU didn't allow us to go into administration when they took over? Then just pick thru the bones of what was left and take it from there. Not agree daft rent and repayment clauses to Robinson.
Anyone the wiser?
 

Broken Hearted Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Why obviously more for the Ricoh? At HR we got 365 access to all revenues generated by the stadium, at the Ricoh we got no revenues. Hardly comparable is it?



Final years is the key bit there. As I recall the lease on HR increased the longer we stayed there as a penalty of sorts. As we ended up staying a lot longer than originally envisaged due to the delays with the Arena2000 project the lease increased. In any case who decided that was a good way to set the rent? One was a short term lease and the other was supposed to be permanent. Shouldn't other stadium rentals have been looked at and a market rate established?

just how much was the remaining 340 odd days revenue a t Highfield Road worth? Any figure above nothing would do.
 

Noggin

New Member
If CCFC were essentially solely responsible for ensuring ACL could meet their financial commitments shouldn't they also have had some, if not all the benefit?

If I build a block of 10 flats I don't charge the first person to move in 10 times the going rate for one flat just in case nobody else moves in!

what benefit? the money was being used to pay off the loan that was only needed because ccfc were in trouble. if acl or ccfc were making a profit you'd have a point but they were not in fact it's quite clearly been a big loss at least for higgs. if you are down millions of pounds from an enterprise you were only in for someone elses benefit you were clearly not ripping them off.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top