An outline idea for a change of CCFC ownership (9 Viewers)

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

CCFC were never, ever in danger of being a franchise.. yet you led protests against the club being removed from it's home city - and rightly so.

Yet when Wasps do the same you seem to ignore that they have done exactly the same to their original fanbase... but now you fully support it.

Assuming you cite the financial case for Wasps moving to Coventry - then your opposition against us going to Sixfields was misplaced, as we now have a better deal at the Ricoh deal than we had before we went.

At least be honest if Waps had moved to Nottingham or anywhere else you wouldn't have cared and if asked about it you'd have said its rugby nothing to do with us.

 

---

[Steve.B50]

What do you want me to do?
I like Rugby
Do not gave a shit what a few of you think.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Of course it is a franchise, they had a choice too.

When a prem team get shipped in it would be ok too?

Nothing we could do about sixfields but look at what happened to people who went to watch there...


Why is it always about minority and majority? Can't people think for themselves?

What is going to happen when coventry move to Nuneaton to survive, will you be backing that too? Of course not, because rugby is different...

Of course its different

 

[Nick]

What do you want me to do?
I like Rugby
Do not gave a shit what a few of you think.

Yes and people love ccfc... They watched them at sixfields and got called selfish, spineless etc...

It is going against everything the trust did back then, I can take being called a spineless scab as long as the people saying it to me don't go and do exactly the same thing but to watch a team they have no affiliation to whereas I was watching the team I support.

 

[Ian1779]

At least be honest if Waps had moved to Nottingham or anywhere else you wouldn't have cared and if asked about it you'd have said its rugby nothing to do with us.

I may not have cared to be fair... but franchising is franchising. It doesn't stop thousands and thousands of people hating MK Dons because it didn't happen to them.

 

[Steve.B50]

Yes and people love ccfc... They watched them at sixfields and got called selfish, spineless etc...

I got called a lot worse.
one of the reasons I stayed on hill every week was due to the few who gave me hassle.
Yes I did feel a lack of compassion for those who went in at first but that changed when I was able to talk and discuss the situation with some of them.
what annoyed me was those who swore they would never enter the place, yet they used to scurry past us with heads bowed.
I remember one lady who gave me so much stick and shouted at us that we were not real fans and that we were scum, just made me more determined to be there.

 

[Nick]

I got called a lot worse.
one of the reasons I stayed on hill every week was due to the few who gave me hassle.
Yes I did feel a lack of compassion for those who went in at first but that changed when I was able to talk and discuss the situation with some of them.
what annoyed me was those who swore they would never enter the place, yet they used to scurry past us with heads bowed.
I remember one lady who gave me so much stick and shouted at us that we were not real fans and that we were scum, just made me more determined to be there.

And I agree that was out of order also, I remember I said fair play every game I went to for the people on the hill being there whatever weather. Yes they might not have agreed with me, I might not have agreed with them but they were always there.

There was the begging of other fans to sign our petition, then a board member saying they couldn't give a shit about wasps fans. Another saying they don't care where wasps came from...

Then if people go to watch city in Nuneaton they are sad and selfish.... but go to the press saying how the wasps much better than our game.

But it was people who went to sixfields who were selfish???

So it annoys you people saying one thing but doing another?? See how that feels after you have had people have a go at you for doing one thing and then they do the same.


What's worse I can understand why people disagreed with me for going to sixfields, but some seem oblivious to the whole wasps thing and why people may think it's strange.

 

[Steve.B50]

If I were not on the Trust Board would it make any difference?

my time ends in the Summer then some other mug can take the crap, till then I am going to carry on going to any Rugby games I want,that includes Cov RFC and Wasps.
however, the City still comes first.

You are all welcome to stand at the board elections, because I know I will not be doing so.

 

[Nick]

If I were not on the Trust Board would it make any difference?

my time ends in the Summer then some other mug can take the crap, till then I am going to carry on going to any Rugby games I want,that includes Cov RFC and Wasps.
however, the City still comes first.

You are all welcome to stand at the board elections, because I know I will not be doing so.

I'm not saying that anybody goes to wasps isn't a city fan or anything like that.

Can you really not understand why people would think it is strange though?

 

[Steve.B50]

Lots of little things annoy me.
like swearing, or those on these forums who hide there identities.
we all have to live with things we do not like or cannot do anything about.

 

[Nick]

Lots of little things annoy me.
like swearing, or those on these forums who hide there identities.
we all have to live with things we do not like or cannot do anything about.

But you can't see why people strange that you have this attitude now after sixfields?

It's like Michael coming out and saying he trusts sisu

 

[covmark]

Your'e right hes on the board of a football club trust not rugby,ice hockey,bowls,curling or any other sport. Now if you're that bothered then start a Wasps Trust.

What in gods name are you bumbling on about now.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Firstly, fair play for at least trying to come up with solutions. Personally I'd be more for a small number of monied owners, and fan investment (in the emotional sense as much as anything) rather than fan ownership.

Specifically, I don't think your idea can run for a few reasons:

1) Deferred payment. No reason for SISU to accept this. It's a stick been tried before and, as SISU themselves know after getting the club from Robinson, you may as well write off a deferred payment as a zero.

2) Campaign if they refuse to accept. Smacks of bullying. Again, not likely to get them onside. Whether we like the owners or not, to get the club off them means working with them... even if it's to that end. They have form for digging their heels in when set in opposition, so I'd suggest this is counter-productive,

3) The risk of a short term loan against gate expectation. Worryingly like SISU borrowing against Season Ticket sales. Am not confident the bump would be as you expect. Gillingham drop-off suggests limited long term interest

However, it is at least an attempted solution that attempts to look forward, rather than the looking back...

Just thinking aloud on a Sunday afternoon really but as there seems near universal agreement that we won't progress under sisu but that just saying 'sisu out' won't bring about change here are some thoughts on an outline idea as to how to bring about a change of ownership - certainly not a detailed action plan - and I'll live in hope of other people filling in the gaps and some reasoned debate!


1. Set up a Community Interest Company called something like 'Coventry City Interim' (CCI) whose aim would be to secure ownership of CCFC from sisu and transition to a new ownership model to benefit the community. 2. Tell sisu if they hand over CCFC debt free to CCI they will get a lump sum payment when we get promoted to the Championship and a further lump sum when we get promoted to the Premier League, the combined total far exceeding what they are able to take out of CCFC at the moment [rough figures are easy to work out but someone might want to work it out in more detail - might even be able to chuck in a small immediate sweetener].
3. If sisu refuse the offer, it is left on the table but a full scale sisu out campaign is launched (the sixfields campaign was a huge success, sisu's weak spots are well known so the tactics aren't rocket science - and they don't require pitch invasions)
4. sisu finally see sense and accept the offer so ownership of CCFC passes to the interim company.
5. The interim financing of the club would be down to fans ie with sisu gone nopm-ers would be under pressure to return and buy season tickets. A simple approach would be to have pledges and even deposits in place against which a short-term loan would be available from sympathetic parties.
6. CCI then calls for bids for CCFC knowing that a supporters' share scheme would raise as much as somewhere like Portsmouth and that there are a fair few local business people who would be willing to invest sums of around half a million each.
7. The new ownership model takes over CCFC.


8. With new momentum behind CCFC and strong popular support, negotiations with Wasps about securing income streams for CCFC and profits to be made from the Ricoh would begin from a position of strength (and having forced the Ricoh return and sisu out, Wasps would be wise at that point to listen very carefully!)

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Also, why an interim stage? Surely that costs money and any deal can be made direct with SISU, rather than this interim buffer?

Only reason for the buffer would be, surely, if the ultimate owners included people SISU refuse to work with. In which case, that needs being up front with at the start so it could be dealt with in whatever way appropriate.

 

[MichaelCCFC]

Also, why an interim stage? Surely that costs money and any deal can be made direct with SISU, rather than this interim buffer?

Only reason for the buffer would be, surely, if the ultimate owners included people SISU refuse to work with. In which case, that needs being up front with at the start so it could be dealt with in whatever way appropriate.

Thx NW - having just read some of the posts preceding yours, not entirely sure what's happened to this thread! Will respond properly to your points tomorrow as bit wearied.

 

[lewys33]

Nice thinking Michael, whilst the basis of the idea is a good one, I think it is a non-starter.

I am not going to offer any other comments though, because quite simply I have lost interest and can't be arsed. Also NW has already made some good comments.

 

[oldskyblue58]

1. Set up a Community Interest Company called something like 'Coventry City Interim' (CCI) whose aim would be to secure ownership of CCFC from sisu and transition to a new ownership model to benefit the community.
2. Tell sisu if they hand over CCFC debt free to CCI they will get a lump sum payment when we get promoted to the Championship and a further lump sum when we get promoted to the Premier League, the combined total far exceeding what they are able to take out of CCFC at the moment [rough figures are easy to work out but someone might want to work it out in more detail - might even be able to chuck in a small immediate sweetener].
3. If sisu refuse the offer, it is left on the table but a full scale sisu out campaign is launched (the sixfields campaign was a huge success, sisu's weak spots are well known so the tactics aren't rocket science - and they don't require pitch invasions)
4. sisu finally see sense and accept the offer so ownership of CCFC passes to the interim company.
5. The interim financing of the club would be down to fans ie with sisu gone nopm-ers would be under pressure to return and buy season tickets. A simple approach would be to have pledges and even deposits in place against which a short-term loan would be available from sympathetic parties.
6. CCI then calls for bids for CCFC knowing that a supporters' share scheme would raise as much as somewhere like Portsmouth and that there are a fair few local business people who would be willing to invest sums of around half a million each.
7. The new ownership model takes over CCFC.
8. With new momentum behind CCFC and strong popular support, negotiations with Wasps about securing income streams for CCFC and profits to be made from the Ricoh would begin from a position of strength (and having forced the Ricoh return and sisu out, Wasps would be wise at that point to listen very carefully!)

Firstly cant fault you Michael for at least trying to suggest a solution. We need to look forward not keep going round and round in ever decreasing circles like so many seem to enjoy doing.

Not sure how it works in reality though
1) whilst SISU are to many the current problem what if they were to "sell" to a n other surely some form/element of fans ownership is still desirable. If it is don't focus on SISU out at all. Just to be clear I do not see in the current regulatory set up for football that 100% or even 51% ownership actually works the higher up the leagues you go. Fans own 25% at Swansea and their set up works but originally the club they bought in to did not as I understand it have anything like the debts CCFC have. Bottom line is that costs go up out of step with incomes the higher you go and additional working capital finance is necessary from wealthy investors - the trade for that is giving up control. CCFC have no assets to secure anything on

2) I don't think you can "tell" any owner to do this or that especially not SISU. I agree with NW if you are offering payment on the chance of future success then it will be time limited and in all probability worthless. Why wouldn't SISU just let CCFC float around in L1 taking a return when cash flow allows, isn't that better than nothing at all.

3) What would the SISU out campaign be that could make such a difference. Surely if the team were successful (which is the prime interest of most fans) then any pressure point is weakened and any campaign less effective. These owners are not nor never have been in it for the love of football or the gratitude of the fans

4) see sense? Well from their point of view everything they have done so far makes sense to them. What you are asking is for them to see the sense the fans see/want, it isn't going to happen unless it suits SISU first and foremost. I also don't see why the need for an interim company unless it gives other investors some anonymity which would frankly make me suspicious of their motives

5) ticket sales are not going to massively increase because SISU are gone there may be some effect but the greatest effect is the team winning in terms of crowd numbers. If you are relying on fans monies what about the months of May June & July when there is precious little income but still wages and overheads to pay? Frankly I do not see how you pressure people to return and part with their money - going to football is a choice not a civic duty (although some would look to convince otherwise)

6) It all seems a bit long winded to be honest. With no disrespect intended there is no one I have come across in the various fans groups that I would see running or controlling CCFC

7) momentum comes from the team on the pitch in this city. Would CCFC raise similar amounts to Pompey? I have my doubts. Given the toxic nature of CCFC over the last decade are there that many individuals or businesses willing to risk large sums on a business they do not control?

8) I would suggest that to get some worth potential a close involvement with Wasps at the Ricoh or someone who could provide certainty of a stadium build needs to be negotiated much earlier. Also what gives such a position of strength? - from what you describe I am not sure I see any great strength or certainty

But I think it falls down firstly on the debt - it is there for a purpose and SISU are not going to write it off or gift it away. Secondly on the need for considerable working capital.

Just some of my thoughts on your proposition. These things are worth discussing though Michael

 

[MichaelCCFC]

Also, why an interim stage? Surely that costs money and any deal can be made direct with SISU, rather than this interim buffer?

Only reason for the buffer would be, surely, if the ultimate owners included people SISU refuse to work with. In which case, that needs being up front with at the start so it could be dealt with in whatever way appropriate.

Am rushed today so apols this is not a full answer but tbh I'd turn this round and say that ownership of ccfc for the last two decades has been a disaster, our current owners have no interest in football success, are not investing, have set the club up on the basis of being able to liquidate at short notice etc etc - so ffs do we not need a new approach?

I also like this graphic which reflects my experience and why wanting a guaranteed solution before taking a first step is not how the real world works

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I don't think that anybody denies that our owners over that period have been useless.

And no, I agree, a new approach is no bad thing. Stimulating debate on it is a good thing, in fact, as even if we disagree, it at least tries to push forwards rather than looking back. What's done is done, we are where we are (and other trite phrases).

But this interim stage baffles me. Its sole purpose seems to be, to get the club off SISU but... why not the ultimate owners do this direct?

At the base level, an interim stage costs money that needn't be spent. You'd need a fair wedge given to solicitors and auditors to sell a football club, I'd presume - the general admin in itself would be pretty horrendous.

So why do it twice?

I don't really understand what this interim period gains, other than to not reveal the ultimate owners to SISU. And that doesn't exactly move away from the idea of secretive owners. Why can't the ultimate owners be up front from the start, if it's a new approach?

Am rushed today so apols this is not a full answer but tbh I'd turn this round and say that ownership of ccfc for the last two decades has been a disaster, our current owners have no interest in football success, are not investing, have set the club up on the basis of being able to liquidate at short notice etc etc - so ffs do we not need a new approach?

I also like this graphic which reflects my experience and why wanting a guaranteed solution before taking a first step is not how the real world works


View attachment 4025View attachment 4025

 

[MichaelCCFC]

I don't think that anybody denies that our owners over that period have been useless.

And no, I agree, a new approach is no bad thing. Stimulating debate on it is a good thing, in fact, as even if we disagree, it at least tries to push forwards rather than looking back. What's done is done, we are where we are (and other trite phrases).

But this interim stage baffles me. Its sole purpose seems to be, to get the club off SISU but... why not the ultimate owners do this direct?

At the base level, an interim stage costs money that needn't be spent. You'd need a fair wedge given to solicitors and auditors to sell a football club, I'd presume - the general admin in itself would be pretty horrendous.

So why do it twice?

I don't really understand what this interim period gains, other than to not reveal the ultimate owners to SISU. And that doesn't exactly move away from the idea of secretive owners. Why can't the ultimate owners be up front from the start, if it's a new approach?

Sorry, NW, I should have responded to this but having seen how the positive thread about Swansea went, I'm losing the will to live. My despair was compounded at lunchtime today when I went to the club shop. I was the only customer. Friday before a Monday home game and I was the only person in the whole place. Seemed to sum up the state of all things ccfc. So clearly no need at all for us to act like Swansea or Pompey fans and try to do something about our situation - let's just endlessly repeat the tired and irrelevant old lines about ccc/sisu/sixfields/higgs and all the rest of it. That'll do the trick!

 

[Sick Boy]

Lots of little things annoy me.
like swearing, or those on these forums who hide there identities.
we all have to live with things we do not like or cannot do anything about.

I see that you completely dodged the quse ti on there.

 

[oldbloke]

I see that you completely dodged the quse ti on there.

Heres a good one for you that I got told last night. One of the people pushing Monday protest on twitter is called David Johnson who calls himself La Martyr or something like that. He may not be the organizer but he is big in favour of it. The Trust website says they are not involved in this protest and dont not know who is involved. But them minutes I posted before say at the next scg they will be represented by someone called David Johnson. Its gotta be the same bloke. So he’s on twitter saying sisu out then will be at the scg as trust rep pretending they want a good relationship with sisu. PMSL

 

[Nick]

Heres a good one for you that I got told last night. One of the people pushing Monday protest on twitter is called David Johnson who calls himself La Martyr or something like that. He may not be the organizer but he is big in favour of it. The Trust website says they are not involved in this protest and dont not know who is involved. But them minutes I posted before say at the next scg they will be represented by someone called David Johnson. Its gotta be the same bloke. So he’s on twitter saying sisu out then will be at the scg as trust rep pretending they want a good relationship with sisu. PMSL

Thats what I really don't get

Can't shout abuse at somebody then moan when they don't talk to you, can you?

 

[Bennets Afro]

If the organsisers are going the SCG meeting then the opportunity to speak to the club is there

 

[The Gentleman]

Heres a good one for you that I got told last night. One of the people pushing Monday protest on twitter is called David Johnson who calls himself La Martyr or something like that. He may not be the organizer but he is big in favour of it. The Trust website says they are not involved in this protest and dont not know who is involved. But them minutes I posted before say at the next scg they will be represented by someone called David Johnson. Its gotta be the same bloke. So he’s on twitter saying sisu out then will be at the scg as trust rep pretending they want a good relationship with sisu. PMSL

Might be and then again there are 97 listed names of Johnson in the phonebook with god knows how many people living in those households. Mind you, nothing like a good conspiracy theory on here.

 

[Ian1779]

Might be and then again there are 97 listed names of Johnson in the phonebook with god knows how many people living in those households. Mind you, nothing like a good conspiracy theory on here.

It is the same person on this occasion.