Osb - how can sisu's actions reflect on ccfc?
more to do with trust in any future working relationship Pete.
You only have to look how opinions have been polarised here then relate that to people directly involved. It isnt necessarily about the financial things it is about working relationships going forward. For example in the past the club have been cut a lot of slack when payments have been late, that has helped the club - will that happen in the same way in the future, doubtful. Or rooms and facilities have been made available (i would guess at nil cost sometimes) will that happen in future ? (yes I know we paid a big rent but that was for specific not additional usage). Trust works both ways though and I would guess CCFC/SISU have real concerns themselves.
ACL will quite rightly from their perspective look to be even less reliant on CCFC for income. First off if they drop the rent then they need new sources of income, but from their point of view they can no longer trust they are going to be paid. CCFC will become less important to them and as such any decisions will be tempered by that. If they cant trust on payment how can they trust on an interest in the stadium ?
From CCFC's point of view they have repeatedly said that ground ownership is essential for the viability of the club. From what has gone on I get the impression that it will be a very long time before the stakeholders sell on to CCFC if it involves their current owners. Where does that leave CCFC - will it still get SISU's support ? Is there no choice ? At what point do SISU say enough or is it still based as some think on "operation premiership". As a club with all that gone on does the Ricoh feel less of a home?
I want to be clear about something - The costs of CCFC the business needed and still need to be addressed. From that point of view what TF and SISU have been doing in the general business sense is absolutely correct. We have to live within our means. I have never had an argument against that. But it means all costs, and taking decisions that do not add in hundreds of thousands of new ones (who do we think is paying for all the professional/legal expenses for example, how much interest is being paid to ARVO etc ) Not everything that SISU have done is wrong. My opinion is that the confrontation on the rent might end up shooting CCFC in the foot.
As an accountant I understand that business relies on the finances but i also recognise that successful business relies on strong business relationships, and in something like the Ricoh set up it relies on a strong business partnership between the main characters. We simply do not have that any more. We have ACL stakeholders who have probably got a lot closer in their relationship vs CCFC. Not how it should be.
Did it have to be this way - no. CCFC will have gained a reduced rent which is a big plus - could it have been done without the confrontation - we will never know but it wasnt impossible. Instead bridges have been burnt. I would have thought that it was a good thing to keep the local council on side. I would have thought it might be a good thing to keep the Charity on side especially when the charity owns the site where the academy is based. We should expect Council & Charity to be pragmatic in their future approach but there is bound to be decisions taken influenced by what has gone on.
Just think that there are some less tangible things than a saving of the rent that have been damaged by the whole affair.
But just my opinion
