a couple of days ago in another thread I wrote:
Someone asked how the rental was arrived at: in the final years at HR the lease plus costs was c£900,000. The cost of lease and licence at the Rioch followed that model. It was signed off by Robinson and Brannigan for the Club and Fletcher and McGuigan on behalf of ACL. It had been agreed by the Boards of both ACL and CCFC.
and it is BT who disrupt my internet connection without the need for anybody else's help.
The rent is fair. Can you argue against that by any means other than the misleading "league one average" delusion?
Not against accepting the lower, offer.
To listen to Torch, you would think ACL are ripping the club off and screwing us over by insisting on prompt payment of a contractually agreed rent.
If we allow fans like this, we are letting SISU off the hook from the criticism they deserve.
Yes, he's said that too. He has an unbelievable attitude towards the club he supports.
I'm not unhappy with a rent reduction - it is a very generous offer that clearly the club should accept.
What I am unhappy with, is our supporters living in delusion land by blaming other people/organisations for our own failings.
There is only one entity responsible for our current situation - SISU. Get them out now.
And I'm not in a world of my own, how the fuck dare you write that.
And what about fans like you who'd rather see the club go under?
So the previous regimes have no responsibility for the club's current problems? You think that before sisu came along we were in a good state, with better owners?
I'm not unhappy with a rent reduction - it is a very generous offer that clearly the club should accept.
What I am unhappy with, is our supporters living in delusion land by blaming other people/organisations for our own failings.
There is only one entity responsible for our current situation - SISU. Get them out now.
And I'm not in a world of my own, how the fuck dare you write that.
Should we at least make the revenue streams our fans generate at CCFC games?
Yes, 100-200k would make a difference, with the 808k reduction.
In any commercial negoation between 2 parties, when one side agrees a concession, the other side normally matches it in another way. There is normally a trade-off.
In this case, it seems to be ACL who are expected to make concessions, but SISU are not willing to make any. SISU are just demanding free money essenially, by asking for a big slice of a pie they do not own, for nothing in return.
Surely, on that basis, you can see why ACL are reluctant? What's in it for them?
The rent is fair. Can you argue against that by any means other than the misleading "league one average" delusion?
Not against accepting the lower, offer.
Nobody else on here defends Thorn so vociferously, wants the club to be wound up, thinks Jamaican internationals should play for England, or compares Thorn to Hill (a statement so ludicrous it's insulting to the latter). Those are just a few examples and I am not wrong in stating that you're the only person who carries such views.
You're also wrong to state that SISU are solely to blame for this mess-that mantle belongs to Richardson and McGinnity for a) racking up enormous debt only to get relegated, and b) selling our stake in ACL (which would have avoided all of this), to pay off said debt. It is they who ruined this club long before SISU even got close.
Your argument was flawed from the second ACL offered a 50% reduction, yet you still defend your untenable position.
Since you compare SISU to the Nazis, how about I make this comparison:
You're like a holocaust denier defending their position when it is quite clear the holocaust happened. Then, you, like David Irwin who'll say no one challenges him as his defence, yet is all to obvious to have happened! Face it pal, ACL even think the rent is too high and your 'defending' a position that doesn't exist.
Please post when I ever said I would like to see us go under.
I don't.
But I would be happy to run it close if that would get rid of SISU.
Your argument was flawed from the second ACL offered a 50% reduction, yet you still defend your untenable position.
Since you compare SISU to the Nazis, how about I make this comparison:
You're like a holocaust denier defending their position when it is quite clear the holocaust happened. Then, you, like David Irwin who'll say no one challenges him as his defence, yet is all to obvious to have happened! Face it pal, ACL even think the rent is too high and your 'defending' a position that doesn't exist.
AT did a good job with no support from the board, and didn't deserve the sack - he was the most popular CCFC manager I have ever known, for good reason (also see your Jimmy Hill reference)
I don't want the club to go under - I never said that. I just want SISU out and if the council have to get tough to do that, then so be it.
I hadn't realised that Englishman, English-born, English-raised Marlon King would be eligible for a foriegn nation, let alone play for them. Excuse my fucking ignorance
I didn't state that SISU are the only bad owners we have had - just that they are solely responsible, after 5 years of ownership, for the current situation.
Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo!
The current situation is that we have our bank account frozen because we have refused to pay rent for nigh on a year and have no access to F+B income. We pay rent and have no access to F+B income because we sold our stakeholding in ACL under McGinnity, to pay off debt incurred by 'let's have a punt' Richardson.
Therefore, the current situation is a direct consequence of those actions nearly 10 years ago. Get it?
So please enlighten us. What is the truth?
Agree with all that, but SISU have had 5 years to improve things and just made things worse - that's plenty of time, the fact we are in this situation is now is their fault alone.
I agree that they have contributed significantly to this mess CJ but I don't believe that it is entirely down to them. Richardson fecked this club over so much that even after more than a decade since he left, we are still feeling the effects of his tenure-this did not start with SISU. You are right to say that the way they have managed on and off field matters has been poor (and you'll see plenty of my posts on here in support of that), but to say it is entirely SISU to blame is inaccurate.
I agree that they have contributed significantly to this mess CJ but I don't believe that it is entirely down to them. Richardson fecked this club over so much that even after more than a decade since he left, we are still feeling the effects of his tenure-this did not start with SISU. You are right to say that the way they have managed on and off field matters has been poor (and you'll see plenty of my posts on here in support of that), but to say it is entirely SISU to blame is inaccurate.
Bryan Richardson is more culpable for our current plight than any other owner or person., including SISU. He is the source of it all.
We all know about the damage done by BR in particular - but I just think 5 years is enough time to put things right. Remember, when SISU arrived and they had a3 year plan for Premier League football? What happened to that? We all felt it was achievable at the time, so surely SISU must take the blame for the failure?
You're confusing SISU with Paul Fletcher on that 3 year plan. SISU take the blame for getting us another relegation, and the heavy decline in crowds as a result (which has led directly to a major drop in revenue). They do not, however, take the blame for signing the deal which lumbered us with having to pay rent on the ground with no access to matchday income, and as that is essentially why the current dispute exists, Richardson is the man to be blaming. Fisher has behaved totally unreasonably, and SISU have made huge mistakes on and off the pitch, but they are not the ones who signed away the rights we now crave.
Paul Fletcher was the most horrible slippery character going imo.
High flyer in the Ricoh project while it was being built and deals being signed, not a word out of him.
Lands himself a job at CCFC and all of a sudden the council should give away the stadium.
Once again Andy, I maintain that if SISU had been canny in 2007 when they were the only show in town to save CCFC then, they could have knocked a big chunk out of the rent back then, and still kept in everyone's good books.
if they had played it better, they could have agreed a better deal on the ground years ago.
If they hadn't alienated the shareholders, they might have been able to buy the Ricoh.
It's no accident that we are in 2013 and still with the 2005 Ricoh settlement - they have had years to change it. Sorry to keep repeating the same point, but it is very important. It's like governments who have been in office for years blaming the previous government for failings - after a while, that excuse stops working.
a couple of days ago in another thread I wrote:
Someone asked how the rental was arrived at: in the final years at HR the lease plus costs was c£900,000. The cost of lease and licence at the Rioch followed that model. It was signed off by Robinson and Brannigan for the Club and Fletcher and McGuigan on behalf of ACL. It had been agreed by the Boards of both ACL and CCFC.
and it is BT who disrupt my internet connection without the need for anybody else's help.
In any commercial negoation between 2 parties, when one side agrees a concession, the other side normally matches it in another way. There is normally a trade-off.
In this case, it seems to be ACL who are expected to make concessions, but SISU are not willing to make any. SISU are just demanding free money essenially, by asking for a big slice of a pie they do not own, for nothing in return.
Surely, on that basis, you can see why ACL are reluctant? What's in it for them?
Taken from twitter:
KevinReide (Kevin Reide)
#ccfc #pusb Arena Coventry Ltd who operate the Ricoh Arena, has just filed accounts showing profit of over one million pounds: £1,086,886
Can someone verify?
That's got to be a blow to CCFC, I wonder if they have recognised the rent owed or provided against it.
Why does taking up the option to buy the Charity shares get us immediate access to income streams ? The shares still only buy you the right to dividends - that hasnt changed, nor does it mean only paying half the rent
You would be better off simply buying the rights to income streams. The option is not really relevant
Also no one is going to jump in to acquire the shares come 2015 because the stakeholders will not sell to just anyones and who ever (whenever) they do then those purchases will need a proven track record relevant to the site together with significant funding to the whole project
This just shows that the Ricoh is no longer totally reliant on the club paying its rent. Hopefully this will make SiSU see the light and fook orf
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?