Not sure that works in a business though. The consequence of a poorly run business is it goes bust, and falls away (i.e. drops out the league). Forcibly 'rescuing' it leads to all kinds of issues really.As it stands right now we wouldn’t have. Things would have to change. Have some kind of system like Ofsted use when a school is being poorly ran. Send someone in to get it running properly, achieve the aim and find new owners who are willing to pay the figure set by an independent valuer. No points deductions or fines. Just remove the catalyst that’s causing the problem. If that had happened in the past there would be two or three clubs that would probably still be in the EFL now.
I’m saying they should act as a regulator. As Dave has said the ownership doesn’t care if we survive or not as long as they reach their aims (what those aims are is up for debate). If this is happening the club is poorly ran. The main focus of a football club’s owner should be serving the club’s community and the future sustainability of the club. What SISU are doing right now is hampering the future sustainability.
Exactly.If you went down the route you propose (which I don't necessarily disagree with philosophically) then the whole setup needs to change from business-oriented to club and community organisation oriented.
Don't get me wrong, it's absolutely what I think fans should start a movement *for* as it's the ideal, but that's the first battle... and it's a long and potentially futile one!Exactly.
It would need to somehow get every club from it's private / limited company type ownership and hand it over to some sort of trust / charitable organisation that have to abide by a set of rules. With the money involved in football how is that going to happen?
Don't get me wrong, it's absolutely what I think fans should start a movement *for* as it's the ideal, but that's the first battle... and it's a long and potentially futile one!
Only once football in this country changes could you even conceive of regulating in the way CJ suggests. As it stands, SISU have taken a risk, they're acting as a financial business and, like it or not (let's be honest, it's the not!) they're perfectly entitled to do so.
See, I totally disagree with that. Football has always seen clubs advance thanks to benefactors. We'd have been nowhere without the likes of David Cooke, for example.I'd be more than happy for every club to be on a level playing field and only spend the money it can generate it's self
Frankly if I were Wasps I'd risk the PR to eject a rival for support from the city.I think the commercial interests of Wasps will prevail and the point at which the terms for CCFC to stay at the Ricoh outweighs the costs and litigation risk will determine the outcome.
On the face of it Wasps could do with the extra cash, as they look like they are struggling to make their business model work. However, the subjective side of the equation is connected to the hassle that Sisu put them through, which is difficult to measure.
See, I totally disagree with that. Football has always seen clubs advance thanks to benefactors. We'd have been nowhere without the likes of David Cooke, for example.
What you do need is security they're actually benefactors mind you - not that they want the cash back at some stage or use it to hold a club to ransom.
If you think there is anyone running CCFC on a day to day basis who can snap their fingers and get the legal action stopped you're kidding yourself and sleepwalking towards, at best, another move out of the city.What you’ve said about those running the club not being involved in the court action simply isn’t true. For example who is the sole director of OEG and who is one of the organisations taking Wasps to court? All I’m saying is the first step should be for the court cases to end. If that happens there are no excuses, negotiations should start at that moment. For the good of the club they need to give it up. They’re the biggest problem right now.
How would you regulate that? You get Arsenal fans going nuts if they aren't in the top 6, do they get to kick out their owners? Don't see how it could ever work in practice.I’m saying they should act as a regulator. As Dave has said the ownership doesn’t care if we survive or not as long as they reach their aims (what those aims are is up for debate). If this is happening the club is poorly ran.
How would you regulate that? You get Arsenal fans going nuts if they aren't in the top 6, do they get to kick out their owners? Don't see how it could ever work in practice.
Is Otium being on the case to do with showing it is an injured party to be compensated?If Otium were removed from any court action, wouldnt that challenge that CCFC is taking action against Wasps.? Would that open up challenge to Wasps?
If Otium was removed from any court action would that stop "SISU" taking further action against Wasps or CCC? No they are entitled to take what action they choose to.
Any arrangement is between Wasps and Otium for usage of the stadium isnt it? not SBS&L or ARVO or SISU? Yes the owner on both sides has to sign off but legally speaking it is not a lease be it 1, 10 or 100 years between Wasps Holdings/ACL and SISU
Why does Otium (or even perhaps SBS&L) need to be included for "SISU" to be able to take legal action? What stops SISU removing Otium from the legals, especially when not apparently liable for any of the costs and no one from Otium involved (i dont agree that either is the case btw) Why not put in a clear buffer between Wasps and SISU by clearly removing Otium from legal actions? (SISU are not actually taking any action legally it is Otium/ SBS&L /ARVO be it they all appeared to be controlled by Seppala/ SISU Capital Ltd). Wouldnt that in its self challenge the Wasps position, give others something to use? Surely if CCFC is important to SISU they need to find ways to put pressure on Wasps that are not court action based
I dont think fans pressure will work on either side, didnt before and there is greater apathy than previously - takes more than a stern few words on a forum, expecting someone else to do it
Wouldn't taking Otium out of the case remove from Wasps their perception of the high ground? Could that stoke up our fans to protest easier (still have my reservations on fan action that doesnt mean it shouldnt be encouraged though)? Wouldnt that strengthen the CCFC hand? put pressure on CCC to get involved to pressure Wasps?
What drives Wasps stance has to be cashflow and breaking SISU's involvement isnt it? Are these weaknesses for them - most probably but not challenged much
The situation really has nothing to do with the well being of CCFC though, it is and always has been about the investment money that SISU are responsible for either as agents or principle. For fans to keep referring to doing the best for CCFC is i am afraid understandably misguided.
Wasps having a 250 year lease does not stop CCFC/Otium having say a 100 year lease at the stadium. A move that would create value in CCFC/Otium accounts and Wasps accounts. Could such a long term agreement make (a) CCFC more saleable and (b) maintain the lease value bond security for Wasps?
Not in anyones interest for CCFC not to be at the Ricoh next year. Also there is the need to maintain a connection to the stadium that is important to both clubs should the thinking be SISU will sell out at some point
Why do the papers never ask the question of Wasps "you did it last year why not this" or "do you not think this will damage your reputation in the city if CCFC are not playing at the Ricoh" or "how will not having CCFC playing at the Ricoh affect your finances" etc
The EFL would not take the actions mentioned they simply could not afford it in this case let alone setting precedents in others. The EFL runs a competition and so long as that competition is safe in general terms then there is no real incentive to act.
Yes Wasps need to be challenged, but so too SISU. Both sides are equally important to the solution. Seems to me that Wasps get little challenge but equally SISU provide much of the cover for them to hide behind. If the CCFC owners focussed more on CCFC than investors then they might position things differently. A lot of what is going on is all semantics - all in the perception and positioning of statements/actions
I think both sides are so entrenched that no real solution will be found, other than a more expensive 1 year deal for CCFC - and the merry go round starts again next year.
As it stands right now we wouldn’t have. Things would have to change. Have some kind of system like Ofsted use when a school is being poorly ran. Send someone in to get it running properly, achieve the aim and find new owners who are willing to pay the figure set by an independent valuer. No points deductions or fines. Just remove the catalyst that’s causing the problem. If that had happened in the past there would be two or three clubs that would probably still be in the EFL now.
Yes please.Should they be booted out the rugby premier league?
Wasps Holdings debts are in excess of their assets. Congratulations to Coventry City Council for securing the future of the arena!Wasps finances are rapidly beginning to look like ours. They now have from what I see £18m owed to Richardson
Should they be booted out the rugby premier league?
Wasps Holdings debts are in excess of their assets. Congratulations to Coventry City Council for securing the future of the arena!
Have Wasps got the financial; pulling power of Man Utd?Man Utd has €200m net debt, in excess of their assets, FYI.
Debt isn't necessarily a bad thing in business, or in normal life. If you take out a mortgage, you have more debt than assets if you're including interest over the term.
No obviously not. Just trying to get across that debt isn't necessarily a negative, so pinning hopes on that isn't wise.Have Wasps got the financial; pulling power of Man Utd?
No obviously not. Just trying to get across that debt isn't necessarily a negative, so pinning hopes on that isn't wise.
Besides, financial accounts have a knack of hiding issues. For example from the very brief look of the accounts, it hasn't even mentioned a key risk is that of ongoinh litigation.
And you and the person who has given you a like are prepared to do that are you?
A typically predictable response from someone who supports the Herods Baby mantra
I knew they used to sell exotic animals but that's a bit extreme.
I always say Herod but I meant the King Solomon fable - and yes a lot of our fans suffer from the same absurd belief
That makes perfect sense now you corrected it.
*Best ask Google*
On going litigation is hardly a major factor. The accounts show half a million was spent on this.
Oh yeah, the ongoing litigation of an attempt to seize control of the Ricoh from them (their main asset) isn't a huge factor.
I'll just nod and smile at you, Grendel.
How does it actually impact the accounts in a financial year?
Explain
No explanation is required, really, is it.
I'll bite though and explain in layman's terms. If they lost the litigation they could lose the asset and be liable for costs. Do you not think that is material to the company's financials?
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?