Back to being the biggest club in Coventry? (36 Viewers)

stupot07 · Dec 28, 2015

italiahorse said:
Wycombe didn't share their ambitions when they rejected the new stadium.
They nearly went out of business there as well only 2 years ago.
Ricoh was worth the risk and unfortunately we loose out thanks to Sisu poor management.

Sisu's poor management, the councils and Higgs spite and stubbornness and Wasps ruthlessness.

Wasps had plenty of opportunities to build in London, could have bought Upton Park, could have build with Brentford. They chose not to. And them lied to their fans about Coventry or no club. And their thick fans bought it, and the bandwagon jumpers like you bought it too.

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

italiahorse · Dec 28, 2015

stupot07 said:
Sisu's poor management, the councils and Higgs spite and stubbornness and Wasps ruthlessness.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

I can agree with that.

chiefdave · Dec 28, 2015

italiahorse said:
I think if you have to continually move you don't really have a home.
At some point you need to set roots and make a home.
Unfortunately it's a home we continually said we didn't want and CCC called our bluff.

But they haven't continually moved. They formed in 1867 and played in London for 135 years until they moved to Wycombe in 2002. Every ground I can find a record of them playing at in London is within a 2.5 miles radius.

They stayed in Wycombe for 12 years and have been in Cov for 1 but we're supposed to accept this is their home / community / roots?

CCC didn't call our bluff. They repeatedly lied and involved the local media in a cover up to ensure the football club did not gain ownership of the ground.

stupot07 · Dec 28, 2015

Looks like a few more on their forum want the seats changed or at least Ccfc / Sky blues removed.

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

italiahorse · Dec 28, 2015

chiefdave said:
But they haven't continually moved. They formed in 1867 and played in London for 135 years until they moved to Wycombe in 2002. Every ground I can find a record of them playing at in London is within a 2.5 miles radius.

They stayed in Wycombe for 12 years and have been in Cov for 1 but we're supposed to accept this is their home / community / roots?

CCC didn't call our bluff. They repeatedly lied and involved the local media in a cover up to ensure the football club did not gain ownership of the ground.

I'm not going to change your view, you can't seem to see that Sisu messed up our club by playing hard ball with the council.
It's 90% Sisu's fault but anybody listening to you would think its all the councils fault.

italiahorse · Dec 28, 2015

stupot07 said:
Looks like a few more on their forum want the seats changed or at least Ccfc / Sky blues removed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Found it.
Yes a few are talking about it but most comments say leave it.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Dec 29, 2015

The idea that SISU will charge us an extortionate rent and give us no revenues is scaremongering at its finest to try and scare people into believing the Ricoh is the best choice.

Why would it benefit SISU to charge the club money they can't afford? Bearing in mind any shortfall because of this arrangement would have to be picked up by SISU themselves. Borrowing money to the club so you can pay yourself, genius.

Surely it would make sense for the club to keep the revenue earned to help us achieve our goals, then SISU can sell a club with genuine ambitions to return to the premier league (if we hadn't already in that time) and also a stadium with 100% ownership. That makes sense than your proposed idea that SISU would use the stadium to drive the club into oblivion and then SISU have nothing left and will have lost all their cash.

If you want to discuss how or whether a 20k seater without the facilities of the Ricoh is going to make enough 365 day revenue for what we want to achieve, then that may very well be a worthwhile discussion but don't just spew nonsense.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Dec 29, 2015

italiahorse said:
I'm not going to change your view, you can't seem to see that Sisu messed up our club by playing hard ball with the council.
It's 90% Sisu's fault but anybody listening to you would think its all the councils fault.

Think all people know its largely SISU's fault, what winds people up is the Wasps love in and rubbish talked from people who had little interest in the sport before Wasps arrived who claim to have discovered a new passion for Rugby. I'm still convinced people like yourself do it as you see it as getting one over SISU and a way of sticking two fingers up at them.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Dec 29, 2015

Personally I yearn for the day we own our stadium, the joint actions of SISU and the council over the last 3 or 4 years means its unlikely I will see that in my lifetime.

Only hopes are by a stroke of luck the Ricoh ownership becomes available again or we get new owners who can deliver the dream of a new stadium. Both scenarios are just a pipe dream at the moment.

skybluetony176 · Dec 29, 2015

CCFC said:
The idea that SISU will charge us an extortionate rent and give us no revenues is scaremongering at its finest to try and scare people into believing the Ricoh is the best choice.

Why would it benefit SISU to charge the club money they can't afford? Bearing in mind any shortfall because of this arrangement would have to be picked up by SISU themselves. Borrowing money to the club so you can pay yourself, genius.

Surely it would make sense for the club to keep the revenue earned to help us achieve our goals, then SISU can sell a club with genuine ambitions to return to the premier league (if we hadn't already in that time) and also a stadium with 100% ownership. That makes sense than your proposed idea that SISU would use the stadium to drive the club into oblivion and then SISU have nothing left and will have lost all their cash.

If you want to discuss how or whether a 20k seater without the facilities of the Ricoh is going to make enough 365 day revenue for what we want to achieve, then that may very well be a worthwhile discussion but don't just spew nonsense.

They keep adding interest we can't afford onto a debt that we can't afford. So the real question is why wouldn't they put us into a situation that we couldn't afford. They do have history in doing this after all. Three year's and no business plan outlining the arrangement whatever that means. If that doesn't give you cause for concern I'd have to accuse you of sleepwalking through SISU's time with CCFC. No news doesn't seem to mean good news.

skybluetony176 · Dec 29, 2015

CCFC said:
Think all people know its largely SISU's fault, what winds people up is the Wasps love in and rubbish talked from people who had little interest in the sport before Wasps arrived who claim to have discovered a new passion for Rugby. I'm still convinced people like yourself do it as you see it as getting one over SISU and a way of sticking two fingers up at them.

I think you're right but there's no denying that a certain section of posters on here don't see it that way and frankly Wasps seem to be a welcome distraction from SISU for them, as is the council, Higgs, CT, ex managers, our fickle fans, SBT etc. etc.

italiahorse · Dec 29, 2015

CCFC said:
The idea that SISU will charge us an extortionate rent and give us no revenues is scaremongering at its finest to try and scare people into believing the Ricoh is the best choice.

Why would it benefit SISU to charge the club money they can't afford? Bearing in mind any shortfall because of this arrangement would have to be picked up by SISU themselves. Borrowing money to the club so you can pay yourself, genius.

Surely it would make sense for the club to keep the revenue earned to help us achieve our goals, then SISU can sell a club with genuine ambitions to return to the premier league (if we hadn't already in that time) and also a stadium with 100% ownership. That makes sense than your proposed idea that SISU would use the stadium to drive the club into oblivion and then SISU have nothing left and will have lost all their cash.

If you want to discuss how or whether a 20k seater without the facilities of the Ricoh is going to make enough 365 day revenue for what we want to achieve, then that may very well be a worthwhile discussion but don't just spew nonsense.

Your kidding yourself and ignoring basic finance. Also you seem to remain blind to wanting to see some actual figures.

If Sisu spend £50M on a new stadium we will either be landed with that debt in the club or Sisu will take the hit and then the rent charged will need to cover their financing costs.

Either way using current loan rates (5%) that is £2.5M a year. F&B and other income profits at this out of town stadium will not cover that. Couple that with the loss of potential incomes in a 15000 seater stadium you can come up with a figure.

Compare that to £100K rent at Ricoh and access to some incomes you will be able to see which of the 2 options is better financially for the club.

Yes, neither get us into the PL but which is best?

But hey we hate Wasps and the Council so let's build a new stadium.

Wake up and drink the coffee!!!

italiahorse · Dec 29, 2015

CCFC said:
Personally I yearn for the day we own our stadium, the joint actions of SISU and the council over the last 3 or 4 years means its unlikely I will see that in my lifetime.

Only hopes are by a stroke of luck the Ricoh ownership becomes available again or we get new owners who can deliver the dream of a new stadium. Both scenarios are just a pipe dream at the moment.

..... and both won't get us to the PL without a sugar daddy.
So really your only motivation is your hate of Wasps and blow the finance.

SkyBlueZack · Dec 29, 2015

Zzzzzz still beating the Wasps drum then eh, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

chiefdave · Dec 29, 2015

italiahorse said:
Your kidding yourself and ignoring basic finance. Also you seem to remain blind to wanting to see some actual figures.

If Sisu spend £50M on a new stadium we will either be landed with that debt in the club or Sisu will take the hit and then the rent charged will need to cover their financing costs.

Either way using current loan rates (5%) that is £2.5M a year. F&B and other income profits at this out of town stadium will not cover that. Couple that with the loss of potential incomes in a 15000 seater stadium you can come up with a figure.

Compare that to £100K rent at Ricoh and access to some incomes you will be able to see which of the 2 options is better financially for the club.

Yes, neither get us into the PL but which is best?

But hey we hate Wasps and the Council so let's build a new stadium.

Wake up and drink the coffee!!!

Independent experts dragged out by the CT and CWR have said we will struggle to compete in the Championship, let alone push for promotion to the PL, without stadium ownership. Yes a stadium will have to be paid for, but what is better. Would you rather pay £100K a year and stay in L1 with an occasional season in the Championship or spend £50m on a new stadium that allows us to compete at a higher level where the income is far higher.

Debt isn't always a bad thing. Its being able to service the debt. It may even be the case that we have to spend many years treading water to repay the cost of a stadium to come out of the other side as competitive. Even that is a better option than the majority of our future being at L1 level.

SkyBlueZack · Dec 29, 2015

Debt isn't always a bad thing. Its being able to service the debt. It may even be the case that we have to spend many years treading water to repay the cost of a stadium to come out of the other side as competitive. Even that is a better option than the majority of our future being at L1 level.

This is what Arsenal did with the Emirates. Highbury wouldn't allow them to compete at the top of the table so had to move and be prudent for few years. In the short term it's hard but pays off long term. They are now profitable and have cash reserves. Of course CCFC would never be in that position because SISU would just run away with the money and the stadium. Downright scoundrels they are. When there not in court there out mugging old ladies and robbing charity collection tins.

Are Wasps not doing a similar thing? Financing the stadium through bonds. Tread water to they pay off the bonds and then bam richest club in the world. This is lauded on here by some. Yet the same people keep questioning how SISU would finance such a stadium. As said, easy, do what Wasps did!

italiahorse · Dec 29, 2015

SkyBlueZack said:
Zzzzzz still beating the Wasps drum then eh, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

No, I'm saying people need to get a new stadium out their system and at least push Sisu on our future instead of following their bullshit like lemmings.

italiahorse · Dec 29, 2015

chiefdave said:
Independent experts dragged out by the CT and CWR have said we will struggle to compete in the Championship, let alone push for promotion to the PL, without stadium ownership. Yes a stadium will have to be paid for, but what is better. Would you rather pay £100K a year and stay in L1 with an occasional season in the Championship or spend £50m on a new stadium that allows us to compete at a higher level where the income is far higher.

Debt isn't always a bad thing. Its being able to service the debt. It may even be the case that we have to spend many years treading water to repay the cost of a stadium to come out of the other side as competitive. Even that is a better option than the majority of our future being at L1 level.

Show me the figures ?
Following Sisu blindly is not an answer !!

Of course owning your own stadium will be better if you can service the debt. But £50M for a stadium on top of £50M debt is a tough ask.
We are talking of £100M debt and we are still in league 1 and it could finish us.

chiefdave · Dec 29, 2015

italiahorse said:
No, I'm saying people need to get a new stadium out their system and at least push Sisu on our future instead of following their bullshit like lemmings.

But you're happy to follow the Wasps bullshit like a lemming.

Why do people needs to get a new stadium out of their system. You haven't seen the business plan for either a new stadium or staying at the Ricoh so have no idea if we are better off staying or leaving.

Why would any sane person rule out an option that may give us a brighter future and just keep happily handing money over to help Wasps?

If it is shown staying at the Ricoh, and therefore being a lower division team, is the best option then we will need to accept that - at least until a super rich owner comes along. But until that is shown why would anyone rule out any potential alternative?

And of course even if it is shown that staying at the Ricoh is the best option is doesn't mean we have to be happy about being Wasps tenants or start supporting them.

chiefdave · Dec 29, 2015

italiahorse said:
Show me the figures ?
Following Sisu blindly is not an answer !!

What figures? Surely you know that being in the Championship or PL is worth more money.

You also know that independent experts used by local media have stated that as a tenant at the Ricoh the best we can hope for is to be competitive in L1, that means should we get promotion we will be struggling to compete and trying desperately to avoid relegation.

What I am saying is you can't take the cost of a stadium in isolation. If it is the case, as the independent experts have told us, that the only way competing at a higher level is possible is with a new stadium then you have to account for the extra revenue that brings when discussing any new stadium project. You can't just say it is a cost of £x million as if there will be no benefit.

The only person who is following anyone blindly is you following Wasps. Pretty much everyone else is saying lets keep our options open.

skybluetony176 · Dec 29, 2015

chiefdave said:
Independent experts dragged out by the CT and CWR have said we will struggle to compete in the Championship, let alone push for promotion to the PL, without stadium ownership. Yes a stadium will have to be paid for, but what is better. Would you rather pay £100K a year and stay in L1 with an occasional season in the Championship or spend £50m on a new stadium that allows us to compete at a higher level where the income is far higher.

Debt isn't always a bad thing. Its being able to service the debt. It may even be the case that we have to spend many years treading water to repay the cost of a stadium to come out of the other side as competitive. Even that is a better option than the majority of our future being at L1 level.

Sorry Dave but thats a complete red herring and you've been suckered into it. All stadium ownership will do (maybe, at best) is raise the ceiling of what we're allowed to spend under the rules. The reality is that the debt of owning our own ground is going to far outway the benefit it may bring in terms of turnover meaning we will actualy have less available to spend. So we'll still stay in stay in L1 with an occasional season in the Championship only with more debt (which can only benefit SISU) and even less chance of ever paying it of.

With our current owners and financial problems stadium ownership is not the way forward it's a bigger hole and I'm sure I dont need to tell you that if you're in a hole stop digging.

skybluetony176 · Dec 29, 2015

chiefdave said:
What figures? Surely you know that being in the Championship or PL is worth more money.

You also know that independent experts used by local media have stated that as a tenant at the Ricoh the best we can hope for is to be competitive in L1, that means should we get promotion we will be struggling to compete and trying desperately to avoid relegation.

What I am saying is you can't take the cost of a stadium in isolation. If it is the case, as the independent experts have told us, that the only way competing at a higher level is possible is with a new stadium then you have to account for the extra revenue that brings when discussing any new stadium project. You can't just say it is a cost of £x million as if there will be no benefit.

The only person who is following anyone blindly is you following Wasps. Pretty much everyone else is saying lets keep our options open.

How can indipendent experts actually tell us anything for sure? Yes they know the business model for the Ricoh because we're living it but they like us have absolutely no idea what residing in SISU's stadium will cost the club. There is nothing, nowt, zilch to compare the Ricoh model to. 3 years we've been waiting for something to compare it to yet nothing.

italiahorse · Dec 29, 2015

chiefdave said:
But you're happy to follow the Wasps bullshit like a lemming.

I go and watch rugby, what Wasps bullsh1t am I following ?

Why do people needs to get a new stadium out of their system. You haven't seen the business plan for either a new stadium or staying at the Ricoh so have no idea if we are better off staying or leaving.

I think you have already said you want a new stadium.

Why would any sane person rule out an option that may give us a brighter future and just keep happily handing money over to help Wasps

... because Sisu have messed up and we need to pursue the best option.

If it is shown staying at the Ricoh, and therefore being a lower division team, is the best option then we will need to accept that - at least until a super rich owner comes along. But until that is shown why would anyone rule out any potential alternative?

But they are not showing us anything so why assume a stadium is better? I want to see what we can do (a plan) and which ever is best we can start to run with it.

And of course even if it is shown that staying at the Ricoh is the best option is doesn't mean we have to be happy about being Wasps tenants or start supporting them.

If the Ricoh is the best option then lets be told it is. As long as Sisu then work with Wasps to get the best deal and that relationship allows us to keep some visual belonging to the stadium you can hate them as much as you like.

I just want to know our future so I know what to expect and we can all work together to make the most of it as football fans.

SkyBlueZack · Dec 29, 2015

Stadium ownership if managed and run correctly will increase the budget therefore allowing us more money to spend. This in turn with the correct manager will allow us to be more competitive. If the club is also run right it should minimise any further debt being placed on the club. Also bit rich when you say Dave has been suckered in, your best mate Italia has gone from SISU lover to SISU hater. Gone from moral outrage at the Northampton move to season ticket with Wasps. Think you're better advising your mate about being suckered in!

SkyBlueZack · Dec 29, 2015

italiahorse said:
I just want to know our future so I know what to expect and we can all work together to make the most of it as football fans.

League one football with the odd season in the championship all courtesy of Wasps, SISU, CCC and the Higgs. Whilst sitting in either a yellow or black seat looking across at the other stand and seeing Wasps wrote in the seats. Walking around the Ricoh and only seeing Wasps memorabilia. The problem is, you don't seem to have a problem with any of that. In fact you seem to have embraced it.

chiefdave · Dec 29, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
Sorry Dave but thats a complete red herring and you've been suckered into it. All stadium ownership will do (maybe, at best) is raise the ceiling of what we're allowed to spend under the rules. The reality is that the debt of owning our own ground is going to far outway the benefit it may bring in terms of turnover meaning we will actualy have less available to spend. So we'll still stay in stay in L1 with an occasional season in the Championship only with more debt (which can only benefit SISU) and even less chance of ever paying it of.

That is all supposition on your part unless you've seen figures and business plans the rest of us haven't.

We have been told by independent experts, who I would assume are more qualified to comment than you or I, that renting from Wasps severely limits are future potential. Surely isn't it then common sense to be open to any other alternative. If and when it is shown that any alternative is not viable than fair enough it should be discounted. However that hasn't been shown.

Also we shouldn't fixate on the cost of the stadium. The whole Ricoh complex cost £113m yet only £10m was funded by CCC. Whilst it is true the economic climate is currently very different that won't be the case forever.

chiefdave · Dec 29, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
How can indipendent experts actually tell us anything for sure? Yes they know the business model for the Ricoh because we're living it but they like us have absolutely no idea what residing in SISU's stadium will cost the club. There is nothing, nowt, zilch to compare the Ricoh model to. 3 years we've been waiting for something to compare it to yet nothing.

They have seen figures for our previous Championship seasons, they have seen figures for 91 other clubs, they have seen what happened to Stockport. Can they be 100% certain, of course not, but that doesn't mean anything should be ruled out.

skybluetony176 · Dec 29, 2015

SkyBlueZack said:
Stadium ownership if managed and run correctly will increase the budget therefore allowing us more money to spend. This in turn with the correct manager will allow us to be more competitive. If the club is also run right it should minimise any further debt being placed on the club. Also bit rich when you say Dave has been suckered in, your best mate Italia has gone from SISU lover to SISU hater. Gone from moral outrage at the Northampton move to season ticket with Wasps. Think you're better advising your mate about being suckered in!

There's a big difference between what you're allowed to spend under the rules of the game and what you have available to spend. If you can't see that getting into more debt is going to mean that we'll have less available money to spend there's no helping you really.

Just look at how wrong it went last time we tried building our own ground and we were in an far far better place than we currently are. We had less debt, more assets, land and some sort of a plan. Currently we have more debt, less assets and no sort of a plan just a few sound bites and no site to build on. And the sound bites we have had confirm nothing other than we couldn't have sold the amount of tickets we did for boxing day.

chiefdave · Dec 29, 2015

italiahorse said:
I think you have already said you want a new stadium.

I would rather we had our own stadium than play in an increasing Wasps branded stadium, that is absolutely correct. However if it is shown that staying at the Ricoh under Wasps is the best option then that would be the route I would support, albeit while hoping for Wasps to fail or a billionaire owner to come along.

italiahorse said:
... because Sisu have messed up and we need to pursue the best option.

a) SISU won't be our owners forever b) you don't know what the best option is.

italiahorse said:
ut they are not showing us anything so why assume a stadium is better? I want to see what we can do (a plan) and which ever is best we can start to run with it.

I'm not assuming it is better, why are you pushing for us to sign up long term under Wasps without similar information to show that is a better option?

skybluetony176 · Dec 29, 2015

chiefdave said:
That is all supposition on your part unless you've seen figures and business plans the rest of us haven't.

We have been told by independent experts, who I would assume are more qualified to comment than you or I, that renting from Wasps severely limits are future potential. Surely isn't it then common sense to be open to any other alternative. If and when it is shown that any alternative is not viable than fair enough it should be discounted. However that hasn't been shown.

Also we shouldn't fixate on the cost of the stadium. The whole Ricoh complex cost £113m yet only £10m was funded by CCC. Whilst it is true the economic climate is currently very different that won't be the case forever.

No, I haven't and that's the whole point I'm making. Your post is equally all supposition for the exact same reasons mine are.

Only mine is erring on the side of caution whereas yours throws caution to the wind.

chiefdave · Dec 29, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
There's a big difference between what you're allowed to spend under the rules of the game and what you have available to spend. If you can't see that getting into more debt is going to mean that we'll have less available money to spend there's no helping you really.

Again you don't know that because you don't know how any new ground would be funded or how much income would be generated. Who is better off:

Team A have no debt and pay £100K a year in rent but receive no income

Team B are £100m in debt but receive £10m a year in income

Hugely oversimplified but so is saying debt = bad. Unserviceable debt is bad, serviceable debt that allows you to generate greater income is fine.

skybluetony176 · Dec 29, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
No, I haven't and that's the whole point I'm making. Your post is equally all supposition for the exact same reasons mine are.

Only mine is erring on the side of caution whereas yours throws caution to the wind.

What are the independent experts comparing to? There is nothing to compare to. They're generalising.

chiefdave · Dec 29, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
What are the independent experts comparing to? There is nothing to compare to. They're generalising.

You are aware we aren't the only football club in the country aren't you?

stupot07 · Dec 29, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
What are the independent experts comparing to? There is nothing to compare to. They're generalising.

How has renting matchday only with little access to additional revenues served us in the last decade?

We just need to keep our options open until we see a business case either way.

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

skybluetony176 · Dec 29, 2015

chiefdave said:
Again you don't know that because you don't know how any new ground would be funded or how much income would be generated. Who is better off:

Team A have no debt and pay £100K a year in rent but receive no income

Team B are £100m in debt but receive £10m a year in income

Hugely oversimplified but so is saying debt = bad. Unserviceable debt is bad, serviceable debt that allows you to generate greater income is fine.

Again and neither do you. It's all supposition. Only you don't seem to have learned anything from not just SISU's ownership but also previous ownership and are throwing caution to the wind. You're championing repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results. It's madness. We're not even in as good a place as we were last time a new stadium was talked about.

Back to being the biggest club in Coventry? (36 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency