dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
A balanced view.
If the club were not propping up a glut of failed managers and useless players they could have paid the rent months ago anyway. There's two sides to the coin and most of us haven't got a clue about the manner in which SISU are manipulating money transfers between holding companies etc.
1, I agree that the club should have a lower rent and a bigger proportion of revenue from footfall.........but
2, I don't agree with total refusal to pay and all this embarrassing blagging about moving out of town.
Negotiations should be taking place within the confines of the existing agreements.
Is this new news.
Did ACL not say this last time.
The deal is there accept it or reject it there is no other deal?
Excuse me if I am misunderstanding, but what is new?
We're talking about what a couple of hundred thousand here? Hardly a big deal and won't make any noticeable difference to the success or otherwise of the team - just another excuse to delay paying anything - the stupidly high WAGE bill is a far bigger problem for us and will continue to be as long as we continue to pay out on useless so called talent - the other obvious problem is the lack of regular supporters and SISU are doing bugger all about convincing fans to return - quite the opposite - they should have gambled this year when they could spend a little and not face any real consequences - they have missed the boat now and it will be so much harder to get anywhere now - we don't have the support to increase our revenues to make us competitive any more - viscous circle - they experiment has failed
What's new is that ACL appear to have rejected SISU's mediation offer?
An ACL spokesman said :
The situation is quite simple.
CCFC (aka SISU) owes ACL £1.3m which a court of law has confirmed our right to collect.
Our board has participated in hours of discussions with CCFC during which we have made many concessions and CCFC (aka SISU) has made none.
What's the point of even more discussions (or even expensive outside mediation for that matter), when only one side is willing to compromise ?
An ACL spokesman said :
The situation is quite simple.
CCFC (aka SISU) owes ACL £1.3m which a court of law has confirmed our right to collect.
Our board has participated in hours of discussions with CCFC during which we have made many concessions and CCFC (aka SISU) has made none.
What's the point of even more discussions (or even expensive outside mediation for that matter), when only one side is willing to compromise ?
Yes it seems so.
SISU should have compromised just a little bit to meet ACL at least half way. After ACL's compromises.
However maybe they will now when the legal action is taken.
Maybe SISU will show some compromise then.
Please list the compromises that ACL have made? I want facts and not your own assertions.
eerrrr .... the HUGE reduction in rent maybe?
Please list the compromises that ACL have made? I want facts and not your own assertions.
We were told at the start of the season that we had the 3rd highest wage bill in the league, yet we have still been able to comply with ffp. What has changed?
Which SISU has also compromised to... We're still paying over the market value...
We're talking about what a couple of hundred thousand here? Hardly a big deal and won't make any noticeable difference to the success or otherwise of the team - just another excuse to delay paying anything - the stupidly high WAGE bill is a far bigger problem for us and will continue to be as long as we continue to pay out on useless so called talent - the other obvious problem is the lack of regular supporters and SISU are doing bugger all about convincing fans to return - quite the opposite - they should have gambled this year when they could spend a little and not face any real consequences - they have missed the boat now and it will be so much harder to get anywhere now - we don't have the support to increase our revenues to make us competitive any more - viscous circle - they experiment has failed
Anti-SISU spin here.
This is simply not sure, SISU said average is 150-213k a year average rent, with full F&B revenues etc. etc. that's clearly what they wanted, so if it's agreed at 400k, there's clearly been a compromise between the two parties HAS THERE NOT!?
ACL's position, because their deal was so unjustifiably unfair, they had to make 'big' concessions to make it 'fair', if SISU make a compromises on F&B and backdated debt and say accepted the 1st reduction, we'd still be getting ripped-off, and the club deserve money its fans' make at its events, they're not asking for revenue streams off concerts are they? So why sold ACL get a slice of the CCFC cake on match day!?
While it is easy to understand a lot of fans disapproval/dislike of SISU,for the mistakes some of which they have admitted to,what is unbelievable is how anybody can have any confidence in the local council.If they had set out to deliberately destroy a City,over the past decades then they could have hardly done a better job.
Going into Coventry City centre on a Saturday night,you would think it had just experienced a nuclear holocaust,it is utterly deserted.Souless windswept squares,ugly tatty buildings,roads that lead nowhere,half finished projects (Belgrade Plaza,Millenium Square),projects like Friargate not yet started despite being talked about back in 2005,the list of failure is never ending.
Comparing Coventry to comparable sized Cities like Nottingham/Cardiff,which have bustling shopping centres and vibrant night lives,is frankly embarassing.If they have made such a dogs dinner of this City,where civic pride hardly exists anymore,then the idea of them being involved in the Ricoh long term is utterly depressing.
No, no no.
I don't think the club have done a great job in explaining why F&B is important and what it means.
In the last season at highfield road, F&B revenue (so thats total sales/turnover, not profit) was £1.5m approx. This is what SISU are after. Its not even about the profit element of that (at the moment, although i'm not naive enough to think they don't want that), its about adding that £1.5m in turnover to our books, and the reason for doing this is that its allowed to be counted towards the FFP budget.
So - and this isn't perfect or precise but its close - lets say the club turnover is currently £5m per annum, and £3m of that is FFP eligible because its football related. I think the rule next season is that we can spend 60% of that £3m on players salaries. THAT'S why we need the F&B revenue, because you add another £1.5m in F&B to that £3m and our ability to spend on players salaries goes from bad to probably one of the best in the league. We got away with it this season because of relegation and the timing of the signings - i don't know the detail on that but i know that as of next season, there are no 'parachute' clauses.
Now, even though compass own the 'rights', i'm sure some sort of deal could be done, where by the turnover comes into our books, and we pay a 'management fee' to compass. However they work it, there is a deal to be done there. The problem is, ACL are not allowing us to even understand what the level of F&B revenue is.
At least this thread has managed to group all the conspiracy theorists of the shire in one place, to save them bothering the innocent.
I don't know if anyone remembers, but a court upheld ACL's position.
Still, what's the point of contracts eh? Contract of employment, pension, mortgage, life-cover, medical insurance. Just sign up to what you want, ignore the bits you don't like and hope for the best. In fact, if society behaved this way, that's be great; wouldn't it?
F&B was never on the table when they bought the club. When FFP was agreed in 2009, it was never on the table. It was never an issue - neither was the rent - until staring down the barrel of relegation. You, SISU, nor none of your cohorts mentioned any of this until we were slap-bang bottom of the table, 5 years after SISU came to the club, and 3 years after FFP was agreed.
Notwithstanding all of this; can you tell me how - even without all of this - they offered McGoldrick £10,000 a week a month ago? Simple question; simple answer please
If the club were not propping up a glut of failed managers
Forgive me, but SISU didn't make up the FFP rules.
The Championship clubs have agreed to consider financial fair-play rules requiring them to approach breaking even by 2017. A meeting attended by 23 of the division's 24 clubs at the Ricoh Arena – Birmingham City were not present – voted unanimously to allow the Football League to draw up final proposals which will come to a definitive vote in February.
All but three of the npower Championship's 24 clubs voted in favour of introducing the model, which is based on UEFA's financial fair play regulations, and plans to curb Football League debt by limiting investment from owners and total spending.
Only Leicester City, Southampton and Reading, of the 24 clubs, voted against the introduction of a model that has been moulded in consultations over the past 18 months. A club’s financial accounts will be examined by the Football League each December, when they could be liable to face penalties for breaches in the previous campaign.
They didn't have to make any concessions. What concesions have your beloved grasping SISU made? Why can't you see them for what they are-a capitalist venture fund that is meant to exploit struggling businesses, often to those businesses detriment? Again, Call yourself a Socialist? Sorry, you're a lot closer to being a Thatcherite.
Do you really need me to go over the offers in the table from starting point to this final offer again?
Notwithstanding all of this; can you tell me how - even without all of this - they offered McGoldrick £10,000 a week a month ago? Simple question; simple answer please
Indeed MMM-contracts are there to be broken after all. This is solely Tim Fisher's doing and if the club goes under it will be him to blame.
Nope - no idea
Which SISU has also compromised to... We're still paying over the market value...
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?