What would you pay for a loss making organisation without assets and ladened with outstanding debt?
Breaking news: Acl call off rent talks (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter AFCCOVENTRY
- Start date
What would you pay for a loss making organisation without assets and ladened with outstanding debt?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Well that's the problem ain't it-we don't know how many people have put money into the funds over the years and have no idea how willing they are to take a hit on their investment.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Torchy....
Got to the point where I don't give a flying fuck what you, Grenduffy, and SBTaylor think anymore. You talk shit, SBTaylor talks facts and figures but can't substantiate them...Grenduffy....well look to SBTaylor for the answer to that one!:facepalm:
Got to the point where I don't give a flying fuck what you, Grenduffy, and SBTaylor think anymore. You talk shit, SBTaylor talks facts and figures but can't substantiate them...Grenduffy....well look to SBTaylor for the answer to that one!:facepalm:
Then we're at a standstill. Short of finance I can't think of any other reason. I'm pretty sure they stated intent on buying in and logically it was the only route to reducing week-to- week costs.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
SBK, if you're that pissed off with them then just click the option to avoid having their posts come up.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Not sure how it would affect the rent agreement-I assume that the need to pay rent would disappear too?
Although I have no idea of what you think I'm mistaken about, I tend to agree with you!
Maybe so, or perhaps we'd have had to payout part based on the other 50%; either way it would still have been a logical progression move if affordable.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Well as we would be moving from tenant to landlord I assume the rent would disappear. Either way I agree, simply buying the option would make a lot of sense (though where we'd get the cash from now is anyone's guess). From some point in 2015 onwards our first refusal disappears and it's open to anybody who has the money for it-does that not concern any of us?
Last edited:
MichaelCCFC
New Member
As a rational human being the answer has to be zilch. But this is football so isn't rational. My personal wealth extends to about a grand so not going to get far with that but if someone came along with say £5m would sisu have any interest in that?
It's interesting how we've been talking about this in two different tenses. It kind of highlights how I've totally given up on a practical solution involving SISU at the helm.
Opinions will differ on here Michael. Personally, I think SISU may take your grand!
Seriously though, SISU would probably jump ship at any offer that would give a route out of this; unfortunately, there is nothing to attract any potential buyer short of a very wealthy city fan.
Bennets Afro
Well-Known Member
Maybe Hoffmans bid of a pound and the debts paid off over time linked to success and a return to the premier league sounds tempting now
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Pretty much-and the only one who ever came close fell short of getting backing.
CJparker
New Member
oh my god, I am so fucking sick of this - for nearly a year we have debated this to death, re-heating the same positions without any real knowledge of the inside facts...I just want this to end.
Whether or not you think that the original rent level was too high (I don't), a 2/3 rent reduction is huge and SISU should just have accepted and counted themselves lucky. They have pushed ACL too far and look what's happened. I know that this is SISU's preferred negotiating style i.e. hardball, but it is putting the club at risk.
I somehow think that negotiations will start again, and an agreeing will be reached, after a suitable cooling off period.
The whole fucking saga is starting to get as protracted and passionate as the Northern Ireland peace process.
Whether or not you think that the original rent level was too high (I don't), a 2/3 rent reduction is huge and SISU should just have accepted and counted themselves lucky. They have pushed ACL too far and look what's happened. I know that this is SISU's preferred negotiating style i.e. hardball, but it is putting the club at risk.
I somehow think that negotiations will start again, and an agreeing will be reached, after a suitable cooling off period.
The whole fucking saga is starting to get as protracted and passionate as the Northern Ireland peace process.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
They do in Pride and Prejudice and Zombies!
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
@SBK
Come on then twat back up your figures and FACTS!
You talk out of your arse pal. You prove to me and everyone else on this forum that we've played 18 league games with 4-4-2.
Thorn didn't know what 4-4-2 was....Shaw played the tried and trusted Thorn formation. "Mr Sky Blue Blood" played Goldie, then Clarke up front on their own, till Clarke lost his way and McSheff 2 games and Elliott 3 games played ALONGSIDE him.
Then again what am I proving anything to you for? I'm the one telling you to prove your facts and figures.....Carry on then...!
Before I start, I'm going to say you really do not deserve a response, I haven't called you a twat and what not and you treat anyone who disagrees with you in a disgusting manner, you're, as Torch put it, a nasty, nasty man. But since you put me to the challenge, I will make you look silly, and not for the first time, and nor will it be the last, but here goes:
4-4-2 appearances (L1 only!):
1. Crewe (A) (L) we started off with the diamond in the first half, but Shaw moved to 4-4-2 for the 2nd flat 4 of: Baker Jennings Barton Kilbane then Sheff on the wing for Jenno, Kilbane in CM after that sub, we had 2 strikers the whole time. Scored & conceded 0.
2. Stevenage (H) (L) 4-4-2 for 90m. Scored 1 conceded 2.
3. Tranmere (A) (L) 4-4-2 for 90m. Scored 0 conceded 2.
4. Shrewsbury (A) (L) 4-4-2 for 90m. Scored 1 conceded 4.
5. Oldham (A) (W) 4-5-1 until Cody came on in the 51th minute, 4-4-2 for over 40m (+ stoppage time). Scored 1 conceded 0.
6. AFC Bournemouth (H) (W) 4-5-1 till Barton was taken off, Ball on, 4-4-2 for the 2nd half. Scored 1 conceded 0.
7. Swindon (A) (D) 4-4-2 for 90m. Scored & conceded 2
8. Notts County (H) (L) 4-4-2 until Cody came on in the 64th minute, then we played 4-3-3. Scored 1 conceded 1 (playing 4-4-2).
9. Brentford (A) (L) 4-4-2 for 90m. Scored 1 conceded 2
10. Crawley (H) (W) 4-4-2 until Moussa came on (68). Scored 3 conceded 1
11. Scunthorpe (H) (L) 4-4-2 at least until ROD came on (86th). Scored 1 conceded 2
Then we changed to 4-5-1 until:
12. Shrewsbury (H) (L) 4-4-2 when Clarke came on (54), we conceded in the 63rd. Scored 0 conceded 1.
13. Carlisle (A) (L) 4-4-2 from the 54th min (Elliott came on). Scored & conceded 0.
14. Tranmere (H) (W) 4-4-2 from 65th min (Elliott came on). Scored & conceded 0.
15. Oldham (H) (W) 4-4-2 from Elliott coming on (55). Scored 2 conceded 1.
16. Sheff U (A) (W) 4-4-2 until Thomas came on (69). Scored 1 conceded 0.
17. Yeovil (H) (L) started 4-5-1 went 4-4-2 from Elliott's sub (53). Scored & conceded 0.
18. Bury (A) (W) 4-4-2 until Moussa came on (74). Scored 2 conceded 0.
19. Crewe (H) (L) 4-4-2 for all but 10m of the game. Scored 1 conceded 1.
Sorry, it wasn't 18, you're right, it's 19!
ointlaugh: at you. Don't believe me? Check BBC shows when all subs were made, and I know what formation we play when I see the personnel, and not to mention I've been to all but 1 home league game this season, Pompey and a few away games, so would've seen what formation we were playing.
Win ratio for each formation:
Diamond: 0%
4-3-3: 0%
4-4-2: 32% (6 of 19) including games where we have won since the change e.g. Oldham H & A, started 4-5-1, scored all goals playing 4-4-2.
4-5-1: 39% (9 of 23) did not include games we won where we started with 4-5-1 but changed to 4-4-2, it's purely on games we've 'won' using each formation.
Let me say this, games do overlap each over and it was quite confusing to work out, but I've done my calculations many times and I believe they are correct.
Few stats: Only scored more than 2 playing 4-4-2 (Crawley), a feat achieved 6 times playing 4-5-1. Also kept more clean sheets, and although it's close, I think goals is less (ratio wise) playing 4-5-1.
Covers it people?
Come on then twat back up your figures and FACTS!
You talk out of your arse pal. You prove to me and everyone else on this forum that we've played 18 league games with 4-4-2.
Thorn didn't know what 4-4-2 was....Shaw played the tried and trusted Thorn formation. "Mr Sky Blue Blood" played Goldie, then Clarke up front on their own, till Clarke lost his way and McSheff 2 games and Elliott 3 games played ALONGSIDE him.
Then again what am I proving anything to you for? I'm the one telling you to prove your facts and figures.....Carry on then...!
Before I start, I'm going to say you really do not deserve a response, I haven't called you a twat and what not and you treat anyone who disagrees with you in a disgusting manner, you're, as Torch put it, a nasty, nasty man. But since you put me to the challenge, I will make you look silly, and not for the first time, and nor will it be the last, but here goes:
4-4-2 appearances (L1 only!):
1. Crewe (A) (L) we started off with the diamond in the first half, but Shaw moved to 4-4-2 for the 2nd flat 4 of: Baker Jennings Barton Kilbane then Sheff on the wing for Jenno, Kilbane in CM after that sub, we had 2 strikers the whole time. Scored & conceded 0.
2. Stevenage (H) (L) 4-4-2 for 90m. Scored 1 conceded 2.
3. Tranmere (A) (L) 4-4-2 for 90m. Scored 0 conceded 2.
4. Shrewsbury (A) (L) 4-4-2 for 90m. Scored 1 conceded 4.
5. Oldham (A) (W) 4-5-1 until Cody came on in the 51th minute, 4-4-2 for over 40m (+ stoppage time). Scored 1 conceded 0.
6. AFC Bournemouth (H) (W) 4-5-1 till Barton was taken off, Ball on, 4-4-2 for the 2nd half. Scored 1 conceded 0.
7. Swindon (A) (D) 4-4-2 for 90m. Scored & conceded 2
8. Notts County (H) (L) 4-4-2 until Cody came on in the 64th minute, then we played 4-3-3. Scored 1 conceded 1 (playing 4-4-2).
9. Brentford (A) (L) 4-4-2 for 90m. Scored 1 conceded 2
10. Crawley (H) (W) 4-4-2 until Moussa came on (68). Scored 3 conceded 1
11. Scunthorpe (H) (L) 4-4-2 at least until ROD came on (86th). Scored 1 conceded 2
Then we changed to 4-5-1 until:
12. Shrewsbury (H) (L) 4-4-2 when Clarke came on (54), we conceded in the 63rd. Scored 0 conceded 1.
13. Carlisle (A) (L) 4-4-2 from the 54th min (Elliott came on). Scored & conceded 0.
14. Tranmere (H) (W) 4-4-2 from 65th min (Elliott came on). Scored & conceded 0.
15. Oldham (H) (W) 4-4-2 from Elliott coming on (55). Scored 2 conceded 1.
16. Sheff U (A) (W) 4-4-2 until Thomas came on (69). Scored 1 conceded 0.
17. Yeovil (H) (L) started 4-5-1 went 4-4-2 from Elliott's sub (53). Scored & conceded 0.
18. Bury (A) (W) 4-4-2 until Moussa came on (74). Scored 2 conceded 0.
19. Crewe (H) (L) 4-4-2 for all but 10m of the game. Scored 1 conceded 1.
Sorry, it wasn't 18, you're right, it's 19!
ointlaugh: at you. Don't believe me? Check BBC shows when all subs were made, and I know what formation we play when I see the personnel, and not to mention I've been to all but 1 home league game this season, Pompey and a few away games, so would've seen what formation we were playing.Win ratio for each formation:
Diamond: 0%
4-3-3: 0%
4-4-2: 32% (6 of 19) including games where we have won since the change e.g. Oldham H & A, started 4-5-1, scored all goals playing 4-4-2.
4-5-1: 39% (9 of 23) did not include games we won where we started with 4-5-1 but changed to 4-4-2, it's purely on games we've 'won' using each formation.
Let me say this, games do overlap each over and it was quite confusing to work out, but I've done my calculations many times and I believe they are correct.
Few stats: Only scored more than 2 playing 4-4-2 (Crawley), a feat achieved 6 times playing 4-5-1. Also kept more clean sheets, and although it's close, I think goals is less (ratio wise) playing 4-5-1.
Covers it people?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
To be honest Taylor you should completely discount shaw reign as he as not fit manage and but including him you're not comparing like for like in terms of management capacity or players (i.e no moussa, bailey, etc) so that discounts matches 1-4 on your list.
So that makes it
4-4-2 40% (6 of 15)
Also interesting that we have only won 5 league games at home is season and 4 of them are on your 442 list.
So that makes it
4-4-2 40% (6 of 15)
Also interesting that we have only won 5 league games at home is season and 4 of them are on your 442 list.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Should I though? I could also move the goalposts to suit my argument, but I won't.
Should I also discount MR's 1st game because of the damage done by Shaw's regime!? ... Making it... 41% (rounding up from 40.9) (9 of 22).
The facts tell the story.
EDIT: even some of the wins 4-4-2 have are somewhat dubious, e.g. Oldham (H & A), Bournemouth (H) seeing as we do not know what would've happened had we kept playing 4-5-1 and could say, we started 4-5-1, that doesn't count, but I haven't and I have been impartial here (despite being obviously against 4-4-2) and you can't knock my findings.
Last edited:
stupot07
Well-Known Member
You can do what you want, and if you do and it makes it 40% then that shows that post shaw they have been equally effective at getting 3 points.
But to be honest I wasn't moving the goalposts to suit my argument, i think the majority of posters would agree that Shaw reign should be discounted from your stats.
Ah-rounding it up to make it look better. Even so a 1% difference is negligible.
And to be honest that isn't the most scientific of analysis, for example Saturday game at Crewe yes we played 442 for about 80 mins scored 1 conceded 1 but their winner was actually scored when we had gone to 451, we may very well have just drawn 1-1 instead of losing had we not changed to 451.
Last edited:
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Sorry, but that still doesn't cut it, many people blamed the diamond for our shortcomings (the way Thorn utilised it, yes it is to be blamed) and before the season people were saying 4-4-2 would be our strength, so I will not allow that to distort the facts. Also, SBK says 4-4-2 trumps any formation with win ratio, I included 4-3-3 and the diamond and he did not say anything about Shaw's reign - in fact, the idiot thought we played the diamond for that period :facepalm: - I have conducted this in a fair manner and in fact made dubious decision against 4-5-1, for example, I gave 4-4-2 the W v Sheffield United, but the change to 4-5-1, I believe, save us from losing and we actually ended up winning. Look, if I was bias, the results would've shown it.
If Shaw had won his 4 games and I had not included them, you'd scrutinise that, and it's not my fault he lost all 4 games play, for 3.5 games, 4-4-2.
You was being picky, so was I, as I have said, the results, although mathematically correct are somewhat dubious. I rounded it up from 40.9.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
You need a girlfriend SBT.
:guitar2::claping hands:
You don't say!!
The sound of this penny dropping could be heard by the dead.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Sorry Dude, I didn't mean to quote you, I was meant to quote this:
Don't ask me how!
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Fine Taylor - but most posters they will look at the figures and ignore the shaw period, just like they do when we ignore the first 8 games when we considered how well we've done this season.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
They can do what they like, but I can't erase Shaw's games from the history books - although we'd all like to! But as I say, had we won all 4 and played 4-4-2 and I ignored that spell, you'd scruntinise that I didn't include that reign and my results are therefore bias untrustworthy etc. etc.
Danceswithhorses
Well-Known Member
49 pages of mostly hot air (from both sides)....yikes is this gonna beat the portsmouth thread ?...another fabulous read !
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Well, at least this is about the team we support. It'll pop up again when ccfcway decides he wants to revive it again.
Danceswithhorses
Well-Known Member
Barely...more about the owner/landlord we support
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Well, you know what I mean. It's still Sky Blues related.
MichaelCCFC
New Member
Interesting posts last night by Brighton, Dude and this one from Bennet (no disresepct to points about Jane Austen and Taylor needing a girlfriend!) Asking from a point of complete ignorance, is the approach Bennet mentions one that might interest sisu, and how would it work? If it's about offering sisu an exit option would the emphasis need to be on money upfront or would the possibility of a greater return but in the long run/maybe never (eg a higher amount if we ever get into the Prem) be more attractive?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
I'm sure they are kicking themselves now over that. And I'm sure you're right, they won't be going anywhere until they see some kind of return for their investors.
The club needs to make itself more attractive to new owners. Half the ground.
The club needs to make itself more attractive to new owners. Half the ground.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
I think that the "jam tomorrow" trick was pulled on Robinson by Sisu, doubt they'll fall for it themselves.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Touché.
Just out of curiosity though, I wonder how many women you've picked up on that chemistry course?