clint van damme
Well-Known Member
anyone calling for the club to be liquidated for a start.
C-Unit Council (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fergusons_Beard
- Start date
anyone calling for the club to be liquidated for a start.
hutch1972
Well-Known Member
Could not of put it better myself. Maybe some might even comprehend what they have done.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Maybe you have to and you or they need the business.
CCC don't. SISU do.
So CCC are wiser doing the minimum that have to.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Lol,
You and Gendall must be extremely gullable and stupid to believe that a championship club who had an average gate of 20,000 fans could go bust twice just because of a £1.2million annual rent.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
My point was that companies in dispute do carry on doing business although they don't have to.
As Tony pointed out in another thread, he think sisu are shooting in the dark trying to find a way out which saves face and I think he's correct.
So I'd rather get round the table with them and see if there's anything can be done to help them on their way.
It doesn't mean CCC have to offer them anything or agree to anything.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
You probably have a mutually beneficial reason to keep dealing with each over though. That's clearly not a place that anyone in control is at in our case. Beneficial to the club? Yes. Beneficial to SISU? doubtful. Beneficial to Wasps? Doubtful. Beneficial to CCC? Doubtful. Problem is the club isn't in control of this.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
What I find amazing. Is all these people who have wanted any other organisation to bend over backwards as long as it's for the good of CCFC.
They actively wanted a children's charity to be put under financial pressure.
They wanted a business half owned by CCC half owned by a charity to go bust.
They currently want Wasps to go bust and their fans to suffer.
All because it would be good for CCFC.
They supported CCFC breaking a legally binding contract.
Some even were ok with the club been held at ransom in another town!!
All these people want mediation and a solution to the problem.
Wasps and the Council apparently can help do this. They are both asking for legal action to be dropped that affects them both so they can start helping.
Yet the jokers on here who want the best at all costs for CCFC above all else. What do they say.....
Oh no you can't affect SISU's right to taken legal action!!!
Unbelievable
Screwing over a children's charty, yep as long as it helps CCFC.
Break legally binding contracts, yep all good if it helps CCFC.
Move out club away yep all good as long as it helps CCFC.
Yet ask SISU to drop legal action they won't win against the people they are asking to help them.
Suddenly these jokers find their moral bloody compass.
Oh no you can't do that, that is a step too far. The people getting sued should turn the other cheek and help out regardless.
Bunch of jokers the solution is simple SISU drop the legal action.
Every Cov fan should be asking for that. Why support something that is harming the club and if won wouldn't benefit the club anyway.
They actively wanted a children's charity to be put under financial pressure.
They wanted a business half owned by CCC half owned by a charity to go bust.
They currently want Wasps to go bust and their fans to suffer.
All because it would be good for CCFC.
They supported CCFC breaking a legally binding contract.
Some even were ok with the club been held at ransom in another town!!
All these people want mediation and a solution to the problem.
Wasps and the Council apparently can help do this. They are both asking for legal action to be dropped that affects them both so they can start helping.
Yet the jokers on here who want the best at all costs for CCFC above all else. What do they say.....
Oh no you can't affect SISU's right to taken legal action!!!
Unbelievable
Screwing over a children's charty, yep as long as it helps CCFC.
Break legally binding contracts, yep all good if it helps CCFC.
Move out club away yep all good as long as it helps CCFC.
Yet ask SISU to drop legal action they won't win against the people they are asking to help them.
Suddenly these jokers find their moral bloody compass.
Oh no you can't do that, that is a step too far. The people getting sued should turn the other cheek and help out regardless.
Bunch of jokers the solution is simple SISU drop the legal action.
Every Cov fan should be asking for that. Why support something that is harming the club and if won wouldn't benefit the club anyway.
Last edited:
MusicDating
Euro 2016 Prediction League Champion!!
It's funny how Jon Sharp is able to make a distinction between CCFC and SISU but some on here cannot...
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Yes the advice in the articles say unless you absolutely have to don't communicate with the person suing you.
Sometimes you have to as in if you need each other's business. (Examples Dave gave earlier)
Or in the case of CCC they would have a legal duty to communicate about certain things such as planning permission. Anything else they will have been advised that the best course of action is dont communicate.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Anyone can make a distinction about anything if it suits their view point or it will suit them business wise.
Nick
Administrator
Or if it's fact? It's nothing to do with suiting a point of view.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Is it a fact that CCFC are ultimately ran by the owner of SISU. Could Ben Stevenson be sold in the summer without the authorisation of the owner of SISU?
Nick
Administrator
Yep, he could.
Unless of course you go to games to support SISU?
The same way that Cov Rugby, Ticketmaster and Just Sport have agreements with CCFC and not SISU.
Skybluesince82
Well-Known Member
"CCC have a duty to 360 000 rate payers whom 5500 are season ticket holders. Err now that leaves 354 500 tax payers with no vested interest in CCFC. They couldnt give a fook about what happens but turn up at Wembley when it suits."
Actually this is a load of bollocks. Just my opinion....
A little late to the party in this thread, but with 40k supporters going to Wembley, that is over 10% of the population of the city (which is 344,000, not 360,000). The figure you gave doesn't take in to account the number of students living in the city, which is 30k at Coventry uni alone. So those attending (although admittedly they won't wall be from Coventry) make up loosely 13% of the population.
Worth noting that there was a 27.5% turnout for the local elections in 2016, so the council don't really represent the majority in their actions anyway, just as those 5.5k season ticket holders don't represent all CCFC fans.
Just because people aren't season ticket holders, it doesn't mean they aren't affected by CCFC and don't want a successful club in the city.
A successful football team without doubt is more beneficial to the economy than a rugby team. More games, potentially more fans and certainly more away supporters. A city centre stadium would also undoubtedly benefit local shops, pubs etc. More than a stadium on the outskirts of the city. I bet many local businesses and pubs closed or struggled after CCFC left Highfield Road.
Forget the daft analogies about taking my neighbour to court... not even on the same page. Surely the council have a duty to get involved in mediation considering the potential economic benefits to the city and considering the number of people that actually are demonstrating support of the club through the Wembley visit?
.
Actually this is a load of bollocks. Just my opinion....
A little late to the party in this thread, but with 40k supporters going to Wembley, that is over 10% of the population of the city (which is 344,000, not 360,000). The figure you gave doesn't take in to account the number of students living in the city, which is 30k at Coventry uni alone. So those attending (although admittedly they won't wall be from Coventry) make up loosely 13% of the population.
Worth noting that there was a 27.5% turnout for the local elections in 2016, so the council don't really represent the majority in their actions anyway, just as those 5.5k season ticket holders don't represent all CCFC fans.
Just because people aren't season ticket holders, it doesn't mean they aren't affected by CCFC and don't want a successful club in the city.
A successful football team without doubt is more beneficial to the economy than a rugby team. More games, potentially more fans and certainly more away supporters. A city centre stadium would also undoubtedly benefit local shops, pubs etc. More than a stadium on the outskirts of the city. I bet many local businesses and pubs closed or struggled after CCFC left Highfield Road.
Forget the daft analogies about taking my neighbour to court... not even on the same page. Surely the council have a duty to get involved in mediation considering the potential economic benefits to the city and considering the number of people that actually are demonstrating support of the club through the Wembley visit?
.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Do you really think Tim is brave enough to sanction the sale of one of our better players with out consulting Joy first? I mean she's hurting now. Imagine what she would be like if a player who would arguably be instrumental in a quick return to league one was sold. She'd probably join the Trust, get a ticket to the next forum with TF and stand at the back of the room shouting abuse at him like others who are hurting.
Nick
Administrator
In which case fair play to Joy for keeping hold of him and turning down the offers in January!
Doubt she even knows who Stevenson is.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
He can't actually as stated by Tim Fisher.
He is an asset on SISU's books so they ultimately have to say yes or no to any player sales.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
In which case fair play to Joy for keeping hold of him and turning down the offers in January!
Doubt she even knows who Stevenson is.
You may want to read my last post. As you are starting to look a bit silly.
Nick
Administrator
Do SISU own Stevenson now and have him on their books? Might want to let the FA know about third party ownership.
Did Joy sell Vincelot too?
Nick
Administrator
Really? So surely if she gives the nod to say yes, she gave the nod to say no to the offers?
Do you go to games to support CCFC or do you go there to support SISU?
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Well you obviously need enlightening.
It is ok offering to buy something.
You actually need to be serious about it and go out and aquire it.
There's the problem Sisu were never happy with the amount they were willing to offer, so kept holding out for what ever reason and boom they moved away fell out woth everyone and allowed another company to get in.
Not ticket science really
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
In which case fair play to Joy for keeping hold of him and turning down the offers in January!
Doubt she even knows who Stevenson is.
Indeed. But as has been pointed out is this so he can be sold in the summer transfer window when the income is needed most as there's no other income or was it because she's hurting at the prospect of relegation and want's to give us every chance of survival? You could say fair play either way. But let's not make out that she's not aware and sanctioning decisions at the club. Especially financial ones.
Nick
Administrator
I was clearly joking, rather than actually saying fair play to her
Who has Jon Sharpe dealt with to get the current agreement at the Butts if he won't deal with SISU?
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
Agree with this bit.
Imagine if they did drop the legals. Wouldn't that then give much more optimism for a successful future for CCFC? and, in a much shorter timescale?
It may not need mediation in that case, and perhaps you might then see an active CCC helping CCFC where they can.
Nick keeps on about blackmail, but wouldn't it be better for CCFC if they did drop it? Much better? Shouldn't he, and others, be backing that?
It would be much better doing it that way rather than call for a mediation that might, or might not, happen or achieve anything
But no, we see a lot of arguments simply ignoring that as an option, and it all has to be about CCC
It does seem at times that some people only care about the future of CCFC if it means that CCC has to do something.
Nick
Administrator
My point is that it could lead to it being dropped if they all get around a table couldn't it and they all stop acting like pricks.
It probably wouldn't, but I would bet there's more chance of things getting sorted that way.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Two games into the season Wasps had taken over the Ricoh and there was no chance of SISU getting it. But you know that. You just happened to ignore or not notice that part.
Nick
Administrator
I haven't ignored it, you said that they came back because nobody was going? Nobody went in the first season.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
My problem is as much when we went back to the likes of Robinson, Richardson, Elliott, McGinnity, Higgs etc. Confidentiality agreements when Richardson left meant we never knew why our club had been run into the ground, and nothing was tested objectively... so all we were left with was rumour and innuendo.
Now I'm not saying that this particular legal action will provide all (any?) of the answers, but I do think things should be tested if needs be. Something, in all this... doesn't sit right (and yes, I appreciate this particular legal action will probably not get to that - if only we had journalists who actually investigated, rather than just throwing FOI requests in) so I'd like all areas to be tested if needs be. I appreciate that might, in the short term, hurt the club as collateral damage (from all sides) but in the long term, I think it's necessary. Somewhere, from all sides, we need this swept apart so we can start seeing the club as a club, with benefits that can't be measured on a balance sheet, or even in a general strategy of the council (and no, by sayng this, this doesn't mean that we don't need the same from owners either... just to cover the tedious responses
)And yes, I will repeat the blackmail
We'll end up in circles and probably have to agree to differ, but I don't understand why any agreement reached by talking can't then be contingent on legal action being dropped anyway. If a deal were good enough for the club/owners, I bet the legal action'd go away...
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
LOL. a partnership with a company that "will not deal with SISU".
Nick
Administrator
And yes, I will repeat the blackmail
That's the thing, I don't think anybody is saying the council should go to the table and offer millions of tax payers money to build CCFC a stadium and academy. Just go with independents there to see what happens.
It would be a start.
Nick
Administrator
There is though, isn't there?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I was clearly joking, rather than actually saying fair play to her
Who has Jon Sharpe dealt with to get the current agreement at the Butts if he won't deal with SISU?
Tim Fisher I would assume. But we're talking about a desk in an office here. I'm sure Tim is allowed to sanction the purchase of paper clips without Joy's say so also. Both are a million miles away from selling an asset or not selling an asset that could be worth tens, hundreds or maybe even millions of pounds. Do you thing Tim has made her aware about redeveloping Ryton yet? Or is he waiting to for her to stop hurting some? Waiting for the opportune moment so to speak. Or maybe, just maybe she's already all too aware of the unfolding situation at Ryton and is in fact the driving force behind it?
You have to remember who has a charge over ALL of our assets. ARVO. Then you have to remember who signs of everything for ARVO. Joy. If you don't think she sanctions player sales one way or another than frankly you are being very naive.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The 20,000 fans were paying an average of £10 per head to attend. With no revenues really from other sources the percentage was ridiculously high. Keep kissing the councils backside though.