CCFC New Statement. (2 Viewers)

Sick Boy · Oct 12, 2018

The sale of the stadium to the franchise has totally ruined our club and will ensure that we struggle to progress while they're in the city. I can't see there being many potential owners looking to takeover with no chance of owning the stadium either.

The fact some on here lauded Wasps' move to the city as it got back at SISU and was good business is staggering.

Hobo · Oct 12, 2018

Sick Boy said:
The sale of the stadium to the franchise has totally ruined our club and will ensure that we struggle to progress while they're in the city. I can't see there being many potential owners looking to takeover with no aspect of owning the stadium either.

The fact some on here lauded Wasps' move to the city as it got back at SISU and was good business is staggering.

I have never lauded Wasps move to the city. But ultimately it is SISU's strategy that has messed us up as a club. Yes there are guilty parties before that but they should have known what they were taking on.

Nick · Oct 12, 2018

Sick Boy said:
The fact some on here lauded Wasps' move to the city as it got back at SISU and was good business is staggering.

Sadly those people are the ones people seem to listen to as representatives of ccfc fans. Pair that up with the PR campaign that followed and it's job done.

chiefdave · Oct 12, 2018

Sick Boy said:
I can't see there being many potential owners looking to takeover with no aspect of owning the stadium either.

The whole reason we ended up with SISU is that once it became clear the council weren't prepared to consider the club having an ownership stake in the stadium they were they only one of the seven bidders still interested.

Said it before, unless you have a connection to the club why would you buy CCFC over any other club in the country?

clint van damme · Oct 12, 2018

ccfctommy said:
Another statement released. They should call us Statement FC.

There still going with the 'club and the owners are totally different things' bollocks.

you support sisu then?
I don't, I support CCFC.

Astute · Oct 13, 2018

chiefdave said:
The whole reason we ended up with SISU is that once it became clear the council weren't prepared to consider the club having an ownership stake in the stadium they were they only one of the seven bidders still interested.

Said it before, unless you have a connection to the club why would you buy CCFC over any other club in the country?

This post asks mire questions than it answers.

Ownership stake? We were given 50% of the lease. What happened to this 50%? Yes it was put up as collateral. If we had been given 50% of the ground without a lease it would have been more valuable. This I agree with. But what would have happened with it?

Then you have the problem of state funding. CCC wouldn't have been able to have spent millions to give it away to our football club. And who would have wanted to give it away to Richardson? He would have just used it to benefit himself.

Our problem has been awful owners for a lot of years. They have been more interested in their own pockets more than our football club. Every 'what if' comes out with more 'what ifs'

higgs · Oct 13, 2018

Whoever the owners are it doesn't matter in my opinion the Ricoh was built by coventry city council for coventry city football club for the people of coventry the seats are even sky blue. It's utterly wrong that a rugby team from London own our stadium. It should be coventry city fc's home

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Otis · Oct 13, 2018

higgs said:
Whoever the owners are it doesn't matter in my opinion the Ricoh was built by coventry city council for coventry city football club for the people of coventry the seats are even sky blue. It's utterly wrong that a rugby team from London own our stadium. It should be coventry city fc's home

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

So all we need to do now is to relay that message to the council and Wasps today and it will all be sorted by teatime.

Sbarcher · Oct 13, 2018

Otis said:
So all we need to do now is to relay that message to the council and Wasps today and it will all be sorted by teatime.

Otis, with a game this afternoon, think it might be supper time now.

Otis · Oct 13, 2018

Sbarcher said:
Otis, with a game this afternoon, think it might be supper time now.

How can it be supper time now?

Does that mean I missed the game?

SkyblueBazza · Oct 13, 2018

Sick Boy said:
The sale of the stadium to the franchise has totally ruined our club and will ensure that we struggle to progress while they're in the city. I can't see there being many potential owners looking to takeover with no aspect of owning the stadium either.

The fact some on here lauded Wasps' move to the city as it got back at SISU and was good business is staggering.

I think everyone would have preferred we owned the stadium instead. What you call 'lauding' I suspect was more a despairing "serves you fkin right" due to their true to (hedge fund) form in how they go about screwing over everyone in their path for a few extra pennies.

None of which helps our current plight...with no prospect of a satisfactory end in sight.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

higgs · Oct 13, 2018

Otis said:
So all we need to do now is to relay that message to the council and Wasps today and it will all be sorted by teatime.

Sounds like a plan do u think it will work?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Sick Boy · Oct 13, 2018

SkyblueBazza said:
What you call 'lauding' I suspect was more a despairing "serves you fkin right" due to their true to (hedge fund) form in how they go about screwing over everyone in their path for a few extra pennies.

Like the owners of Wasps moving their club away from its home? Even that move was applauded by some on here for being 'great business sense'.

chiefdave · Oct 13, 2018

Astute said:
Ownership stake? We were given 50% of the lease. What happened to this 50%?

My post was referring to the point at which SISU took over. During that process we have seven potential new owners bidding. Six of them walked away as their plan for the club involved stadium ownership, or at least partial ownership.

That left SISU, the councils preferred option.

Magwitch · Oct 13, 2018

Hypothetical question. What do any of you think would have happened had the Ricoh not been sold to Wasps ? Remembering at the time we were one match into our second season at Northampton.

Nick · Oct 13, 2018

Magwitch said:
Hypothetical question. What do any of you think would have happened had the Ricoh not been sold to Wasps ? Remembering at the time we were one match into our second season at Northampton.

The Ricoh was actually sold to Wasps after our first game back.

chiefdave · Oct 13, 2018

Magwitch said:
Hypothetical question. What do any of you think would have happened had the Ricoh not been sold to Wasps ? Remembering at the time we were one match into our second season at Northampton.

Reckon there was two options.

1) the council hold on to the Ricoh. We now, despite the councils claims at the time, that it wasn't performing as a business but it was badly managed so that was something that could have been improved. They could have kept hold of it until CCFC had new owners. Something I believe would happen a lot sooner without the ground being sold to Wasps.

2) there is a clear and open sales process. The council could have got in a company who specialise in such sales and ensured it was properly marketed with all interested parties
bidding on the same terms. That would have maximised the return for the taxpayer and given CCFC fans a clear target with which to pressure SISU.

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 13, 2018

Magwitch said:
Hypothetical question. What do any of you think would have happened had the Ricoh not been sold to Wasps ? Remembering at the time we were one match into our second season at Northampton.

We'd have stayed at Northampton for the full year (yes it was sold after we moved back, but the speed we moved back suggested it was because the rules of the game had changed).

tbh I had no problem particularly with the council selling it to Cov Rugby, even putting a roof on it and turning it into an NEC... even making it a massive speedway track or swimming pool or turning it into some kind of modernist Le Corbusier style commune with apartments.

It's the selling to a London sports team while complaining about our sports team moving away that sticks.

But... we've been here, done that!

Nick · Oct 13, 2018

Deleted member 5849 said:
We'd have stayed at Northampton for the full year (yes it was sold after we moved back, but the speed we moved back suggested it was because the rules of the game had changed).

tbh I had no problem particularly with the council selling it to Cov Rugby, even putting a roof on it and turning it into an NEC... even making it a massive speedway track or swimming pool or turning it into some kind of modernist Le Corbusier style commune with apartments.

It's the selling to a London sports team while complaining about our sports team moving away that sticks.

But... we've been here, done that!

I think for most the taste wouldn't have been as bad if they hadn't been preaching about sports clubs moving for the past 2 years. Even if they flattened it for houses it would have been more understandable.

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 13, 2018

Nick said:
I think for most the taste wouldn't have been as bad if they hadn't been preaching about sports clubs moving for the past 2 years. Even if they flattened it for houses it would have been more understandable.

Ultimately part of the problem was the motivation for the stadium being built in the first place, from CCC's side, was area regeneration. Some of those aims don't tie in with a sports club however. Flatten it for housing, say to CCFC we'll make a provision in the local plan for a football stadium, and here's some patches of land you might like to look at for it and, well... it would still have stank, but the stench would have been pretty much all over SISU, as by that point they'd stated that was their plan so CCC would have just been trying to facilitate it.

Nick · Oct 13, 2018

Deleted member 5849 said:
Ultimately part of the problem was the motivation for the stadium being built in the first place, from CCC's side, was area regeneration. Some of those aims don't tie in with a sports club however. Flatten it for housing, say to CCFC we'll make a provision in the local plan for a football stadium, and here's some patches of land you might like to look at for it and, well... it would still have stank, but the stench would have been pretty much all over SISU, as by that point they'd stated that was their plan so CCC would have just been trying to facilitate it.

Maton tried that with the Dunlop site didn't he? Even though houses were already there and he knew full well there was 0% chance of any sort of stadium.

Magwitch · Oct 13, 2018

As for a new stadium as I see it there are just a couple of suitable plots of land in Cov.for a new one, one is almost next door to the Ricoh just off Rowleys Green Lane would require buying and flattening the relatively small industrial estate but still doable, I think I am correct that one side of the road is CCC the other is Nuneaton & Bedworth Council could be difficult to deny planning too, the other is on the old brickworks site off Stoney Stanton Road loads of land but looks to me it’s going to be housing

Captain Dart · Oct 13, 2018

WhaleOilBeefHooked said:
Just FYI

Coventry City Football Club acknowledges the judgement given in the Court of Appeal this morning, concerning the Court Case involving the owners of the club Sisu, Wasps and Coventry City Council.

The decision, whoever's ‘favour’ it went in, would not and does not alter the situation as described in our statement made last night.

Coventry City Football Club reaffirms its intention to play at the Ricoh Arena beyond the end of this season and to work with the stadium owners Wasps to achieve a deal to make this happen, securing the immediate future of the club.

As has been stated previously, the Football Club and its staff continue to fully focus on the day-to-day running of the club, and we have no direct involvement in the court case.

The club can also confirm again that we are not liable for any costs in relation to this court case, and that all costs are incurred by the club’s owners.

There is a clear inaccuracy in that statement, they are liable for costs, presumably someone else has promised to pay them, but they are still liable.

Captain Dart · Oct 13, 2018

Magwitch said:
As for a new stadium as I see it there are just a couple of suitable plots of land in Cov.for a new one, one is almost next door to the Ricoh just off Rowleys Green Lane would require buying and flattening the relatively small industrial estate but still doable, I think I am correct that one side of the road is CCC the other is Nuneaton & Bedworth Council could be difficult to deny planning too, the other is on the old brickworks site off Stoney Stanton Road loads of land but looks to me it’s going to be housing

Bet that is as heavily polluted as the site the Ricoh is built on.

Captain Dart · Oct 13, 2018

higgs said:
Whoever the owners are it doesn't matter in my opinion the Ricoh was built by coventry city council for coventry city football club for the people of coventry the seats are even sky blue. It's utterly wrong that a rugby team from London own our stadium. It should be coventry city fc's home

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Wrong about the origin of the Ricoh, it was a failed project initiated by the club, a Richardson pipe dream. The council only got involved when the club could not deliver the finance and they completed the project as part of a scheme to regenerate a run down area of the city. Later developments are also tied to debt arising from the project, hence the sale to Wasps who were daft enough to take the debt from the Council. It is a tragedy that the original project was not sound, if it was a smaller project, capable of expansion, things could have been very different.

Astute · Oct 13, 2018

chiefdave said:
My post was referring to the point at which SISU took over. During that process we have seven potential new owners bidding. Six of them walked away as their plan for the club involved stadium ownership, or at least partial ownership.

That left SISU, the councils preferred option.

So what do you suggest should have happened?

fatso · Oct 13, 2018

The council were not going to wait around for ever for the clubs owners to sort themselves out, the minute the club decided to play power games by withholding the rent, the club effectively disadvantaged themselves legaly, and the council who’s responsibility was to the rate payers of the city (not the fans) were quite within their rites to sell the Ricoh to any interested party. In fact, my guess is they snapped the hands off the rugby club just to offload a massive financial burden. (And possibly retribution to sisu)
As much as it sticks in the throat, our future existence is now completely at the mercy of wasps. Unless wasps can negotiate a rental agreement that significantly benefits them, why should they allow ccfc to continue using the facilities? The football clubs owners will no doubt try and manipulate public opinion to put pressure on wasps, but to be honest many of the public have lost patience with our owners and their games and the whole sorry saga.
I fully expect any future ground share agreement to be heavily weighted in favour of wasps, which will inevitably mean we bocome financially unviable,
Leading to further asset stripping, moving out of the city, a new ground, or going out of existence all together, so strap yourselves in, buckle up, and prepare for another few years of confusion, conflict, disappointment and frustration.

Oh the joys of being a ccfc fan !!!

Magwitch · Oct 13, 2018

Captain Dart said:
There is a clear inaccuracy in that statement, they are liable for costs, presumably someone else has promised to pay them, but they are still liable.

They,ccfc seem to be saying nothing to do with us see sisu, that might be true unfortunately the FA and EFL can and have acted on the antics of “parent” companies.

Magwitch · Oct 13, 2018

Also there’s a lot of hope in the fact if true Wasps are sgtruggling financially they might be but let’s not bank on them going bust. Should things get too bad I suspect there would be interested parties out there to takeover. Wouldn’t surprise me if they have their options in a row and will go whichever way suits. In fact if I was them I’d be looking for another tennant. There are other rugger clubs about

peace ndlovu · Oct 13, 2018

fatso said:
The council were not going to wait around for ever for the clubs owners to sort themselves out, the minute the club decided to play power games by withholding the rent, the club effectively disadvantaged themselves legaly, and the council who’s responsibility was to the rate payers of the city (not the fans) were quite within their rites to sell the Ricoh to any interested party. In fact, my guess is they snapped the hands off the rugby club just to offload a massive financial burden. (And possibly retribution to sisu)
As much as it sticks in the throat, our future existence is now completely at the mercy of wasps. Unless wasps can negotiate a rental agreement that significantly benefits them, why should they allow ccfc to continue using the facilities? The football clubs owners will no doubt try and manipulate public opinion to put pressure on wasps, but to be honest many of the public have lost patience with our owners and their games and the whole sorry saga.
I fully expect any future ground share agreement to be heavily weighted in favour of wasps, which will inevitably mean we bocome financially unviable,
Leading to further asset stripping, moving out of the city, a new ground, or going out of existence all together, so strap yourselves in, buckle up, and prepare for another few years of confusion, conflict, disappointment and frustration.

Oh the joys of being a ccfc fan !!!

I understand all that but I despise the council for making a decision that at best, severely limits the potential for the city's football club (or at worst destroys it completely). SISU are not Coventry City. They are merely (hopefully for not too much longer) temporary custodians. The most important element of the club is the supporters, and while there are relatively small numbers attending now, we all know that the fan base is potentially very big. We, the fans, are the only constant. Since 2005, the stadium has changed, and every other ingredient of the club (directors,managers, playing squad, kit etc) has changed multiple times. It's our club and the city council have treated it like a disposable inconvenience because of our shit owners, by selling it to a London rugby club with a 250 year lease. Tens of thousands of supporters will be suffering the effects of this decision long after SISU have gone. And opportunities for the football club to bring pride and positivity to the city in the same way our M69 neighbors did have vanished.

shmmeee · Oct 13, 2018

peace ndlovu said:
I understand all that but I despise the council for making a decision that at best, severely limits the potential for the city's football club (or at worst destroys it completely). SISU are not Coventry City. They are merely (hopefully for not too much longer) temporary custodians. The most important element of the club is the supporters, and while there are relatively small numbers attending now, we all know that the fan base is potentially very big. We, the fans, are the only constant. Since 2005, the stadium has changed, and every other ingredient of the club (directors,managers, playing squad, kit etc) has changed multiple times. It's our club and the city council have treated it like a disposable inconvenience because of our shit owners, by selling it to a London rugby club with a 250 year lease. Tens of thousands of supporters will be suffering the effects of this decision long after SISU have gone. And opportunities for the football club to bring pride and positivity to the city in the same way our M69 neighbors did have vanished.

Did the council take that decision in a vacuum? Why did they sell at that point in time rather than any time in the decade previously?

peace ndlovu · Oct 13, 2018

shmmeee said:
Did the council take that decision in a vacuum? Why did they sell at that point in time rather than any time in the decade previously?

I suspect because a) that was when they received a bid and b) that they wanted to offload something that had become problematic and c) they wanted to teach SISU a lesson (while not giving a fuck about the supporters of the city's football club)

Grendel · Oct 13, 2018

Captain Dart said:
Wrong about the origin of the Ricoh, it was a failed project initiated by the club, a Richardson pipe dream. The council only got involved when the club could not deliver the finance and they completed the project as part of a scheme to regenerate a run down area of the city. Later developments are also tied to debt arising from the project, hence the sale to Wasps who were daft enough to take the debt from the Council. It is a tragedy that the original project was not sound, if it was a smaller project, capable of expansion, things could have been very different.

Why blather own about the debt from the council. They bought the loan on behalf of the tax payer as they claimed this would deliver a profit and benefit all tax payers in the city.

Lied didn’t they?

Grendel · Oct 13, 2018

shmmeee said:
Did the council take that decision in a vacuum? Why did they sell at that point in time rather than any time in the decade previously?

Because they could as they extended the lease once the charity left the building

Captain Dart · Oct 13, 2018

Grendel said:
Why blather own about the debt from the council. They bought the loan on behalf of the tax payer as they claimed this would deliver a profit and benefit all tax payers in the city.

Lied didn’t they?

I never thought that was the reason, just spin. The point was to keep ACL going so it could be sold at a reasonable price.

That plan worked didn't it?

CCFC New Statement. (2 Viewers)

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

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

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Administrator

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Administrator

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