Coventry City ground share with Coventry RFC at Butts Park Arena could be back on (17 Viewers)

dongonzalos · Sep 21, 2016

How long will JR1 have taken when it finishes? If a 2 plus 2 deal is agreed at the Ricoh, would that cover the time for JR2?
If so I can see club self sufficient mid to low table mediocracy in division 3 till JR2 finishes.

Might explain Grendels suggestion that the club want 2 plus 2.

Also may explain Wasps view of let's wait till all the legal stuff is out of the way.

JR2 been the key factor.

I don't fancy that personally I back the CET campaign

Kingokings204 · Sep 21, 2016

Nick said:
Yes, it went up until we lost a game and then straight back down...

Because it's league 1? Because of the last 15 years?

Kingokings204 · Sep 21, 2016

Nick said:
How else could they spend double their turnover without a Billionaire, without going bust?

No I'm not saying you're wrong just said not as simple as that. They had a big money man agreed and we long for one but he had the foresight and ambition to go for it. Something we are craving for

Nick · Sep 21, 2016

Kingokings204 said:
No I'm not saying you're wrong just said not as simple as that. They had a big money man agreed and we long for one but he had the foresight and ambition to go for it. Something we are craving for

He also had the money to back up the ambition though. I agree, I'd love it too!

Brylowes · Sep 21, 2016

Nick said:
Yes, it went up until we lost a game and then straight back down...

That's not true is it though, well I suppose it is in away like it dropped down to
About 4-000 more than we had on Saturday.
But it's all about building momentum isn't it, our lot do their best to aid "free fall"

The Reverend Skyblue · Sep 21, 2016

Brylowes said:
We have dropped to 8-000because of the product on offer, don't forget last season
Up until the team died on it's arse in January we were up around 15-000 and would
Have been over 20-000 had the ball kept rolling.
Why are so many of you willing to just take whatever they tell you, we are bigger and
Better than this, it's about time we realised it and got our fucking club back.

We cant invest in the team ,"to get a better product on the pitch" as you say without better income levels.
We are governed by the leagues rules, we cant ignore them and just spend.
The product on the pitch contained 4/5 loan regulars which every fucker on here moaned about, "we need to buy players and put them on long contracts" was a constant argument, so that's what they have done and brought in players we can afford on longer contracts.
It is patronising when someone who has a different view to how things should be done going forward is " taking whatever they tell you". The club somehow has to grow to improve, how the hell can we do that under the agreement now, and the next one ,if we stay !
Its my opinion ,accept mine like I have yours without getting patronising.

sorry abut all the quotation marks

The Reverend Skyblue · Sep 21, 2016

Kingokings204 said:
Not just as simple as that Nick. They had a billionaire end of story. They had ambition and the right people there. Good players. It isn't all solved by a billionaire.

So are you saying Bournemouth are where they are without the help from their billionaire owner. How did they then bring in all these better players on 10,000 crowds, and that's being generous.
Of course they used his money ,and they are starting to pay him back.
Bournemouth got lucky, I wish we would but the reality of it is that we can only invest in a better team and the other things off the pitch if we increase our income levels, unless we meet a billionaire that is

Sky Blue Kid · Sep 21, 2016

The Reverend Skyblue said:
We cant invest in the team ,"to get a better product on the pitch" as you say without better income levels.
We are governed by the leagues rules, we cant ignore them and just spend.
The product on the pitch contained 4/5 loan regulars which every fucker on here moaned about, "we need to buy players and put them on long contracts" was a constant argument, so that's what they have done and brought in players we can afford on longer contracts.
It is patronising when someone who has a different view to how things should be done going forward is " taking whatever they tell you". The club somehow has to grow to improve, how the hell can we do that under the agreement now, and the next one ,if we stay !
Its my opinion ,accept mine like I have yours without getting patronising.

sorry abut all the quotation marks

Nine years nearly, of non strengthening the team, when on takeover we were getting average 20-22k gates. Where is your argument to "Not having the money" to strengthen then?
Not being patronising Rev just realistic mate

Brylowes · Sep 21, 2016

The Reverend Skyblue said:
We cant invest in the team ,"to get a better product on the pitch" as you say without better income levels.
We are governed by the leagues rules, we cant ignore them and just spend.
The product on the pitch contained 4/5 loan regulars which every fucker on here moaned about, "we need to buy players and put them on long contracts" was a constant argument, so that's what they have done and brought in players we can afford on longer contracts.
It is patronising when someone who has a different view to how things should be done going forward is " taking whatever they tell you". The club somehow has to grow to improve, how the hell can we do that under the agreement now, and the next one ,if we stay !
Its my opinion ,accept mine like I have yours without getting patronising.

sorry abut all the quotation marks

Not trying to patronise you,

MusicDating · Sep 21, 2016

The Reverend Skyblue said:
So are you saying Bournemouth are where they are without the help from their billionaire owner. How did they then bring in all these better players on 10,000 crowds, and that's being generous.
Of course they used his money ,and they are starting to pay him back.
Bournemouth got lucky, I wish we would but the reality of it is that we can only invest in a better team and the other things off the pitch if we increase our income levels, unless we meet a billionaire that is

Bournemouth were handed a £7.6m fine for breaching Financial Fair Play rules after accruing huge losses last season en route to Premier League promotion.

The Football League did not confirm the size of the penalty, but details of the fine - which has not yet been paid - were disclosed in the club's accounts, which show they made a £38.3m loss in winning the Championship in 2014-15.

That was up from £10.3m the previous season, mainly because of staff wages, which rose to £30.4m, more than double the club's turnover of £12.9m.

Eddie Howe's side won the Championship title last season but exceeded Financial Fair Play limits of permitted maximum losses of £6m for a season.

Championship sides Bolton, Fulham and Nottingham Forest were all placed under a transfer embargo after breaking similar rules.

The accounts also revealed that it cost the Cherries £4.6m to bring their stadium up to Premier League specifications.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36189779

Nick · Sep 21, 2016

Sky Blue Kid said:
Nine years nearly, of non strengthening the team, when on takeover we were getting average 20-22k gates. Where is your argument to "Not having the money" to strengthen then?
Not being patronising Rev just realistic mate

We didn't have they money then did we?

Sky Blue Kid · Sep 21, 2016

Nick said:
We didn't have they money then did we?

Weren't we "Debt Free" and promised £20m by RR to take the Club forward..... Or was I dreaming that?

Nick · Sep 21, 2016

Sky Blue Kid said:
Weren't we "Debt Free" and promised £20m by RR to take the Club forward..... Or was I dreaming that?

We also had almost the lowest revenues in the league didn't we? Stupot has his graph.

Sky Blue Kid · Sep 21, 2016

Nick said:
We also had almost the lowest revenues in the league didn't we? Stupot has his graph.

Which bit of "Debt Free" and £20m to take the Club forward, didn't you read?
PS. To be quite honest, I couldn't give a fuck about stupot07's graph.

Nick · Sep 21, 2016

Sky Blue Kid said:
Which bit of "Debt Free" and £20m to take the Club forward, didn't you read?
PS. To be quite honest, I couldn't give a fuck about stupot07's graph.

Maybe you should, as it maybe explains why we struggled in the championship.

Sky Blue Kid · Sep 21, 2016

RR promised £20m to take the Club forward... He either lied or was forced to renege on it by SISU. After all would you promise something then not give it?

Sky Blue Kid · Sep 21, 2016

Nick said:
Maybe you should, as it maybe explains why we struggled in the championship.

Final time mate Where the fuck did the £20m go? Wasn't spent on the fucking team was it!

Nick · Sep 21, 2016

Sky Blue Kid said:
Final time mate Where the fuck did the £20m go?

Have a look through the accounts from that time.

I'd guess if they even did then, it would be covering losses and crap like Freddy Eastwood.

One for osb...

Sky Blue Kid · Sep 21, 2016

Nick said:
Have a look through the accounts from that time.

I'd guess if they even did then, it would be covering losses and crap like Freddy Eastwood.

One for osb...

Am I typing too fast for you Nick? I said we were promised £20m to take the Club forward. As for Eastwood, he didn't join CCFC till 2008 so there's a kick in the bollocks to that statement of yours.

Otis · Sep 21, 2016

Johnnythespider said:
There really should be an unlike button on here.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Nick was going to do it, but of course every day is his unbirthday (apart of course from his actual birthday), so he is always too busy celebrating.

Nick · Sep 21, 2016

Sky Blue Kid said:
Am I typing too fast for you Nick? I said we were promised £20m to take the Club forward. As for Eastwood, he didn't join CCFC till 2008 so there's a kick in the bollocks to that statement of yours.

Where is the kick in the bollocks?

The Reverend Skyblue · Sep 21, 2016

Sky Blue Kid said:
Nine years nearly, of non strengthening the team, when on takeover we were getting average 20-22k gates. Where is your argument to "Not having the money" to strengthen then?
Not being patronising Rev just realistic mate

We both know they did throw some money at the club when they got here but that went tits up, and that was before the new governing rules of limiting your spending to your income. I know the lower Premier sides get round it by the owner keeps having to put money in, but unfortunately our owners haven't clearly got the money to do it that way, so we are stuck with them unless they can find a buyer to buy something with absolutely no assets.
I'd love it another way but we can only spend what we get through income, and no-one surely can argue that given our owners, so we have to start anew and build something that will increase income so they can put that towards investing on the pitch and a better team.
If we stay at the Ricoh, our sons and daughters who take over from us as fans ,will be facing exactly the same dilemma in 20/30 years, a shit team in a rented stadium with limited income, it wont ever go away .
We can start to build something away from the Ricoh's constraints and begin to grow something for the future to sell on as product that someone see value to it, or stay for the longer course if we get near the promise land.

The Reverend Skyblue · Sep 21, 2016

MusicDating said:
Bournemouth were handed a £7.6m fine for breaching Financial Fair Play rules after accruing huge losses last season en route to Premier League promotion.

The Football League did not confirm the size of the penalty, but details of the fine - which has not yet been paid - were disclosed in the club's accounts, which show they made a £38.3m loss in winning the Championship in 2014-15.

That was up from £10.3m the previous season, mainly because of staff wages, which rose to £30.4m, more than double the club's turnover of £12.9m.

Eddie Howe's side won the Championship title last season but exceeded Financial Fair Play limits of permitted maximum losses of £6m for a season.

Championship sides Bolton, Fulham and Nottingham Forest were all placed under a transfer embargo after breaking similar rules.

The accounts also revealed that it cost the Cherries £4.6m to bring their stadium up to Premier League specifications.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36189779

Yet this is what some fans want us to do, accrue more debt get fined, accrue more debt get bigger fine, accrue even bigger debt get even bigger fine, etc.
How can anyone want something like that, have we learnt nothing from the past.
Yes Bournemouth are doing well with their billionaire owner, but wait till he gets bored or wants money to invest elsewhere, they will go pop, and not for the first time

Nick · Sep 21, 2016

The Reverend Skyblue said:
Yet this is what some fans want us to do, accrue more debt get fined, accrue more debt get bigger fine, accrue even bigger debt get even bigger fine, etc.
How can anyone want something like that, have we learnt nothing from the past.
Yes Bournemouth are doing well with their billionaire owner, but wait till he gets bored or wants money to invest elsewhere, they will go pop, and not for the first time

Then demand people just walk away after putting money in.

Grendel · Sep 21, 2016

Sky Blue Kid said:
Weren't we "Debt Free" and promised £20m by RR to take the Club forward..... Or was I dreaming that?

No he was talking bollocks - I thought you liked him?

Frankley · Sep 21, 2016

The Reverend Skyblue said:
Yet this is what some fans want us to do, accrue more debt get fined, accrue more debt get bigger fine, accrue even bigger debt get even bigger fine, etc.
How can anyone want something like that, have we learnt nothing from the past.
Yes Bournemouth are doing well with their billionaire owner, but wait till he gets bored or wants money to invest elsewhere, they will go pop, and not for the first time

The other point to make is that that club can't win. If the club spends more than allowed and gets fined people will be on here complaining that it's evidence the club is being poorly run.

Porkchophill · Sep 21, 2016

Nick said:
The "partnership" with cov rugby would be a great option as well. They could do a lot with a crossover.

As said before, they shouldn't be forgotten when talking about this.

Ive heard one of the universities are developing in partnership
With the rugby club

Rodders1 · Sep 21, 2016

MusicDating said:
Bournemouth were handed a £7.6m fine for breaching Financial Fair Play rules after accruing huge losses last season en route to Premier League promotion.

The Football League did not confirm the size of the penalty, but details of the fine - which has not yet been paid - were disclosed in the club's accounts, which show they made a £38.3m loss in winning the Championship in 2014-15.

That was up from £10.3m the previous season, mainly because of staff wages, which rose to £30.4m, more than double the club's turnover of £12.9m.

Eddie Howe's side won the Championship title last season but exceeded Financial Fair Play limits of permitted maximum losses of £6m for a season.

Championship sides Bolton, Fulham and Nottingham Forest were all placed under a transfer embargo after breaking similar rules.

The accounts also revealed that it cost the Cherries £4.6m to bring their stadium up to Premier League specifications.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36189779

Football clubs are so much more powerful now - the FA seem to cower at the thought of actually punishing someone seriously because of the possible court cases a billionaire could fund.

Those Bournemouth stats are a disgrace and defeats the object of FFP. Also I pity the clubs playing by the rules.

hill83 · Sep 21, 2016

Nick said:
Where is the kick in the bollocks?

Usually between the legs, but for some people it's just above the nose.

peeler · Sep 21, 2016

oucho said:
Personally I'm happy for Wasps to stay at the Ricoh and succeed there; mostly because it would serve our owners right, and shoot them right up the bum!
Plus, if WRFC do succeed, it'll mean they can afford to give us a better deal on rent and other revenues, to help us. That might include revenues from the casino, hotel, exhibition hall etc, which we wouldn't get at the Butts.

oucho, I'm in agreement, but you do realise by posting something like that you'll get rounded on by the forum mafia, mind you I think you can hold your own.

Grendel · Sep 21, 2016

peeler said:
oucho, I'm in agreement, but you do realise by posting something like that you'll get rounded on by the forum mafia, mind you I think you can hold your own.

Of course you are. I admire multi tasking though. Typing while sucking Eastwoods cock at the same time. Well done.

peeler · Sep 21, 2016

Grendel said:
Of course you are. I admire multi tasking though. Typing while sucking Eastwoods cock at the same time. Well done.

This type of remark tells people far more about you than me.

clint van damme · Sep 21, 2016

oucho said:
Personally I'm happy for Wasps to stay at the Ricoh and succeed there; mostly because it would serve our owners right, and shoot them right up the bum!
Plus, if WRFC do succeed, it'll mean they can afford to give us a better deal on rent and other revenues, to help us. That might include revenues from the casino, hotel, exhibition hall etc, which we wouldn't get at the Butts.

even if wasps and sisu come out of todays meeting skipping along holding hands and promising to be best mates forever the above scenario is never going to happen.

I don't see the Butts as a viable option though, especially if sisu still own the club, BPA will still require a lot of investment to make happen and they ain't going to stump up the cash.

Otis · Sep 21, 2016

clint van damme said:
even if wasps and sisu come out of todays meeting skipping along holding hands and promising to be best mates forever the above scenario is never going to happen.

I don't see the Butts as a viable option though, especially if sisu still own the club, BPA will still require a lot of investment to make happen and they ain't going to stump up the cash.

Yup!

BPA could possibly happen, but not with Sisu at at helm I fear.

stupot07 · Sep 21, 2016

oucho said:
Personally I'm happy for Wasps to stay at the Ricoh and succeed there; mostly because it would serve our owners right, and shoot them right up the bum!
Plus, if WRFC do succeed, it'll mean they can afford to give us a better deal on rent and other revenues, to help us. That might include revenues from the casino, hotel, exhibition hall etc, which we wouldn't get at the Butts.

That's never ever going to happen. If wasos are doing nicely and making a profit, they share holders will start to take dividends, they won't be gifting the football club extra revenues. Before this, they have to start turning a profit, and thrybwikl also need to build a slush fund to fund maintenance and likely repairs now the building is over 10 years old, then you have to fugure proof as thr wage cap is increasing likely to be abolished in thr next 5-10 years, not to mention paying back the bonds. This isn't a partnership its a tenants landlord relationship. Whatever they give up in one hand will be taken away with the other.

As long as sisu gets shafted who cares about the long term future of thr football club hey?!

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Coventry City ground share with Coventry RFC at Butts Park Arena could be back on (17 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Euro 2016 Prediction League Champion!!

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency