Eviction notice (15 Viewers)

skybluetony176 · Dec 5, 2022

Nick said:
Well it's not because the last one was for another few years and that's until the end of the season.

If their statement is to be believed it reads to me that the club was initially offered the same deal, I would assume that basically means a continuation of the original license with 7ish years to run. The club for whatever reason didn’t take that up sighting changes it wanted, apparently. A subsequent short term license has been offered in the interim.

In short. Renewal of the original license offered and declined.

New short term license offered with a view to negotiate a longer license on new terms as per the club’s request.

On that basis the first question is why not just sign the continuation?

rexo87 · Dec 5, 2022

GIMOC said:
I think a lot of people here are getting confused. The originally contract offered was the same. Sisu decided not to sign. Ashley offered new contact but short term basis.

But why would we sign a contract with a company that didnt own the stadium? And why would company then take away contract offer once they owned stadium

Alan Dugdales Moustache · Dec 5, 2022

....it's a matter of days before we all absolutely hate SISU (or whoever owns the club) again.
You just wait and see.

David O'Day · Dec 5, 2022

skybluetony176 said:
If their statement is to be believed it reads to me that the club was initially offered the same deal, I would assume that basically means a continuation of the original license with 7ish years to run. The club for whatever reason didn’t take that up sighting changes it wanted, apparently. A subsequent short term license has been offered in the interim.

In short. Renewal of the original license offered and declined.

New short term license offered with a view to negotiate a longer license on new terms as per the club’s request.

On that basis the first question is why not just sign the continuation?

the original offer was until the end of season

no one would sign that

eastwoodsdustman · Dec 5, 2022

They can bicker and argue all they like for all I care as long at the team aren't affected. My only concern is that we will end up having to sell someone when we should and were looking forward to investment coming in to the club in the transfer window.
Ashley could well be playing with fire. If he puts the club over a barrel financially by increasing costs or shutting us out and it results in us having to sell players and scuppers any chance of play offs or promotion then he will lose any goodwill (as small as it might have been already) that he might have got when he bought us. He could well ruin any feel good factor that a takeover would hopefully bring.

skybluetony176 · Dec 5, 2022

Alan Dugdales Moustache said:
....it's a matter of days before we all absolutely hate SISU (or whoever owns the club) again.
You just wait and see.

Never stopped myself. Just been able to stomach them more since Robins arrived.

Samo · Dec 5, 2022

IMissMAF said:
Feels like 2012/2019 again

It's like we are trapped in this never ending fucking nightmare. I honestly wish I didn't care.

Blake · Dec 5, 2022

Nick said:
It depends on the word play of "terms".

Again, how can a license be signed with somebody who doesn't own something?

It would be a contract conditioned on Fraser completing the purchase.

skyblu3sk · Dec 5, 2022

wingy said:
Probably it was with a different bankrupt outfit

I get that but you can see why SISU would be fucked off swallowing all the cost and not being given a chance to own the thing. Then MA saying oh BTW you need to pay us more in the long term. That's a financial shit sarnie. MA gets to say the deal stays "the same" but it isn't as the club have had to pick up a load of unexpected cost.

wingy · Dec 5, 2022

It's clearly there "Mirroring the terms".
Unless I'm thick that means costs and length.
The only thing different would be the absence of a Rugby team not being there every other week from our side.
From theirs well?

ccfcrob · Dec 5, 2022

SKYBLUES90 said:
Right Guys - Hear me out.

View attachment 27613

There is no Pepe Silvia

Speedie's Head · Dec 5, 2022

Without clarity over use of the stadium and future season ticket revenues they'll be no significant Jan transfers - in anyway - nor contract extensions for the leading players. How can there be? It'll all have to be short term stuff. This is the plan to destabilise the club...

wingy · Dec 5, 2022

skyblu3sk said:
I get that but you can see why SISU would be fucked off swallowing all the cost and not being given a chance to own the thing. Then MA saying oh BTW you need to pay us more in the long term. That's a financial shit sarnie. MA gets to say the deal stays "the same" but it isn't as the club have had to pick up a load of unexpected cost.

There have been various different suggestions of how it was paid for .

skyblu3sk · Dec 5, 2022

skyblu3sk said:
You say the deal is the same as before does that mean CCFC are expected to give up any claim to money they have paid to keep the games on outside of their lease agreement.

Not answering this one @GIMOC as it doesn't fit the narrative?

skyblu3sk · Dec 5, 2022

wingy said:
There have been various different suggestions of how it was paid for .

You have the pitch but also the costs for the games to be put on. Either way it takes investment away from the club when it shouldn't have been the clubs liability in the first place. That's pretty fucked up in my view.

jordan210 · Dec 5, 2022

Nick said:
Again, how can you sign a license for something with somebody when they don't actually own it then?

They must have been pretty confident they would get the stadium if issuing contracts before even owning.

Rightly the club did not agree to this.

GIMOC · Dec 5, 2022

skyblu3sk said:
Not answering this one @GIMOC as it doesn't fit the narrative?

not answering because I’m not savvy to all the in’s and out’s. If I was, wouldn’t be on here

HuckerbyDublinWhelan · Dec 5, 2022

jordan210 said:
They must have been pretty confident they would get the stadium if issuing contracts before even owning.

Rightly the club did not agree to this.

What’s the alternative then

shmmeee · Dec 5, 2022

skyblu3sk said:
Not answering this one @GIMOC as it doesn't fit the narrative?

I thought the payments were rental payments not extra?

Sky Blue Pete · Dec 5, 2022

skyblu3sk said:
Not answering this one @GIMOC as it doesn't fit the narrative?

It does boil down to perception again doesn’t it. Both sides need to just sit down and sort it out and grow up. Bloody children

skyblu3sk · Dec 5, 2022

shmmeee said:
I thought the payments were rental payments not extra?

The amount of money that was being shelled out it must have been agreement to defer future rental payments with Wasps or ACL now that could be being reneged on which could really put city in the shit as it would cost way more to put matches on than expected. Why else would you have 2 sides saying the terms are the same vs the terms aren't.

skybluetony176 · Dec 5, 2022

David O'Day said:
the original offer was until the end of season

no one would sign that

Not how I read their statement. I may be the one who has it wrong but I read Frasers statement to read that the initial offer was a continuation of the original license. This was declined sighting changes wanted. Then a short term license was offered to see out the season while a completely new long term license was negotiated reflecting the changes wanted by the club.

They’ve made two offers is how I read it.

Firstly (the original offer) a continuation of the original license. So 7ish years.

Secondly a short term offer until the end of the season as the original offer was rejected.

If they’d have signed the continuation no short term license until the end of the season would have ever been offered.

Not saying the Fraser statement is 100% true/factual, there’s always 2 sides to every story and all that but SISU has history of acting in contrast to the clubs best interests.

HuckerbyDublinWhelan · Dec 5, 2022

Sky Blue Pete said:
It does boil down to perception again doesn’t it. Both sides need to just sit down and sort it out and grow up. Bloody children

Frasers don’t need to do fuck all. That’s the barrel we’re over

jordan210 · Dec 5, 2022

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
What’s the alternative then

Im guessing they expected to be given the same terms once Fraser actually owned the stadium.

oldfiver · Dec 5, 2022

Sbarcher said:
Maybe we didn't sign as such a short term deal would not be acceptable to the EFL. They have previously required a long term deal to ensure our continued place in the league.

EFL require 3 years minimum

Nick · Dec 5, 2022

Guessing there will be another statement. When though? My guess is Thursday.

wingy · Dec 5, 2022

rexo87 said:
But why would we sign a contract with a company that didnt own the stadium? And why would company then take away contract offer once they owned stadium

They were all at the court as soon as concluded, guaranteed from my point of view available to sign a matching agreement
King pipes up let's do a Jarni deal Mike?
Club says no dialogue failing to sign it .
Must have been dialogue as Frasers aware club wish for changes.
Sits around for two weeks
Monday morning Bomb!!
Now they could have told us all this in Saturday ,why not?

jordan210 · Dec 5, 2022

Nick said:
Guessing there will be another statement. When though? My guess is Thursday.

Hope we get one from CCC soon telling us they are working as hard as possible to resolve this

skybluetony176 · Dec 5, 2022

wingy said:
It's clearly there "Mirroring the terms".
Unless I'm thick that means costs and length.
The only thing different would be the absence of a Rugby team not being there every other week from our side.
From theirs well?

Not sure how you could read it any other way.

shmmeee · Dec 5, 2022

skyblu3sk said:
The amount of money that was being shelled out it must have been agreement to defer future rental payments with Wasps or ACL now that could be being reneged on which could really put city in the shit as it would cost way more to put matches on than expected. Why else would you have 2 sides saying the terms are the same vs the terms aren't.

You haven’t. The terms were the same on the first deal offered that CCFC didn’t sign, and are different on the second short term deal seems to be the story.

Nick · Dec 5, 2022

jordan210 said:
Hope we get one from CCC soon telling us they are working as hard as possible to resolve this

That remains our objective.

At present we are trying to establish the facts.

David O'Day · Dec 5, 2022

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
Frasers don’t need to do fuck all. That’s the barrel we’re over

yes, yes they do as it would be madness for them to lose their biggest tenant

skyblu3sk · Dec 5, 2022

GIMOC said:
not answering because I’m not savvy to all the in’s and out’s. If I was, wouldn’t be on here

Then how can you be so steadfast in Sisu wrong MA right? I can't remember exactly how much CCFC paid to put the game on and relay the pitch but it wouldn't be cheap.

Deleted member 5849 · Dec 5, 2022

Go away and actually do some work, miss a statement or three. Won't make the same mistake again.

Telfer85 · Dec 5, 2022

I’m just sick of it all. Our club being constantly used by all parties and us fans left to look like a laughing stock.

At work and everyone is “Seen Ashley’s kicking you out” “where you playing next the park” “you’re even more tinpot than small heath”

There’s nothing you can say to defend it. Everyone involved and has been involved over the many years this whole sorry saga has took place should just fuck off.
All I wanna do is support a team that on the pitch has been awesome these past few years and despite results been up and down the players show commitment and fight that I’ve waited many years to see. You can tell they love our support as much as we love them but all this could go down the pan cos of dickheads off the pitch.

Just another embarrassing day to support the club

Eviction notice (15 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active 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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency