skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
are they fcuked too?
Added bonus they are sky blue
Rob, you seem well connected in sisu circles. Can you find out under what terms will CCFC's tenancy agreement will be with sisu should they gain control of the ricoh or indeed build imagination land. It would be a lot easier to get on board with sisu's plans if we knew exactly what this means for the club. They seem reluctant to make this clear yet assuming the tenancy agreement is going to be something that all fans have been dreaming of (which is what they seem to be trying to sell us) it would be the easiest cheapest bit of PR they could do, yet nothing.
It seems to me that your campaign looses a lot of clout without this knowledge.
Morning all. Just to let you know I'm just putting together a reply that should clear up any confusion etc. regarding things then I'll finish off combing through 3 (or is it 4?) threads that I'm trying to keep tabs on to come back with some answers on things that have been raised.
I've cleared my morning to try and do this so please bear with me. It is like trying to have a conversation with 30 people over 4 days
From my PoV this sounded slightly accusatory. Nothing offensive or rude but my implication (could be wrong) would be that Jack Griffin might see something off in us talking to Sisu so I responded withSo you've been talking to SISU have you. Otherwise how would you know what their reaction would be.
So I just pointed out that we've spoken to – and I purposely used the term 'spoken to' rather than 'met with', 'had meetings with' – to many sides in this saga. I also purposely lumped Council/Higgs/ACL together which was noted by someWe've spoken to all sides in this and will continue to do so, so yes to talking to people from the Sisu side. And the Council/Higgs/ACL side. And a few other sides too. Bit like a 50p piece
For me, "spoken to" can cover everything from official meetings with the council (e.g. a Cabinet Member (Policy and Leadership) meeting we had with Ann Lucas, John Blundell, various council legal people inc. Christine Ford and with the press in attendance) to off-the-record third party information passed on from people directly connected to a particular party AKA, in journalistic parlance, a source. In between there are email conversations, phone conversations, catch-up-in-a-corridor conversations, can-I-have-a-quick-word conversations, casual pub / caff meetings and so on. And that's how it was meant.He did say the Council/Higgs/ACL side, so both can be correct.
Rob S said in post 80
Peter is correct is saying that no request for a meeting has been received yet. He is incorrect in saying that nobody has spoken to Higgs as I point out:"We've spoken to all sides in this and will continue to do so, so yes to talking to people from the Sisu side. And the Council/Higgs/ACL side. And a few other sides too."
Nobody from this campaign has spoken to Higgs (or ACL). No request for a meeting has been received yet.
Peter responds:I've had conversations with both Paul Harris & Peter and when I spoke to Paul I said I would get in touch to see if we could arrange a meeting although I haven't had a chance to follow up on that yet.
Peter: I was sitting behind you in court and we spoke twice. Once about what could be done to sort out the situation and later on when you spoke, very passionately, about the work and aims of the charity aside from this saga.
I had no idea that was you. Indeed I saw you sitting with Les Reid for the first two days in Court and passed the time of day with you. I saw you outside the Court in the Lock, Stock and Barrel and compared with you the ales on offer with our local East Sussex ale from Harveys of Lewes and asked if that was what you drank at home in Brighton. I did indeed talk about the work of the Charity. If this is classed as "talking with all sides" I would hope everyone would be polite and behave properly. To suggest that any of it was meaningful discussion about the sale and purchase of the Higgs Charity shares is fanciful. Paul didn't mention it, but why ask him to arrange a meeting when you could have asked either the Chair of the Charity or me, the Clerk.
which is something I also asked Paul Harris, and something that, especially in the context of the court case, is very relevant.…we spoke twice. Once about what could be done to sort out the situation…
but rather gave emphasis to a conversation we had later, which gets reduced by one poster to being all that we spoke of…we spoke twice. Once about what could be done to sort out the situation…
Another interesting point is when Peter saysAlso I have to agree with PWKH it did sound like you have had meaningful chats with the charity (ACL) about the situation as oppose to the best beer on tap.
Why pick Les out in particular? I spent the second half of day 1 & all of day 2 in court and was "sitting with" Simon Gilbert, Les & Christine Ford and a couple of other fans at various points. There were only two rows of seats at the back of the court with the AEHC / Sisu people on the front row and the rest of us jammed in on the back. We were all sitting with each otherIndeed I saw you sitting with Les Reid for the first two days in Court…
Could you make sure you are clear about your links with Les Reid and Sisu in this reply? Also, what your actual solution would be if you were by some miracle voted into a majority.
Hi Rob
Thank you for clearing up some of the points.
the only one i'm interested is the point i'm raising about the tenancy agreement that will be in place between sisu and the club. the whole PWHK said this, you said that is of no concern to me and niether is your frienship with Les Reid as at the end of the day they dont effect our club.
If SISU take controll of any stadium what is the tenancy agreement going to be for our club? until we know that, its impossible to know whether we should be getting on board with sisu either gaining control of the ricoh or building another stadium where the club will be tenants. The long term sustainability of my club is the only thing concerns me, whoever the land lord might be.
Actually I want to back that question.
It's been discussed over and over here and if someone could get a straight answer from sisu/TF/Labovich that would be vey helpful.
What construction are they aiming for? Will there be a new prop-co sitting under Otium or SBS&L?
Exactly, what use is the profit from the pie and carparking money if sisu then charge the club £2M a year in rent not including match day cost, we would have been better off under the original rent deal with ACL. I'm not saying that will be the deal under sisu stadium ownership but equally i dont think anyone can tell me it isn't. Except TF, ML & JS and they seem to be tight lipped on the subject.
if i'm going to support get cov back to the ricoh i need to know what the end game is.
Profit is irrelevant - revenue is king.
So if your company is turning over £2M a year after year but it your making zero profit thats sustainable is it?
In the world of football of course - you do know the balance sheet at man city and Chelsea show them to be basket cases don't you?
In the world of football of course - you do know the balance sheet at man city and Chelsea show them to be basket cases don't you?
Odd also you now think sisu should make money. Thought you hated management charges?
In the world of football of course - you do know the balance sheet at man city and Chelsea show them to be basket cases don't you?
Odd also you now think sisu should make money. Thought you hated management charges?
So would you be happy for acl to cross invoice all revenue to the club to boost the club's income?
Profit is irrelevant - revenue is king.
Are either of those clubs owned by a faceless hedge funds? Are either of those clubs playing home games 35miles from where they should be to crowds of less than 2000?Are either of those club's languishing in the third division? Are both them clubs playing in the premiership and champions league year after year and enjoying the financial returns that come with it?
If you want to compare apples do it with apples.
No I support the football club. Who do you support?
It's you that wants sisu to make a profit tony - you said it.
Ok so revenue isn't king then?
Can you make up your mind please?
To be fair, if people stood outside my office calling me names I'd probably not like some of them. Plus I would probably throw bottles of piss out of the window onto them
I want all the revenue and profit for the football club. I want ACL to go bankrupt. Clear enough?
Not really no.
You say you want all revenue to go to the club, what I am asking (putting profit margins aside) is how is that anymore beneficial to the club than ACL just cross invoicing income over?
How can you put profit margins aside? That's the whole point, controlling your own suppliers to get the best profit margin possible (not c10% currently) and reinvesting that money into the team/covering losses
So revenue isn't king then?
Either revenue or profit is king. It cant be both.
So revenue isn't king then?
Either revenue or profit is king. It cant be both.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?