Fisher: Most will be back by the third home game (7 Viewers)

[skybluetony176]

So you'd rather we moved to Northampton 5 years ago - why?

how do you ever expect to be taken seriously when you make stupid comments like that, that is clearly the complete opposite of what was said.

all you have is smoke and mirrors, just like timmy and shitsu.

 

---

[simple_simon]

So you'd rather we moved to Northampton 5 years ago - why?

Why do you even make such stupid comments?

 

[Grendel]

Why do you even make such stupid comments?

The comment isn't stupid.

The initial comment that sisu signed up to the deal was stupid. The point if the remark is that no one else wanted to buy the club and we were a last resort to those that did. The club would have been liquidated if they had not done so.

The fact that they have taken some years and several change of directors to realise the rip off changes nothing.

So what is Tony's point. They should have delayed the takeover to study the small print - decided they didn't like the arrangement walked away and the club was liquidated 5 years ago - where is the sense in that?

 

[Grendel]

Are you talking about the original rent or the 400K offer? Man City pay around £3m I think, West Ham £2m, Peterborough were paying £500K but that's been dropped to £300K whilst building work is carried out, Walsall pay £360K. They're the only ones I happen to know. The problem with asking a question like that is your average supporter is going to have no idea which clubs are renting their grounds let alone what they're paying for them. If SISU don't want to pay rent why don't they make an offer, at market value, to buy the stadium?


that information isn't publically available is it although it has been stated that it's now at a lower interest rate than previously under Yorkshire Bank.

Clearly its the original deal

Are west ham paying £2 million at upton park to the council

Again Walsall is privately owed by the same owner as the club.

Were man city when we kicked off a the Ricoh.

For the record hull pay a nominal sum, forest and Ipswich around £100k Swansea a nominal amount (still) as do hull city. Strange you can't find any of these - they are in the public domain. Swansea own a third of the management company as well by the way.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Clearly its the original deal

Are west ham paying £2 million at upton park to the council

Again Walsall is privately owed by the same owner as the club.

Were man city when we kicked off a the Ricoh.

For the record hull pay a nominal sum, forest and Ipswich around £100k Swansea a nominal amount (still) as do hull city. Strange you can't find any of these - they are in the public domain. Swansea own a third of the management company as well by the way.

All those clubs play in grounds with a smaller capacity and poorer facilities than the Ricoh so not really comparable.

 

[stupot07]

All those clubs play in grounds with a smaller capacity and poorer facilities than the Ricoh so not really comparable.

Smaller grounds yes, but poor facilities? The casino, jaguar exhibition hall and hotel, etc have nothing to do with the bowl, they should be self fund generating al we shouldn't be paying a premium because they're on the same site.

The bowl is the same as any others - seats, concourse with F&B outlets, toilets, boxes, and grass.

 

[Grendel]

The breath taking irony of that comment will not be lost on most posters.

Anyway, as expected you can't answer my question and provide any facts to substantiate your false claims but instead try to change the subject.. yawn...

With respect you asked questions ignoring the question I posed. So my claim is false - namely we had the worst deal of any council owned stadium when we kicked off - fair enough jack provide evidence. I'm afraid I'm struggling to see any team called Yawn? I will of course respectively answer your questions when you have answered mine - £1.23 million a year and no profits on match days - find a worse deal in 2005 instead of frantically diverting the thread off course to protect your colleagues.

 

[Grendel]

All those clubs play in grounds with a smaller capacity and poorer facilities than the Ricoh so not really comparable.

How on earth are the areas that the club actually benefit from poorer? Please expand on that. Compare Swansea and please explain what they receive compared to us and how we benefit more.

 

[Grendel]

Smaller grounds yes, but poor facilities? The casino, jaguar exhibition hall and hotel, etc have nothing to do with the bowl, they should be self fund generating al we shouldn't be paying a premium because they're on the same site.

The bowl is the same as any others - seats, concourse with F&B outlets, toilets, boxes, and grass.

Except the f and b outlets don't count in our case either.

 

[bigfatronssba]

How on earth are the areas that the club actually benefit from poorer? Please expand on that. Compare Swansea and please explain what they receive compared to us and how we benefit more.

Better facilities equal better image for the club and potentially encourage more to attend games.

 

[SydneySkyBlue]

So tell us buying half share - the Higgs share - entitled them to how much revenue exactly?

How much do you think?

It is the first step to 'legitimately' gaining control of the stadium. One that they have never taken.

The fact that they have taken some years and several change of directors to realise the rip off changes nothing.

Funny how you don't apply this logic to Joe Elliott - apparently he should have known SISU's future plans before even they did!

 

[Grendel]

Better facilities equal better image for the club and potentially encourage more to attend games.

So you have actually done someday key research on this? Wow I'm impressed can you share it? Is it worth paying 1000% more do you think than those mentioned above.

I am surprised because the above clubs seem to now attract more people than we did when the Ricoh opened - you know when we were already losing money from day one.

Still you must have done the research I suppose...otherwise you'd just be frantically finding anything to defend the council and their initial pricing policy and for a supporter only interested in the football club that would make you very strange indeed.

 

[Grendel]

How much do you think?

It is the first step to 'legitimately' gaining control of the stadium. One that they have never taken.



Funny how you don't apply this logic to Joe Elliott - apparently he should have known SISU's future plans before even they did!

Elliot? What are you taking about? Evidence suggests he will side with anyone who gives him a seat on the board.

 

[bigfatronssba]

So you have actually done someday key research on this? Wow I'm impressed can you share it? Is it worth paying 1000% more do you think than those mentioned above.

I am surprised because the above clubs seem to now attract more people than we did when the Ricoh opened - you know when we were already losing money from day one.

Still you must have done the research I suppose...otherwise you'd just be frantically finding anything to defend the council and their initial pricing policy and for a supporter only interested in the football club that would make you very strange indeed.

Ok then. Please could you explain why Andy Thorns relegation season at the Ricoh, in the middle of a recession brought in higher crowds than Eric Blacks goalfest season at Highfield Rd in economic boom years?

 

[SydneySkyBlue]

Elliot? What are you taking about? Evidence suggests he will side with anyone who gives him a seat on the board.

But surely the fact that he took some years and several change of directors to realise their priorities doesn't matter?

Just pointing out one of your many hypocrisies.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

So why do they move around at half time ? the view is the same from ether side you Idiot.
Some off us do move at half time I myself go home like to make a showing then go home a bit like the ones who pay to go in then leave early.?????...... nee

Hahahaha SOME do..... you all fucking do!! Hense moving round 2nd half!!!

 

[No future with SISU]

Clearly its the original deal

Are west ham paying £2 million at upton park to the council

Again Walsall is privately owed by the same owner as the club.

Were man city when we kicked off a the Ricoh.

For the record hull pay a nominal sum, forest and Ipswich around £100k Swansea a nominal amount (still) as do hull city. Strange you can't find any of these - they are in the public domain. Swansea own a third of the management company as well by the way.

Supporters of SISU keep trying to find teams who are paying no rent or a small amount of rent.They put their figures on here with no reference to the financial set up of the club or ground. Example leicester, King power pay £17m for the ground. The SISU supporters say they brought the stadium for £17m, when in fact it was the loan still outstanding from when the stadium was built. The interest cost each year was £1.2m and it is not owned by LCFC.

 

[Grendel]

Supporters of SISU keep trying to find teams who are paying no rent or a small amount of rent.They put their figures on here with no reference to the financial set up of the club or ground. Example leicester, King power pay £17m for the ground. The SISU supporters say they brought the stadium for £17m, when in fact it was the loan still outstanding from when the stadium was built. The interest cost each year was £1.2m and it is not owned by LCFC.

With respect I am not taking about sisu or privately owned stadiums.

My question remains - which council owned stadium offered its football club a worse deal than the one we originally signed?

Why will no one just answer a question I have posed for many months on here ?

 

[terryhallsboots]

With respect I am not taking about sisu or privately owned stadiums.

My question remains - which council owned stadium offered its football club a worse deal than the one we originally signed?

Why will no one just answer a question I have posed for many months on here ?

It has been answered. However, that answer shows up the council in their true light as a rogue landlord, which doesn't fit the spin their PR company wishes to show, and has been swallowed by many.

 

[rondog1973]

The comment isn't stupid.

The initial comment that sisu signed up to the deal was stupid. The point if the remark is that no one else wanted to buy the club and we were a last resort to those that did. The club would have been liquidated if they had not done so.

The fact that they have taken some years and several change of directors to realise the rip off changes nothing.

So what is Tony's point. They should have delayed the takeover to study the small print - decided they didn't like the arrangement walked away and the club was liquidated 5 years ago - where is the sense in that?

Are you seriously suggesting a cut throat corporate enterprise such as Sisu bought in to CCFC without knowing what revenues they were going to be entitled to?

Furthermore you say we were a last resort to any potential purchasers. Why?! Nobody was under any obligation to buy us out.

Your post appears to insinuate that Sisu have evolved and now have the most savvy string pullers at the helm. Should we as fans rejoice at this given the relocation, their attempts at bankrupting the Stadium owners and their scant disregard for what the fans want?

 

[Covstar]

About 75% of the pages on each thread on this site is completely off topic these days and all about arguing who is to blame for our plight. I used to be an avid reader if not a regular poster but this sort of bickering just keeps going on and on every single day on most threads and its just boring. Obviously I acknowledge like myself many others have not watched the team play this season which is why there are not many threads regarding the matters on field however Its not a lot to ask to to just stay on topic and not turn everything into an Anti-Sisu/Anti- ACL/Council bickering or arguing against each other about which kind of supporters are right.

 

[chiefdave]

Clearly its the original deal

Are west ham paying £2 million at upton park to the council

Again Walsall is privately owed by the same owner as the club.

Were man city when we kicked off a the Ricoh.

For the record hull pay a nominal sum, forest and Ipswich around £100k Swansea a nominal amount (still) as do hull city. Strange you can't find any of these - they are in the public domain. Swansea own a third of the management company as well by the way.

Is there really anything to be gained complaining about the £1.2m rental rate. Two reasons for saying that, firstly it is known that CCFC were offered a sliding scale dependent on success but chose instead the flat rate, presumably believing premiership football would follow and they'd make a huge profit. Secondly it's well established that there is a different deal on the table now, at worst £400K, at best £150K.

Even Fisher spoke about average rents in the league which must mean there are clubs paying a higher rent.

Not sure who you pay you rent to really has any impact on if you're getting value for money. You cite Swansea as an example and they do have a very good deal with their council but that deal is being questioned locally. Hull I believe don't rent off the council, their owner pays a low rent to the council and then charges rent to those using the ground, I believe he charges the rugby team a high rent to subsidise the football clubs low rent (not 100% sure off that, just relaying info from a mate who supports Hull). All you've proved really is that some people pay more some people pay less. Unless someone prepares a list of everyclub and what they pay it's not really showing much one way or the other.

 

[Astute]

The lurker is here

It seems that nobody has a clue about Hull City and their ground.

I used to live on the other side of the Humber bridge to Hull. Worked with lots of Hull fans. What happened was the council owned Kingston Communications. BT didn't have any business in Hull. All of the phone boxes were painted white. KC were floated. This raised a massive amount of money. It was whilst these types of companies were still on the up. The money belonged to the people of Hull. They had a choice of where the money went. Some of this money went to build the stadium. It belongs to the people of Hull. The football club pays a peppercorn rent. The council actually rents a part of the ground. Can't remember what for though. More of the money from the sale of KC went to other projects for the people of Hull.

Hull is still a shithole though.

 

[chiefdave]

The lurker is here

It seems that nobody has a clue about Hull City and their ground.

I used to live on the other side of the Humber bridge to Hull. Worked with lots of Hull fans. What happened was the council owned Kingston Communications. BT didn't have any business in Hull. All of the phone boxes were painted white. KC were floated. This raised a massive amount of money. It was whilst these types of companies were still on the up. The money belonged to the people of Hull. They had a choice of where the money went. Some of this money went to build the stadium. It belongs to the people of Hull. The football club pays a peppercorn rent. The council actually rents a part of the ground. Can't remember what for though. More of the money from the sale of KC went to other projects for the people of Hull.

Hull is still a shithole though.

What's SMC's role? I thought they leased the ground from the council and then in turn leased it to Hull City and Hull FC. SMC lost around .5m last year so whoever is paying what it doesn't seem to be sustainable hence why the owners of the football team / stadium lease are threatening to hand it back to the council and build their own ground.

Just shows that people on here who like to throw around headline figures really don't really give the full picture. Hull may be paying a low rent but it looks like a far from straightforward situation.

 

[lordsummerisle]

There is and always has been an option for the half share. Why has it not been taken up by SISU?

The rent was also not disputed for a long time until it suddenly wasnt paid.

100%? I'm not going to take that one seriously.

The same story keeps getting trotted out that nobody tried to negotiate on the rent until they stopped paying it.

It is true that ACL only started to negotiate on the rent once it wasn't being paid, but been a few attempts to negotiate the rent by the club prior to that(at least once before Sisu took over), and a few attempts since then.

It's not like it hasn't been mentioned on here several times before.

 

[torchomatic]

This is an absolute lie which you and others keep peddling as truth.

We moved into the Ricoh in August 2005 and we tried to renegotiate the rent in December 2005. Well before SISU were here. Even in the halcyon days of the new Arena with large crowds the Club knew the rent was excessive and were struggling to pay it.

The rent was also not disputed for a long time until it suddenly wasnt paid.

 

[SydneySkyBlue]

The same story keeps getting trotted out that nobody tried to negotiate on the rent until they stopped paying it.

It is true that ACL only started to negotiate on the rent once it wasn't being paid, but been a few attempts to negotiate the rent by the club prior to that(at least once before Sisu took over), and a few attempts since then.

It's not like it hasn't been mentioned on here several times before.

All irrelevant though when you consider that they rejected a much fairer rent when offered.

 

[chiefdave]

This is an absolute lie which you and others keep peddling as truth.

We moved into the Ricoh in August 2005 and we tried to renegotiate the rent in December 2005. Well before SISU were here. Even in the halcyon days of the new Arena with large crowds the Club knew the rent was excessive and were struggling to pay it.

What is the timeline on it then? I thought PWKH had said ACL heard nothing until SISU stopped paying the rent?

Of course it is someone pointless for people to keep saying this, that or the other should have happened years ago. Nothing is going to change the past and we need to move forward. In the present it seems ACL have offered a huge reduction and SISU aren't interested, for me that's the only really important thing.

 

[shmmeee]

The same story keeps getting trotted out that nobody tried to negotiate on the rent until they stopped paying it.

It is true that ACL only started to negotiate on the rent once it wasn't being paid, but been a few attempts to negotiate the rent by the club prior to that(at least once before Sisu took over), and a few attempts since then.

It's not like it hasn't been mentioned on here several times before.

Source on attempts since Sisu took over? I remember the (PWKHs words) "half hearted attempts" a year after we moved in. But I thought he said noone had mentioned it until Fisher. In fact when Brody spoke out about the rent in late 2011 the rest of the board (I.e. the Sisu bit) said it wasn't a problem and they wanted the stadium.

 

[SydneySkyBlue]

Nothing is going to change the past and we need to move forward. In the present it seems ACL have offered a huge reduction and SISU aren't interested, for me that's the only really important thing.

Quite.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

The comment isn't stupid.

The initial comment that sisu signed up to the deal was stupid. The point if the remark is that no one else wanted to buy the club and we were a last resort to those that did. The club would have been liquidated if they had not done so.

The fact that they have taken some years and several change of directors to realise the rip off changes nothing.

So what is Tony's point. They should have delayed the takeover to study the small print - decided they didn't like the arrangement walked away and the club was liquidated 5 years ago - where is the sense in that?

Codswallop. The recent bidding process has shown that in a situation where we are in admin with most historic debts likely to be cut and many written off, there are plenty of people interested in buying CCFC. If we had gone into administration instead of succumbing to the pressure to take SISU, we could have rebuilt a hell of a lot earlier. The worst thing this club has ever done is allowing SISU to get their filthy mits on us without going through administration.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

My view is the council are 100% responsible as they created a model of destruction. They have made significant profit fro the ground and revenue through the management company

Of all the foolish things you have contributed; this is right up there. You have fast ended up with the club and owners you deserve

 

[italiahorse]

This is an absolute lie which you and others keep peddling as truth.

We moved into the Ricoh in August 2005 and we tried to renegotiate the rent in December 2005. Well before SISU were here. Even in the halcyon days of the new Arena with large crowds the Club knew the rent was excessive and were struggling to pay it.

Its all a can of worms really.
The rent agreement then was to include a flexible rent depending which league we were in.
The club declined the offer and preferred a fixed rent. I guess the rent in the premiership was where they thought we were heading. Unfortunately we dropped down the league so it became a problem.
"You can't have your cake and eat it"
SISU had an opportunity to leverage a deal but strangely didn't bother. They also had a chance to buy the stadium at a preferential rate but again, strangely didn't bother.

Even stranger they now want both of these options.

 

[torchomatic]

Agree with all you've said there. I just get annoyed when people say the rent has only been a recent problem. It hasn't. It was a problem four months after playing our first ever game at the Ricoh.

Its all a can of worms really.
The rent agreement then was to include a flexible rent depending which league we were in.
The club declined the offer and preferred a fixed rent. I guess the rent in the premiership was where they thought we were heading. Unfortunately we dropped down the league so it became a problem.
"You can't have your cake and eat it"
SISU had an opportunity to leverage a deal but strangely didn't bother. They also had a chance to buy the stadium at a preferential rate but again, strangely didn't bother.

Even stranger they now want both of these options.

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

The comment isn't stupid.

The initial comment that sisu signed up to the deal was stupid. The point if the remark is that no one else wanted to buy the club and we were a last resort to those that did. The club would have been liquidated if they had not done so.

The fact that they have taken some years and several change of directors to realise the rip off changes nothing.

So what is Tony's point. They should have delayed the takeover to study the small print - decided they didn't like the arrangement walked away and the club was liquidated 5 years ago - where is the sense in that?

Haha Grendel, you REALLY think any company doing due diligence and signing contracts doesnt look at the key financial numbers- like major costs. Really?