Fisher pays tribute to fans (3 Viewers)

dongonzalos · Dec 30, 2012

Grendel said:
I don't think 9,000 would have posted and if the poll is the one Don did it was rigged in terns if its question

If at the end of it the club ultimately get a rent that works going forward and allows full revenue opportunities then any tactic is worth deploying.

I am aghast anyone thinks differently.

Yes I think it was very rigged.
I think you could choose

accept the offer.
Refuse the offer holding out for 200k and nothing else.
Pay the whole lot.

Is this not the situation.

I think most people want the offer accepted because it is a worry off people's minds. No embargo's moving grounds etc..

No cocking it up when things are finally good on the pitch

I would guess most the 9000 don't want anything cocking up the current success and so want an agreement and move on.

They are probably shocked you want it to drag out and get very messy which could screw up on pitch matters.

Just a thought

Grendel · Dec 30, 2012

Godiva said:
That was the £400k offer ... which was actually more like £800k.
I take it you voted the club should pay £400k/yr ... not £800k.

Yes I suspect the majority did

wingy · Dec 30, 2012

dongonzalos said:
Was the actual rent itself 800k a year Tim?
Thank you for be-latently thanking the fans.

It was a very nice thing to do and left me with a warn feeling inside.

Another shifting of the goalposts. Offer met with counter obstruction.

Grendel · Dec 30, 2012

dongonzalos said:
Yes I think it was very rigged.
I think you could choose

accept the offer.
Refuse the offer holding out for 200k and nothing else.
Pay the whole lot.

Is this not the situation.

I think most people want the offer accepted because it is a worry off people's minds. No embargo's moving grounds etc..

No cocking it up when things are finally good on the pitch

I would guess most the 9000 don't want anything cocking up the current success and so want an agreement and move on.

They are probably shocked you want it to drag out and get very messy which could screw up on pitch matters.

Just a thought

So £800,000 in including match day costs and also paying back the original rental value (even though you agree that is too high) is in your view a good deal?

I think it's still not good enough.

valiant15 · Dec 30, 2012

I wanted that scarf godiva you bugger!

Astute · Dec 30, 2012

Most agree that they should pay what they see as a fair rent.

Do you think they shouldn't pay any rent because there is also matchday costs we incur?

valiant15 · Dec 30, 2012

Astute,according to some they should get the whole sheebang for fa,while were at it,why don't we throw them the cathedral in to.

dongonzalos · Dec 30, 2012

Grendel said:
So £800,000 in including match day costs and also paying back the original rental value (even though you agree that is too high) is in your view a good deal?

I think it's still not good enough.

I thought all other matters like ground capacity quality of the facilities, value of SISU, revenue from ticket sales are not relevant.

Is this correct but match day costs are relevant?

dongonzalos · Dec 30, 2012

valiant15 said:
Astute,according to some they should get the whole sheebang for fa,while were at it,why don't we throw them the cathedral in to.

We do have one to spare

georgehudson · Dec 30, 2012

it's been patently obvious for a long time that, (they), read this forum,
it's also time that they speculate to accumulate,
nothing less than the signings we expect, + a couple more, will be a minimum,
we, (CCFC fans), have reluctantly tolerated too much bovine excrement for far too long,
F, W, & Ms S, get on with it,
don't give more tosh to the fans,
just bloody well do it,
you lot have a lot to make up for,
PUSB

DazzleTommyDazzle · Dec 30, 2012

Godiva said:
That was the £400k offer ... which was actually more like £800k.
I take it you voted the club should pay £400k/yr ... not £800k.

As I recall almost half of the difference was rates.

Most businesses have to pay rates.

How many other SISU businesses have been given exemptions from rates I wonder?

wingy · Dec 30, 2012

Yeah £400K. + operational costs £230k. + rates £170K. mysteriously introduced in the Queens christmas speech,What business is not responsible for its own operational costs and business rates .What utopia is this world where Sisu exist??:thinking about:

Godiva · Dec 30, 2012

wingy said:
Yeah £400K. + operational costs £230k. + rates £170K. mysteriously introduced in the Queens christmas speech,What business is not responsible for its own operational costs and business rates .What utopia is this world where Sisu exist??:thinking about:

Yes, but that is a little beside the point.
The point is that most believed we paid (or was contracted to pay) a total of £1.2m p/y for the use of Ricoh and that the offer was to pay a total of £400k p/y.
Nobody even discussed the possibility that the figures were higher. And btw ... has anybody actually confirmed that we (should) pay more than £1.2m or if that is the actual total?

As our income is about £5mio p/y both numbers are clearly more than the club can afford.

dongonzalos · Dec 30, 2012

Godiva said:
Yes, but that is a little beside the point.
The point is that most believed we paid (or was contracted to pay) a total of £1.2m p/

Are we contracted to pay 1.2 million rent a year.

Have we been offered 400k rent and access to food revenue.

If match day costs are included. As a business last season should SISU have made decisions that would increase attendances rather than half them to increase profits to cover the costs.

Are these costs ACL's problem or concern.

pusbccfc · Dec 30, 2012

Fisher on the left, Robins on the right.

wingy · Dec 30, 2012

Godiva said:
Yes, but that is a little beside the point.
The point is that most believed we paid (or was contracted to pay) a total of £1.2m p/y for the use of Ricoh and that the offer was to pay a total of £400k p/y.
Nobody even discussed the possibility that the figures were higher. And btw ... has anybody actually confirmed that we (should) pay more than £1.2m or if that is the actual total?

As our income is about £5mio p/y both numbers are clearly more than the club can afford.

No it is'nt besides the point at all ,it was introduced after they made the concession that after listening to the fans voice through a poll in the CT they would indeed return to the negiating table,it was introduced as yet another barrier to agreement. no other business is not responsible for its own operational costs or business rates .
£400K. + matchday reciepts Equate to £200-£300K. 1 Rod off the books equates to £150K. a year .They do not want to achieve a deal.

BurbageSkyBlues · Dec 30, 2012

Grendel said:
I don't think 9,000 would have posted and if the poll is the one Don did it was rigged in terns if its question

If at the end of it the club ultimately get a rent that works going forward and allows full revenue opportunities then any tactic is worth deploying.

I am aghast anyone thinks differently.

Quite frankly, Grendel, I'm aghast at the tosh that you come out with at times.

However, it is your right to have an opinion, so respect others for having their own.

mattylad · Dec 30, 2012

back to the point though I think its good he has shown his appreciation and has admitted that it has been a torrid 10 years both on and OFF the pitch

sky blue zam · Dec 30, 2012

Godiva said:
That was the £400k offer ... which was actually more like £800k.
I take it you voted the club should pay £400k/yr ... not £800k.

i dont think it matters if its either amount. this is their 2nd offer and one most would take to save our club. the way courts would see it is that we havent paid rent for a year, turned down an offer to halve the rent, failed to pay what we owe as told by court and turned down 2nd offer and failed to complete a deal by a deadline.

nobody is saying the rent atm is reasonable, we have to pay much much lower but sisu really are playing a dangerous game.

BurbageSkyBlues · Dec 30, 2012

Godiva said:
That was the £400k offer ... which was actually more like £800k.
I take it you voted the club should pay £400k/yr ... not £800k.

To answer this, I vote the club should pay the rent as per the latest offer, a reduction from £1.2 M down to £400K, All other costs would be effective regardless of whether we own or rent the stadium...eg rates, heating, staffing etc etc. The introduction of the £800K headline is yet more smoke and mirrors from Sisu, in a bid to delay paying anything.

This whole situation is now so convoluted, that strategies are evolving by the week, in reaction to the progress that the team is making on the pitch. Every week that we progress, strengthens Sisu's position, because there would be a greater adverse reaction from the fans if ACL sends in the bailiffs.

Quite ironic really , our owners playing poker with our club's existence, or at least future, because they have a stronger hand that is dealt by something that we all long for!

DazzleTommyDazzle · Dec 30, 2012

Godiva said:
Yes, but that is a little beside the point.
The point is that most believed we paid (or was contracted to pay) a total of £1.2m p/y for the use of Ricoh and that the offer was to pay a total of £400k p/y.
Nobody even discussed the possibility that the figures were higher. And btw ... has anybody actually confirmed that we (should) pay more than £1.2m or if that is the actual total?

As our income is about £5mio p/y both numbers are clearly more than the club can afford.

So just to be clear....

You believe that when "rent" was discussed "everybody" thought we were actually talking about rent plus operating costs plus rates.

Grendel · Dec 30, 2012

DazzleTommyDazzle said:
So just to be clear....

You believe that when "rent" was discussed "everybody" thought we were actually talking about rent plus operating costs plus rates.

Strange his post seems to say "most" not "everybody" - and yes I agree with him on that.

wingy · Dec 30, 2012

Grendel said:
Strange his post seems to say "most" not "everybody" - and yes I agree with him on that.

I dissagree wholeheartedly here ,the subject matter was rent ,the operating costs were commonly accepted as being payed @ £10K. per match ,common knowledge when the CT poll was taken and Sisu acknowledged the poll to re-enter negotiation ,subsequently to introduce the rates smokescreen .:thinking about::facepalm:

evilc · Dec 31, 2012

The situation of the annual rates reported to be £170K needs to be carefully thought through before anyone makes a decision on fairness.

I find it very strange that ACL (if reported correctly) have arrived at such a figure, unless there is an arrangement for a rebate whenever the stadium is used for other purposes i.e. Heiniken Rugby, U21 Internationals, Concerts etc. Realistically any calculation should be based upon the number of games guaranteed to be played at the stadium each year, which has to be based upon league games only, it is possible that CCFC could be drawn away in all cup competitions.

In my experience unless a tennant has sole use of a facility the Landlord is responsible for the rates and therefore should be charging on a per usage basis. The only rates that CCFC should be paying direct to CCC are those associated with any offices and shop facilities.

In all probability the annual rent of £1.2M included all the extras, as the liability for rates was never mentioned before the latest reason for non acceptance of the last offer

Sky Blues · Dec 31, 2012

Godiva said:
That was the £400k offer ... which was actually more like £800k.
I take it you voted the club should pay £400k/yr ... not £800k.

Can I get some clarity from Sisu's buddies on here. Do you regard the last offer from ACL to be £400,000 or £800,000?

I only ask because the £800,000 figure seems to be used when you (plural) are trying to make the argument ACL's last offer was unreasonable, and the £400,000 figure is trotted out as the evidence as to how the rent is such a "rip-off". I don't mind which one you want to pick, but can you just pick one and stick to it for the sake of consistency please. Cheers!

torchomatic · Dec 31, 2012

But is it? I haven't seen ACL come out to dispute that figure, have you?

BurbageSkyBlues said:
The introduction of the £800K headline is yet more smoke and mirrors from Sisu, in a bid to delay paying anything.

Godiva · Dec 31, 2012

Sky Blues said:
Can I get some clarity from Sisu's buddies on here. Do you regard the last offer from ACL to be £400,000 or £800,000?

I only ask because the £800,000 figure seems to be used when you (plural) are trying to make the argument ACL's last offer was unreasonable, and the £400,000 figure is trotted out as the evidence as to how the rent is such a "rip-off". I don't mind which one you want to pick, but can you just pick one and stick to it for the sake of consistency please. Cheers!

In this thread the 400k/800k came up as a response to a previous poll. I tried to point out that those who voted actually didn't really knew all facts and were believing the 400k p/y was a 66%+ reduction from the original payment.

I have never in any thread said if this or that number is 'fair' as I don't think fairness has any relevans here.

What I have said on numerous occasions is that the money available between ACL and ccfc is not enough to keep both profitable. So one has to go ... or both.

This is true if ...
1) sisu are unable/unwilling to inject more cash into the club. If the club needs to run on the cashflow it generates.
In that case paying 800k p/y will quickly put the club out of business - the money is simply not available.
2) ACL can not keep up with their mortgage commitments if the club only pays what it can afford
ACL are making approx 500k profit p/y (including £1.2m payment by the club) and it seems their last offer will just about keep them profitable. Going below that number will require ACL to improve their business and it may not be easy in the short term.

So my point is - putting aside all emotions and notions of what is fair and correct - it looks like a merger of ACL and ccfc is the only sensible solution. That way the club will improve its cashflow position equal to the amount ACL is currently making in profit ... approx £500k p/y.

On the other hand - if ACL can come up with a business plan that can keep them profitable and able to pay their mortgages without any payments from the club, then they should issue the winding up petition and lock out the club.
But I suspect that is impossible or at the very least - extremely difficult.
In addition - if ACL really issue the winding up order, then ccfc will have to go into either liquidation or administration and ACL will have to write off the outstanding rent payments ... that is about £1m. As they have only raked up a total profit of £1.6m in their lifetime, it will prompt Yorkshire Bank to revaulate their loans ... and possibly claim higher interest rates or even recall the loans.

So it really is not a simple matter of 'fairness'.
It is also not a matter of simply sell/offload the surplus players ... that require clubs would be willing to take them and the players willing to take what they can get elsewhere.
It is neither a matter of what could have been done differently in the past. The blame game will not solve the issue of 'not enough money'.

This is about survival.
Not only the survival of our club, but certainly also the survival of ACL.
And as I said ... I don't think there is money enough for both to have a safe future. A merger is the sensible solution.

Tank Top · Dec 31, 2012

valiant15 said:
If there's ever a face that needs slapping then that's it.

"It Looks like its been slapped far too many times already"

DazzleTommyDazzle · Dec 31, 2012

Grendel said:
Strange his post seems to say "most" not "everybody" - and yes I agree with him on that.

If you try re-reading the post, you'll see that he says "Nobody even discussed the possibility that the figures were higher......".

Hence my query.

So not really "strange" at all.

And I don't think there was any doubt that you'd agree..........

Sky Blues · Dec 31, 2012

Godiva said:
In this thread the 400k/800k came up as a response to a previous poll. I tried to point out that those who voted actually didn't really knew all facts and were believing the 400k p/y was a 66%+ reduction from the original payment.

I have never in any thread said if this or that number is 'fair' as I don't think fairness has any relevans here.

What I have said on numerous occasions is that the money available between ACL and ccfc is not enough to keep both profitable. So one has to go ... or both.

This is true if ...
1) sisu are unable/unwilling to inject more cash into the club. If the club needs to run on the cashflow it generates.
In that case paying 800k p/y will quickly put the club out of business - the money is simply not available.
2) ACL can not keep up with their mortgage commitments if the club only pays what it can afford
ACL are making approx 500k profit p/y (including £1.2m payment by the club) and it seems their last offer will just about keep them profitable. Going below that number will require ACL to improve their business and it may not be easy in the short term.

So my point is - putting aside all emotions and notions of what is fair and correct - it looks like a merger of ACL and ccfc is the only sensible solution. That way the club will improve its cashflow position equal to the amount ACL is currently making in profit ... approx £500k p/y.

On the other hand - if ACL can come up with a business plan that can keep them profitable and able to pay their mortgages without any payments from the club, then they should issue the winding up petition and lock out the club.
But I suspect that is impossible or at the very least - extremely difficult.
In addition - if ACL really issue the winding up order, then ccfc will have to go into either liquidation or administration and ACL will have to write off the outstanding rent payments ... that is about £1m. As they have only raked up a total profit of £1.6m in their lifetime, it will prompt Yorkshire Bank to revaulate their loans ... and possibly claim higher interest rates or even recall the loans.

So it really is not a simple matter of 'fairness'.
It is also not a matter of simply sell/offload the surplus players ... that require clubs would be willing to take them and the players willing to take what they can get elsewhere.
It is neither a matter of what could have been done differently in the past. The blame game will not solve the issue of 'not enough money'.

This is about survival.
Not only the survival of our club, but certainly also the survival of ACL.
And as I said ... I don't think there is money enough for both to have a safe future. A merger is the sensible solution.

Thanks Godiva. An interesting viewpoint that adds to the debate. I do think we might be at something of a crossroads for CCFC with this dispute and the way it is resolved could have a big impact on the trajectory of this club over the next few years. I think many of us sense that, which is why the debate has been quite fiesty on here at times. I think everyone wants the best for Coventry City, but have different ideas about what the best outcome is.

Sorry, I hope you didn't think I was picking on you specifically with my last post - your earlier post just gave me an opportunity to raise a point that's been bugging me a little for a couple of days.

dongonzalos · Dec 31, 2012

I agree this is a critical time going forward and I hope something along these lines can be agreed

SISU have said they are in it for the long run.
They want the club to become a community centred club.
They want to get back to the premiership.
They want to invest in the team as they learnt what happens if you don't.
They want the club to be fanancially sustainable.
They want full ownership of the Ricoh one day.

SISU argue a lot of this will come via rent reduction and eventual ownership of food rights the shares etc..

I hope SISU are telling the truth to all of the above if they are sincere then it is hard to put a case forward why in the long term it would be bad for SISU ( CCFC) to own the Ricoh.

The way I see it, a massive stumbling block is trust.

The council want to see investment in the squad, community projects and regeneration in the area.

So both sides have similar objectives.

Higgs and the council have both said they should not be the long term owners of the Ricoh.

So they should put together a long term contract.

At various stages as SISU reach the objectives that are set they get a percentage of stadium ownership at a pre agreed discounted rate. (Cost price)

one of the objectives should be financial stability.

As they get more and more ownership of the stadium, the rent will also naturally come down from the 400k mark.

SISU get to earn the fan's and council's trust.

The club get the community projects and funding in the team SISU are promising anyway. SISU have assurances that eventually they will get outright ownership of the Ricoh. So they know they are not wasting their time.

In theory everybody gets what they want.

If either side shied away from such a proposal you have to wonder why.

Also could the proposal be brokered by an independent arbitrator after hearing both sides.

Godiva · Dec 31, 2012

dongonzalos said:
At various stages as SISU reach the objectives that are set they get a percentage of stadium ownership at a pre agreed discounted rate. (Cost price)

This is more or less what you suggested in a previous post and while I applaud your efford to be constructive, I really think it's too complicated and uncontrollable.
I don't want to repeat what I said then, but let me add another point:

If ccfc get to acquire the shares of ACL at a discounted rate, then the obvious loser will be Higgs.
They are fighting right now for their original investment and would not be happy to see it discounted.

And I think many have already expressed concerns over the evil hedge fund trying to screw the small charity organisation.

dongonzalos · Dec 31, 2012

Godiva said:
This is more or less what you suggested in a previous post and while I applaud your efford to be constructive, I really think it's too complicated and uncontrollable.
I don't want to repeat what I said then, but let me add another point:

If ccfc get to acquire the shares of ACL at a discounted rate, then the obvious loser will be Higgs.
They are fighting right now for their original investment and would not be happy to see it discounted.

And I think many have already expressed concerns over the evil hedge fund trying to screw the small charity organisation.

Yes it is what I suggested, tweaked to include financial stability over a longer period.
Correct me if I am wrong but the other day were you not suggesting an alternative in which SISU effectively run ACL out of business. I think people see The charity and ACL as synonyms.
Yes take the point it is complicated however I think the complications of the mess and the different aspects of Rent, shares, stadium ownership, food, football club, charity, council, SISU, ACL

Mean we are going to have long drawn at battles like this at every stage of every different negotiation. Considering this in itself is just the rent.

Such drawn out battles may suit one group in particular (not the fans)

So it would be very cost (lawyers) and time efficient to get one all encompassing agreement that covers everything over a long period.

dongonzalos · Dec 31, 2012

Also by cost price the charity should get their money back.

I believe the charity would be happy with this if they saw community projects, regeneration and financial security for the city's football club

Bit by bit they would see a phased transition of removal of their ownership of the ground, which is what they want.

Grendel · Dec 31, 2012

dongonzalos said:
Yes it is what I suggested, tweaked to include financial stability over a longer period.
Correct me if I am wrong but the other day were you not suggesting an alternative in which SISU effectively run ACL out of business. I think people see The charity and ACL as synonyms.
Yes take the point it is complicated however I think the complications of the mess and the different aspects of Rent, shares, stadium ownership, food, football club, charity, council, SISU, ACL

Mean we are going to have long drawn at battles like this at every stage of every different negotiation. Considering this in itself is just the rent.

Such drawn out battles may suit one group in particular (not the fans)

So it would be very cost (lawyers) and time efficient to get one all encompassing agreement that covers everything over s long period.

Look no company on earth would agree to an arrangement that dictates strategy and policy via a third party that ultimately has no liability if such strategies go wrong.

It's unworkable and unjust.

Fisher pays tribute to fans (3 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New 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

New Member

Member

Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Active 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