Fisher's Remarks... (1 Viewer)

Grendel · Sep 6, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
I said aquire, not purchase.

No they haven't still

Limey · Sep 6, 2014

Fishers remit imo is to stop everyone (ie ACL/CCC/CCFC) getting too comfy with current arrangements in order to get max possible return for SISU. Freehold may give largest return but I firmly believe they would settle for leasehold ahead of building new ground. Everyone is sick of this talk, hence we would all like fisher to keep quiet.

I also believe that Waggott is only interested in progressing the club from a football perspective and I think with him doing the talking ccfc can get on firmer ground. Revenue streams are unquestionably important for this.

Anyhow,we're home and last night was spine tingling. PUSB!

Samo · Sep 6, 2014

Grendel said:
I have worked out what RFC stands for

I think I have too. Is the first word Right?

Tonylinc · Sep 6, 2014

I have never believed a new ground would be built and, if anything, last night's attendance surely puts it further away? From 27,000 plus to 18,000 max??????

Grendel · Sep 6, 2014

Tonylinc said:
I have never believed a new ground would be built and, if anything, last night's attendance surely puts it further away? From 27,000 plus to 18,000 max??????

Well no as there will be less than 18,000 next week. That is not the point -- the point is that there is a new stadium will be outside the city so will fail anyway.

Grendel · Sep 6, 2014

Samo said:
I think I have too. Is the first word Right?

Actually I went for a harsher word regarding mental disability.

Lord_Nampil · Sep 6, 2014

the thing that still hangs in the air though is the appeal, of which one of the options is to talk out and come to a mutual agreement!

What also isn't foreseen is a promotion push may interest people in the club which may be new investors etc, those investors may wish to invest in ACL and new better sponsorship deals for kits parts of the stadium etc would also come into play as well as the better TV deal!

Yes we totally need to have a functioning stadium 24/7 but we need to do it properly this time, no knee jerk reactions, i think both parties understand this and i personally think as time goes on ACL and the club will eventually be under one umbrella, abit like Leicester......

Trouble is with Tim sometimes.... ok most the time, he says things as he sees them, the same question to Steve action might get a similar reaction but the different light might make it seem less controversial, most probably why hes now CEO.....

Samo · Sep 6, 2014

Grendel said:
Actually I went for a harsher word regarding mental disability.

Ouch!

ccfc1234 · Sep 6, 2014

Grendel said:
Well no as there will be less than 18,000 next week. That is not the point -- the point is that there is a new stadium will be outside the city so will fail anyway.

Yes there may well be less than 18k (am hoping not) but last night proved our future capabilities. IF we get back to the PL one day 27k would be the norm and it would be crazy to miss out on the income the extra 9k of fans would bring.

As a club we have been looking at life with the glass half empty for far too long and it has in some cases become a self fulfilling prophecy. We need for the foreseeable talk city up as optimism and good feeling actually can transmit to other fans (who subsequently attend games) and we could build momentum.

As for Fisher I have met the lad first hand and I can honestly tell you his vibe is one of pure arrogance. Be great even if he is right that he too keeps the negative and cautionary works out of the spotlight for a while.

Mr Creosote · Sep 6, 2014

I don't know why we are even giving fisher any air time, he is a dead man walking. He will be gone very soon...

Samo · Sep 6, 2014

Mr Creosote said:
I don't know why we are even giving fisher any air time, he is a dead man walking. He will be gone very soon...

Always sitting on the fence...

Mr Creosote · Sep 6, 2014

Samo said:
Always sitting on the fence...

Not on the fence Samo, just know that Waggott is the man in charge now and fisher isn't worth our time

Samo · Sep 6, 2014

Mr Creosote said:
Not on the fence Samo, just know that Waggott is the man in charge now and fisher isn't worth our
time

Mr.C... I was just playing with your name.

skyblueinBaku · Sep 6, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
You'd have to question an owner's judgement who appointed quite so many people who weren't able to carry out the brief however...

My thoughts exactly, NW. The evidence shows that in this respect, Joy's judgment is badly flawed .

lift tower · Sep 6, 2014

I heard this on the way to the game (congrats by the way, unbelievable atmosphere) I actually don't think he even believes what he's saying anymore. It feel's like hes just putting out whatever message Joy has told him to that particular week.

skybluepm2 · Sep 6, 2014

RFC said:
Whoever started this thread is doing THAT.

You're adding fuel to the fire as per usual you deluded ballbag. Cringeworthy comments

dadgad · Sep 7, 2014

Fisher comes over as pure poison.
He'd ruin any party.

ccfc92 · Sep 7, 2014

dadgad said:
Fisher comes over as pure poison.
He'd ruin any party.

The fact he nearly got battered offering to buy fans drinks proves this lol ointlaugh:

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Sep 7, 2014

Grendel said:
It is the basic tenure of the argument whyy the club can never succeed just as a tenant. It also is why the Ground despite the building costs is actually worthless.

The arrangement is unique and bizarre.

It's neither unique or bizarre, dear chap. When questioned before, SISU have never answered as to whether any stadium ownership would be the same legal entity as the football club. The likely model would be the same owner having both, but as seperate companies. This is like the arrangement at Milton Keynes, with Inter MK owning the freehold asset.

Incomes from non matchday fare go to the stadium owners, not the football club. 'Owning' the freehold, or leasehold for that matter, doesn't guarantee income to the football club

Sky Blue Kid · Sep 7, 2014

Samo said:
Relax everyone, the inteligentia have arrived.

If I'm the intelligentsia(Proper way to spell it) Then I must be after reading your initial OP. All you've ever done is slag off my posts, but come up with exactly the same results as me. SISU have NO intentions for the betterment of CCFC as a Football Club. I've always said this, and I always will.

Evans1883 · Sep 7, 2014

Im positive he will not be chairman or at ccfc next season , the bloke is NOT a football man , a coventry man , or infact a man , so yes hopefully the people at the top get him out as he is a major negative clinging onto a positive vibe

covspain · Sep 7, 2014

Also while the text a sub was foolish beyond belief the actual base idea of involving the fans in the football club by letting them vote for things is a really good one in my opinion, but the fans should be voting for things they know about, ie things that affect them. If I ran the club, everyone with a supporter number would have access to a website to post ideas, complaints, things they feel need changing (this is in place of something like the SCG), votes would be on things like do you want goal music, when should we stop the music before the game and what music would you like, what do you want for half time entertainment, do you want a professional adult cheer leader squad at half time if it adds 10p to the ticket, the website could have design competitions for a big banner used to cover unused seats and all sorts of things to make the club feel like something you belong to, it would increase supporter satisfaction, increase attendances and increase supporter trust.

sorry that was all a bit irrelevant to the discussion [/QUOTE]

Some really good ideas in there Nog

Ashdown · Sep 7, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
It's neither unique or bizarre, dear chap. When questioned before, SISU have never answered as to whether any stadium ownership would be the same legal entity as the football club. The likely model would be the same owner having both, but as seperate companies. This is like the arrangement at Milton Keynes, with Inter MK owning the freehold asset.

Incomes from non matchday fare go to the stadium owners, not the football club. 'Owning' the freehold, or leasehold for that matter, doesn't guarantee income to the football club

And therein lies the ultimate problem. We all understand the need for the football club to benefit from all the revenue streams it brings to the complex. In an ideal world a dream owner would join the two and the club would almost inevitably grow in stature. SISU however have only come to Coventry to improve the value of investors money, the football is a sideshow. Pretty much everyone understands that they couldn't be trusted with the whole shebang.

Evans1883 · Sep 7, 2014

Also , its about time the people at ccfc realise , promotions and a good team on the pitch would wipe away most financial issues in regards to rent ,, just think SISU , the 70 mill apparantly spent couldve been back in the bank if you ran us properly , invested in the team instead of legal spatts , and won us promotion to the premiership with that very money

skybluetony176 · Sep 7, 2014

Grendel said:
No they haven't still

Really? So either the judge did get it wrong or the former hedge fund known as SISU really are the illegal state aid police and again the judge got it wrong.

mattylad · Sep 7, 2014

he was on about revenue again, trying to say that without all income streams from owning our own ground then they wouldn't be able to compete with other championship clubs wage bills

Rusty Trombone · Sep 7, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
Really? So either the judge did get it wrong or the former hedge fund known as SISU really are the illegal state aid police and again the judge got it wrong.

The state aid was in regard ACL and the Council loan to them. I can't recall the judge saying anything about SISU trying to get ownership of the building, but happy to be proven wrong.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Sep 7, 2014

Ashdown said:
And therein lies the ultimate problem. We all understand the need for the football club to benefit from all the revenue streams it brings to the complex. In an ideal world a dream owner would join the two and the club would almost inevitably grow in stature. SISU however have only come to Coventry to improve the value of investors money, the football is a sideshow. Pretty much everyone understands that they couldn't be trusted with the whole shebang.

It would never happen. That's where there's a lack of understanding by many. The club should benefit from its own matchday income. Agreed. But it can do this under a leasehold arrangement. Looking at other incomes, such as the Wasps arrangement if it happens, concerts or exhibitions et al, would - in my view - never go to the same company who runs the football club. As per Milton Keynes, and elsewhere, a separate company would benefit; perhaps sharing common ownership, but certainly ring-fenced from the business that runs the club itself

Ashdown · Sep 7, 2014

For an exit strategy SISU have to maximise revenues from what they have and carefully invest in the team, getting to a position where the club is not running insolvently and perhaps making a small profit. This would make the club sellable again to interested parties. The accrued debt will not be recovered I doubt but much of that is of their own making anyway. To get out they will have to swallow a loss but if they do it properly they can mitigate this.

Frisky blue · Sep 7, 2014

Sky Blue Kid said:
If I'm the intelligentsia(Proper way to spell it) Then I must be after reading your initial OP. All you've ever done is slag off my posts, but come up with exactly the same results as me. SISU have NO intentions for the betterment of CCFC as a Football Club. I've always said this, and I always will.

He does come across as an I'm superior kind of individual, don't worry about it sky blue kid, I agree with you, sisu are not good for our club, and we have got to keep saying it, the fight is not over.

Sky Blue Kid · Sep 7, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
The state aid was in regard ACL and the Council loan to them. I can't recall the judge saying anything about SISU trying to get ownership of the building, but happy to be proven wrong.

Hope this proves you wrong Rusty. Although your words are shrewdly put, I think you'll find he says part ownership in the Ricoh. http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/what-next-sisu-v-coventry-7363893

shmmeee · Sep 7, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
The state aid was in regard ACL and the Council loan to them. I can't recall the judge saying anything about SISU trying to get ownership of the building, but happy to be proven wrong.

SISU’s strategy of distressing ACL’s financial position in these ways was quite deliberate. They considered this strategy was necessary
if they were to recover their investment in the Football Club.

Paragraph 78.

Sky Blue Kid · Sep 7, 2014

@ Mattylad......Someone else being sucked in by SISU. The "Mouthpiece for SISU" has said a few years ago that the break even attendance is 22k in the Championship. If SISU managed CCFC properly, they could very well have been getting well in excess of that figure every home game. Gillingham game proves this.

Samo · Sep 7, 2014

Sky Blue Kid said:
If I'm the intelligentsia(Proper way to spell it) Then I must be after reading your initial OP. All you'veever done is slag off my posts, but come up with exactly the same results as me. SISU have NO intentions for the betterment of CCFC as a Football Club. I've always said this, and I always will.

I have never disputed that sisu do not care for the club, have never praised or sided with them and personally despise them. But because I hold a more balanced view of the situation you and others have made assumptions about my position. I slag your posts because you say some ridiculous and foolish things fueled by a blind hatred that is beyond reason. The fact that Frisky blue is the first to your defence says it all and is I'm sure, a little embarrassing.

Rusty Trombone · Sep 7, 2014

shmmeee said:
Paragraph 78.

Not sure what you're saying here. The quotes are about ACL, but the argument is about the building.

Fisher's Remarks... (1 Viewer)

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

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New 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