hill83
Well-Known Member
They can spin it anyway they like, this is spot on. It's a definite tail between the legs moment for Sisu right now.
Although, would the deal you are taking about even have been an option without some form of rent 'boycott'?
And boy did it cost them. Share issues, 2 sets of legal bills, the many many forms of lost revenue not to mention the emotional price they made us all pay. Probably have been cheaper and easier to commit to the rent deal Fisher shook on only for Joy to spit the dummy.
They can spin it anyway they like, this is spot on. It's a definite tail between the legs moment for Sisu right now.
Although, would the deal you are taking about even have been an option without some form of rent 'boycott'?
Probably not. The rent boycott in itself wasn't such a bad idea. It's how far they took it and
what happened next that was the problem.
It does seem that the club have now got everything that they asked for, that ACL wouldn't give under any circumstances before.
Makes you wonder why they couldn't have agreed the current deal back in March 2013.
So now the rent boycott was `not such a bad idea`? My my, hindsight does have a dramatic effect, how will we view things in 5 years time I wonder?
Probably not. The rent boycott in itself wasn't such a bad idea. It's how far they took it and what happened next that was the problem.
I don't believe for one minute
that anyone other than the FL and SISU employees past and present will be suggesting that the Suxfields move was not such a bad idea.
Well the club wanted much reduced rent, combined with access to match=day f@B, short-term rental deal, and an independent mediator back then
All of which was rejected out of hand at the time by ACL, yet now(apparently) all of those things are agreed between them now.
Was it in the plan to lose the good will of the fans?
But you weren't talking about the Six fields move. So Tony, tell me honestly, has it always been your view that the rent boycott was `not such a bad idea`?
I'm liking the new critical thinking skybluetony176. The distance they took it was unacceptable but something had to give somewhere.
Anyway. PUSB
It's very easy for me to say yes as I wasn't posting on here at the time but yes. Up to a point. The original rent deal was ludicrous and the rent boycott
brought it to everyone's attention. After that SISU failed on every level.
Fair enough. Can't help feeling though that in general there are a few attitude adjustments taking place. A little humble pie consumed in private with a dolop of denial. All those for example who said SISU did not want and would never do a deal to return because as it was contrary to their plan to distress ACL are very quiet these days.
Was it in the plan to lose the good will of the fans?
No it was in the plan to stay at the Ricoh with the much reduced rent, with access to match-day f@B, a short term rental deal, and an independent mediator to be the go-between.
All of those have happened now apparently, and it seems a much increased appetite by fans to watch the team which wasn't there before, whether they like Sisu or not.
ACL refused to countenance any of those requests by the club, why now if not able to then?
What is your source for that information? It doesn't seem to agree with what the 2 judges have said about the way SISU behaved.
7: Is the rent at £400k in League 1 acceptable ?
ACL: Yes
CCFC: Yes [if other accompanying terms are kept to]
5: The current licence has 42 years to run are there any break clauses included?
ACL: The current licence expires in September 2054. ACL agreed to consider the variation of three to four clauses at the meeting of 29 January 2013, at the request of CCFC. Tim Fisher and Mark Labovitch committed to forward the particular clauses which they proposed to amend, these were never received. ACL would not consider inserting break clauses into the current licence, as this is the home of Coventry City Football Club
CCFC: Require break clauses after 3 or 5 years (not set in stone – by way of example) to be acted upon if relationship not working.
20: Has the club ever tried to repurchase the additional income sources from ACL?
ACL: No – its policy to date is to demand these for nothing.
CCFC: Last year Daniel Gidney, the then CEO of ACL offered CCFC the full match day revenue streams for a one off payment of £24 million, this was dismissed out of hand [? – I don’t think this valuation could be substantiated]
21: Is ACL prepared to sell those additional income sources to CCFC?
ACL: The offer agreed by Sisu/CCFC on 29 January was our best and final offer.
CCFC: CCFC wanted to regain access to to match-day revenues (i.e. all revenues which only occur because a football match is taking place) as part of a negotiated solution
30: Are ACL willing to be bound by an agreement brokered by independent mediators or arbitrator?
ACL: No. We have put our best and final offer on the table after months of negotiation with both SISU and CCFC. It was a reasonable and generous offer, as recognised by all 3 CCFC directors in attendance on 29 January 2013, as they verbally accepted it and shook hands in confirmation. We are not prepared to make further concessions, nor do we believe that any mediator could reasonably expect that we would. The ball is in CCFC’s court. Negotiations are now at an end, and the Board of CCFC have been duly notified.
CCFC: Yes. Any Arbitrator(s) would need to look at matters such as the lawfulness of the original licence, the financial viability of ACL, monies paid to ACL for utilities/other services and the fact there appears to be no contract for these and the monies paid by CCFC to ACL during the period of the dispute.
The Sky Blues Trust Q@A with both ACL and CCFC in March last year.
It seems that ACL have now agreed to all of these, so why not before?
Clearly not, but some of them.
As the details are not disclosed you can't really know can you.
It's a confidential agreement so everybody is guessing.
Thaat's why I said "seems", but does appear to be the consensus that we now have a short-term deal, with less rent, match-day revenues and that an independent mediator got involved as a go-between.
All things that the club asked for and ACL(for the most part) refused to budge on.
i thought it it was a "percentage" of matchday income which is totally different to what you believe.
we know diddly squat about the agreement so it's best to stop posting about it
We know it's a short term deal, less rent, a mediator was involved, and, it seems, a percentage of match day revenues.
All things that were not on the table initially from ACL.
We know it's a short term deal, less rent, a mediator was involved, and, it seems, a percentage of match day revenues.
All things that were not on the table initially from ACL.
Said Who?
Fuck me ML must have brainwashed you with that Tomato Juice
Patience wearing thin yet Lord?
Said Who?
Fuck me ML must have brainwashed you with that Tomato Juice
Said Who?
Fuck me ML must have brainwashed you with that Tomato Juice
So what have SISU got and what helped them to get it that was different to last year?
Reduced rent? Could have had that.
A bit of F+B? Could have had that.
Mediator? ACL tried to use the FL.
Short term rental agreement? The FL rules didn't allow it. Their rules stated minimum ten years to add stability. But I am happy that the FL did bend this rule for SISU.
Tim Fisher is an odious little turd.
ACL refused to consider a short term deal
They never offered any f and b income before either only cross invoicing.
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?