ccfcway
Well-Known Member
if that was the case, no problems, the high street survives.
you need a minimum level of staff and normally that minimum level of staff mean a store isn't profitable.
As most shops employ part time and temporary staff and only on short term contracts, they make savings by employing less
In this case they are not fixed costs as the payroll can be flexed in line with demand
Enjoy the spice girls. Do your bit for acl.The way i look at it both clubs keep A C L going 2 trying to keep it going are better than 1.As for going to a concert i might just do.
I don’t think the council will ever allow a second stadium in this city. I’d imagine behind closed doors there saying quietly “it’s not looking good for wasps is it and if they do go under we’re left with an empty station.”
Bothyou mean stadium ?
Think not.Bon Jovi maybe.Enjoy the spice girls. Do your bit for acl.
So the sports teams are only there to keep acl going, what a strange state of affairs.The way i look at it both clubs keep A C L going 2 trying to keep it going are better than 1.As for going to a concert i might just do.
Not just them other things as well sorry if it come over like that.I like nearly all on here want us to play at the Ricoh.and pissed off with the way things seem to be turning out.So the sports teams are only there to keep acl going, what a strange state of affairs.
Good point
How could they sell the Ricoh to CCFC? CCFC couldn't afford it.Blame the council and their dodgy dealings, wouldn't be in this mess if they actually sold the Ricoh (A stadium built for football) to their own football club instead of selling on the cheap to wasps
As an example look at Argos, they have c25000 employees throughout the year, most of which are on permanent contracts. Over the Christmas period they flex that up to c32000 made up of flexible temporary staff. Temporary contracts end in January after they launch their new catalogue.As most shops employ part time and temporary staff and only on short term contracts, they make savings by employing less
In this case they are not fixed costs as the payroll can be flexed in line with demand
Have a look at post 40, the general tone of this and other threads. It is almost like Sisu are the victims. The only party who has truly suffered throughout this mess is the club and its fans. There was one poster on a thread the other day saying he hoped that Sisu continued with the legal action. Even though that action is undeniably harming our club, he wants them to continue. Unbelievable!
A lot seem to bang on about their right to pursue their case in the courts (even though it seems it is about distressing Wasps rather than seeking justice). How come they are now prepared to give up this search for justice if they get help from CCC with the new stadium and an acceptable rent deal from Wasps? I don’t get that at all. I agree with the view on here that CCC should do all they can to facilitate this new stadium. We either then are genuinely moving forward towards a new ground or Sisu are again exposed as the shysters that they really are. I also think Wasps are maybe playing into Sisu’s hands. Sisu will continue with the legal action whether we are at the Ricoh or not. If Wasps won’t negotiate the blame is attributed to them for the fact we are not playing in Coventry. In effect they may be doing Sisu’s dirty work for them. Lots will follow to a groundshare site, myself included, who didn’t go to Northampton.
I am sick of the lot of them. A franchise rugby club not allowing the city’s own football team to play in the stadium that was built for it. A council who have washed their hands of the citiy’s most famous sports club and whose leader could not be bothered to turn up at Westminster and who lies about the terms under which the stadium was sold to Wasps. And then we have Sisu.
They should all be ashamed of the games they have played. But they won’t be.
Wasps couldn't afford it but they sold it to themHow could they sell the Ricoh to CCFC? CCFC couldn't afford it.
As an example look at Argos, they have c25000 employees throughout the year, most of which are on permanent contracts. Over the Christmas period they flex that up to c32000 made up of flexible temporary staff. Temporary contracts end in January after they launch their new catalogue.
No,you’re wrong.I think all parties have contributed to this mess. However, I do think that Sisu are the worst of all the bunch involved. The tone of the posts on here, particularly the one highlighted, seem to be saying that they are not so bad after all. They have all lied and schemed to the detriment of the club but none more than Sisu who seem to be now portrayed as victims.you're sort of agreeing with what I was saying, you're slating sisu but also giving examples of where others have acted against the football club, I think that's what the majority of people are driving at, you don't seem to think so which is an opinion you're entitled to hold but I don't agree with that aspect of your argument.
Nor could Wasps, they loaded it with £35m in debt. Interesting there's council meeting notes that say if the Ricoh was ever sold to the football club steps must be taken to ensure they couldn't use it as security for financing. Another rule that doesn't apply to Wasps.How could they sell the Ricoh to CCFC? CCFC couldn't afford it.
Take your point, but you could say that re. every other stadium in the UK too, as it's more profitable, but it doesn't happen in the majority of clubs.Try to look at this from A C L's point of view you are trying to run a Stadium to keep it profitable the more use you have of it the more profitable it would be.People on here talk as though Coventry City and only them should play there (i know it was built for us ) but if you rely on only one team of our size playing in a stadium you will find it hard.Something we will find very hard if Tims one ever gets built .
neither could the WASPs but did it stop them from lying to punters into buying bonds knowing that they will not have funds to repay it?How could they sell the Ricoh to CCFC? CCFC couldn't afford it.
How could they sell the Ricoh to CCFC? CCFC couldn't afford it.
Have a look at post 40, the general tone of this and other threads. It is almost like Sisu are the victims. The only party who has truly suffered throughout this mess is the club and its fans. There was one poster on a thread the other day saying he hoped that Sisu continued with the legal action. Even though that action is undeniably harming our club, he wants them to continue. Unbelievable!
A lot seem to bang on about their right to pursue their case in the courts (even though it seems it is about distressing Wasps rather than seeking justice). How come they are now prepared to give up this search for justice if they get help from CCC with the new stadium and an acceptable rent deal from Wasps? I don’t get that at all. I agree with the view on here that CCC should do all they can to facilitate this new stadium. We either then are genuinely moving forward towards a new ground or Sisu are again exposed as the shysters that they really are. I also think Wasps are maybe playing into Sisu’s hands. Sisu will continue with the legal action whether we are at the Ricoh or not. If Wasps won’t negotiate the blame is attributed to them for the fact we are not playing in Coventry. In effect they may be doing Sisu’s dirty work for them. Lots will follow to a groundshare site, myself included, who didn’t go to Northampton.
I am sick of the lot of them. A franchise rugby club not allowing the city’s own football team to play in the stadium that was built for it. A council who have washed their hands of the citiy’s most famous sports club and whose leader could not be bothered to turn up at Westminster and who lies about the terms under which the stadium was sold to Wasps. And then we have Sisu.
They should all be ashamed of the games they have played. But they won’t be.
How could they sell the Ricoh to CCFC? CCFC couldn't afford it.
The first thing Wasps did was borrow against the Stadium. There were people on here several years ago writing to the Council begging them not to sell to SISU as they were worried the first thing they would do would be to borrow against the Stadium ...
There is a big difference though. The debt is on Wasps and not on the Sky Blues.The first thing Wasps did was borrow against the Stadium. There were people on here several years ago writing to the Council begging them not to sell to SISU as they were worried the first thing they would do would be to borrow against the Stadium ...
There is a big difference though. The debt is on Wasps and not on the Sky Blues.
There is a big difference though. The debt is on Wasps and not on the Sky Blues.
They didn't just borrow £14m to repay the loan, they added another £20m on top for good measure
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?