sky blue john
Well-Known Member
So which are we more hampered by paying 1.2million rent and playing at the ricoh or paying Sisu 1.2million + in admin fees ??????
The problem is many other clubs got a better deal
from the council which made them competitive.
Whatever way you cut it that's the rub. Would Swansea be where they are now with our council - Answer no
The problem is many other clubs got a better deal from the council which made them competitive.
Whatever way you cut it that's the rub. Would Swansea be where they are now with our council - Answer no
The problem is many other clubs got a better deal from the council which made them competitive.
Whatever way you cut it that's the rub. Would Swansea be where they are now with our council - Answer no
That's a different question, I'm not asking if we got the best deal from the council. Had things gone to plan and the council not been involved at all would we have still been making payments, instead of rent against borrowing, and if so would they be more or less than the rent.
So which are we more hampered by paying 1.2million rent and playing at the ricoh or paying Sisu 1.2million + in admin fees ??????
Source?
We've seen PWKH's report that there was "a couple of half hearted attempts" and the mention in passing in one board minutes. Hardly paints a picture of CCFC banging on the door begging for a better deal. We also have Sisu on record during the Brody era stating the rent is OK and that there were no issues with ACL whatsoever.
Excuse me if I don't get the violins out just yet. And that's ignoring the rather large point that at this point no-one is asking for £1.2m/year and it can in no way be shown to be the issue that caused our debt either. In fact the only people to ever mention it in public aside from Brody was Fisher, except now he's moved on to freehold of a stadium (taking the scenic route through "we need pie cash"ville) and you're still stuck on that.
Even leaving aside all of that. Surely even you can admit that the cost to CCFC of taking a ground share to "solve" this "problem" has hardly been effective.
May I also (AGAIN) point out that until you are complaining about the interest and management fees, that far exceed the rental of a Premiership quality stadium that provides revenue, that Sisu are charging with the same veracity you attack the council (and Higgs, but you always seem to forget their role) for "bleeding the club dry" I'll find it hard to believe you actually have the club's interests at heart rather than a narrowminded political point to make.
Whichever way you package it up and put a ribbon on it, the Ricoh was a massive mistake for Coventry City. And that is solely down to Bryan Richardson and his "ambition".
The problem is many other clubs got a better deal from the council which made them competitive.
Whatever way you cut it that's the rub. Would Swansea be where they are now with our council - Answer no
I find it hard to believe you have the clubs interest at heart when you jump to the defence of ACL and the council as soon as any criticism is aimed their way.
Fair play to them for getting new tenants in and letting Leicesters youth team play there...one in the eye for ccfc that.
We just about all agree on this. But us being in Northampton is down to Joy wanting to make lots of money for her investors. Nothing else.
So what do you think of the near 4m that SISU charges our club each year then Torch?
Over £60M thanks to Richardson. Or would you like me to say it was SISU? And you said it yourself "owned". A very important word.
Torch, you can say what you like, but as SISU never owned CCFC when we were at Highfield Road, I would have found it a strange thing for you to say.
I just asked a question I didn't know the answer to.
I think it's shit.
So which are we more hampered by paying 1.2million rent and playing at the ricoh or paying Sisu 1.2million + in admin fees ??????
OK, apologies.
Over £60M yet people like Shmmee say we were financially better off under Richardson.
That frankly is irrelevant. When the club started at the Ricoh it required 22,500 to break even.
Competing against teams playing rent free or less than £200,000 a season and trying to compete with them was a car crash waiting to happen
Management fees are pretty normal by the way so why you get excited by them I am not sure.
That frankly is irrelevant. When the club started at the Ricoh it required 22,500 to break even.
If everyone put as much time and effort into getting 100k signatures, as they did on bitching over something that is actually irrelvant now, we'd have 100,000 in no time.
Just saying....
WM
And all of these owners charge their clubs about 4m a year for nothing?
And as you know the break even was so high because of the wages being given and not the rent.
Show me another 3rd division club that are being charged about 4m a year.
Bitching?
More like trying to work out how certain people keep mentioning the 1.2m rent and blaming all of our problems on it but never mentioning another cost to our club of over three times this amount.
Err...yet again, my point still stands?!
WM
Show me a fan who demands the rents paid and wages are slashed.
If like Swansea their council gave the ground for free you have £1.2 million to spend on wages don't you?
That frankly is irrelevant. When the club started at
the Ricoh it required 22,500 to break even.
Competing against teams playing rent free or less than £200,000 a season and trying to compete with them was a car crash waiting to happen
Management fees are pretty normal by the way so why you get excited by them I am not sure.
And we have apparently spent £60 getting to League 1. If the rent was a bit cheaper maybe it would have only cost SISU £50m to get us there. They are clueless when it comes to running a football clubNot just that, liebherr was a multi billionaire. When in L1 they could afford to pay 1.5m for Lambert, and offer big wages for others.
Shmeee states facts. You say he is jumping to the defence of ACL. You rant on about the rent of 1.2 being too much but always ignore the near 4m that SISU charge our club. And I bet that you would never consider this to be jumping to the defence of SISU?
Double standards of the highest order.
Not bitching but asking. And my point still stands as you keep mentioning the rent but never the charges.
Your defence is that anyone that doesn't agree with your views on the rent being our main reason for not having money is bitching
And all of these owners charge their clubs about 4m a year for nothing?
Lol priceless !!!!
I get excited because the management fees are far higher and make the rent insignificant in comparison....
That frankly is irrelevant. When the club started at the Ricoh it required 22,500 to break even.
Competing against teams playing rent free or less than £200,000 a season and trying to compete with them was a car crash waiting to happen
Management fees are pretty normal by the way so why you get excited by them I am not sure.
And all of these owners charge their clubs about 4m a year for nothing?
Do you think if we were £5m less in debt than we are now it would make much difference to the decisions SISU are making, or even much difference to the car crash that was waiting to happen?
You seem to be missing the point. We were over £30 million in debt pre sisu and operating with one arm tied behind our back.
Sisu were stupid to take the risk. Any sensible purchaser would have gone elsewhere anyway - no one would deal with a council tying the club to such punitive trading conditions.
And there's still people making excuses for them.
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?