Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
Dong, if there hadn't of been a mess in the first place, do you think SISU would be here?
I just think six years is an incredible length of time to still hear people making reference to damage done before SISU came.
What has gone on before cannot be dismissed completely, but i find it strange when people keep dredging it up when SISU are criticised.
We were in a mess when they came. They came because of that mess with their eyes wide open.
SISU bought our club at point B promising to get us back to A.
The previous regimes took us from A to B.
SISU have took us to C (division 3) and now D (playing 35 miles away. )
Their actions to take us to D is through shocking business decisions is nothing short of abysmal.
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.
Dong, if there hadn't of been a mess in the first place, do you think SISU would be here?
FFS! No one is making excuses for them!!! EVERYONE WOULD PREFER CCFC WITHOUT SISU HERE AND WANT THEM GONE. Clear?!
If the club had a competitive arrangement to play at the Ricoh and had share in all revenues other parties would have been interested. We'd be an attractive proposition as opposed to a very unattractive one.
Utterly specious reasoning, as usual.
Your evidence for this is where exactly?
Dong, if there hadn't of been a mess in the first place, do you think SISU would be here?
Nope there was a huge mess. That is what they specialise in. Making a profit out of other people's messes. They can here aware of the mess and from that point onwards I judge them with a clean slate. Nobody duped them. It was all there. They have since made a bit of a mess a complete and utter bomb site.
Well you seem very keen on due dillegence. So what do you think? A potential buyer would more interested if;
A the council had offered a peppercorn rent on a 99 year lease and third shares in the management company free of charge
B £1.2 million rent plus matchday costs and no match fm day revenues
Which is the more attractive long term prospect?
Well you seem very keen on due dillegence. So what do you think? A potential buyer would more interested if;
A the council had offered a peppercorn rent on a 99 year lease and third shares in the management company free of charge
B £1.2 million rent plus matchday costs and no match fm day revenues
Which is the more attractive long term prospect?
Well of course the club had 50% of the management company and 100% of matchday revenues and chose to sell it and never exercise the buy back clause. Why should the club now be handed a third back for free?
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?
Ignoring the usual council sycophants that trawl this site has this thread gone to plan?
Hey, Grendel. Answer my question first. It's incredibly rude, answering a question with a question.
You're saying the Ricoh deal put others off. Where's your evidence?
It upset SISU so much that they didn't even make it an issue when they first took over - that's how much it bothered them.
Ignoring the resident moronic troll, please let us know.
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.
For wanting people to take responsibility for their actions? I'd say that was already pretty grown up.
Is your definition of mature blaming everyone else?
Remind me, how many other buyers were standing alongside sisu when joes clock was ticking?
Remind me this time the club went into administration how many expressed an interest in purchase when the rental deal appeared more favourable?
If the latter is higher why given the club was in a far worse position?
If next week we were back at the Ricoh and the consequences were;
ACL liquidation - all employees gone
Losses for the charity
Council in turmoil
Would you say yes as the club always comes first?
That logic is utterly twisted. It presupposes that you know the motives of any purchasers or potential purchasers.
To you, it's all about the rent, so everything you look at is filtered through that prism. Even to the current owners it wasn't all about the rent for the first few years. It wasn't the rent that put us into £30-60m of debt, or made us pay more in wages than we were earning.
It's an obsession of yours, or more likely a handy tool for a wind up. I doubt even you believe what you're saying sometimes.
Me, personally, no. I wouldn't see either a charity or the taxpayer screwed over for the benefit of any football club. (Doubly so when it's not actually necessary, as in this case.)
Would you?
My advice, don't feed the troll.
Its a preposterous line, and must be a wind up, I agree. The entirety of the rental payments was less than 10% of the liabilities at the time of administration. It's irrelevant to any new deal as SISU ate demanding freehold.
As such, it wasn't a significant part of the problem, and plays no role in any solution. I can think if nothing more irrelevant, and why it's bought up time and time again is astonishing
They can be judged on what they do now with the caveat that the Richardson era has completely hamstrung them. Completely. They're like a boxer with an arm tied behind their back.
Given youu are PWKH's favourite poodle I'm sure you do find it astonishing. For the record, you have missed the point. This discussion centres around the rent deal prior to sisu and its contribution to wrecking the club under its former guise and also its deterrent to other owners than sisu.
Duffer believed the arrangement could be any fee and restriction on revenue and it wouldn't impact potential buyers. Given his clear lack of Interest in the club and mid peculiar obsession with all things ACL this isn't a surprise.
Sisu were sold a pup. The clock was ticking. I bet they rue the day.
Do you agree with my point above, that within the context of the current owners tenure, the rent issue is irrelevant, though?
i sometimes wonder if there is a parrallel world accountancy forum out there...where all they do all day is talk about the left back at their local club, or what formation their local team should play on saturday.
Time and time again "Spreadsheet" or "EBITDA" threads ruined by football talk
They can be judged on what they do now with the caveat that the Richardson era has completely hamstrung them. Completely. They're like a boxer with an arm tied behind their back.
Well clearly now, yes.
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?