Interesting article in Daily Mail (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter clerkin61
- Start date
sky blue zam
Member
just read it and some points i noticed they suggested:
they say tim fisher is a sisu "spokesperson"
they say we should have a director of sport or suchlike, we been there with orange ken....... great success and transfer embargos mean waste of money
they say we need a chief executive to ensure the club stays in its parameter....... weve had multiple ones over the years that really stemmed the problem.
but at least theres something in the media
they say tim fisher is a sisu "spokesperson"
they say we should have a director of sport or suchlike, we been there with orange ken....... great success and transfer embargos mean waste of money
they say we need a chief executive to ensure the club stays in its parameter....... weve had multiple ones over the years that really stemmed the problem.
but at least theres something in the media
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
I can see where your scepticism is coming from, but with the Council in charge, it gets rid of the owners who have no afinity with CCFC. It would appoint a director of football who only has the best interests of CCFC at heart. No rent to pay, and a guaranteed budget to buy some players with. For me it's a "No Brainer":claping hands::claping hands::claping hands:
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
If you read the article in "The Mail" it makes perfect sense, on every aspect brought forward.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
All councils are given a budget to run for the year. IF, at the end of the year they still have money left over, they will spend it on anything, just to have a zero balance. The government then, either, give that council the same budget as the previous year, OR increases it. Surely this could be the answer, or am I getting confused.....Who are you?...who am I? :laugh::laugh:
Houchens Head
Fairly well known member from Malvern
Just read the article and thought it seemed a good suggestion. Most particularly, the fact that a fiancial director should be appointed. But could I really see this happening? I doubt very much. The city council are a stuffy bunch and would not agree to the idea, even though, as the article writer points out, being a hugely successful club would reap massive benefits and income to the city as a whole.
BurbageSkyBlues
New Member
It is an interesting proposal, worth considering.
To be a success, would require a more forward thinking mindset from the councillors and the people of Coventry. We need to be more positive in outlook. A shift in culture.
Places like Norwich have an energetic buzz, a warm and welcoming feel, that we need to recreate in order to attract people to our city and it's venues, so that we can capitalise on this sort of venture.
To be a success, would require a more forward thinking mindset from the councillors and the people of Coventry. We need to be more positive in outlook. A shift in culture.
Places like Norwich have an energetic buzz, a warm and welcoming feel, that we need to recreate in order to attract people to our city and it's venues, so that we can capitalise on this sort of venture.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Totally incorrect. The Local Government Settlement will be reduced by 25.6% over the next 4 years, excluding spending on fire services and police. This equates to a reduction of £6.68 billion. So talk of increases in budget are way off mark.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
That's right, and that 25.6% doesn't include the fall out of grants for specific initiatives, projects and programmes.
thorn in my side
New Member
Some positive news at last. Fingers crossed.
It's a very weak, little thought out proposal, written clearly by a desperate fan. The football club is actively supported by only a small part of the Coventry population. It doesn't benefit the majority of Coventry tax payers to bail out CcFc, and moreso - if in 15 years, some very experienced business people haven't been able to make the club 'live within its means' what makes you think that the USELESS council will?
One view I find frustrating on here - is the the view that CcFc needs to 'break even'. There are massive benefits in spending big and I don't think people get this.
1. When you reach the premier league you get over £40 million.
2. If you buy a brand name player, you sell more tickets, more shirts, more merchandise.
3. When you are chasing promotion, you sell more tickets.
This is why some football clubs/business do it - it's not irrisponsible like some people claim - its a risk that's been calculated. Of course, some fail leaving mountains of debt - but so do many UK business every day from doing the same thing.
Fans asking for a 'break even' model, should be careful what they wish for. A break even model most is very likely to leave us mid table of what ever division we find ourselves in at the time, set for a long, long period of mediocrity, avenragness and nothingness.
This club needs investment - millions - from people who know business and are prepared to take on the long term risk. If the council got hold of it - where would they get the money for a big name signing at break even?
Like I've said time and time again - there's always someone wiling to buy a club with our fanbase - as soon as Sisu agree a price or terms or direction, these people will become interested. (Even if they liquidated, it would be a pr disaster for the FA if they didn't let us stay in the league with our original name - albeit perhaps with a point deduction/league demotion. Think about it a club that owed no money (it's only owed to sisu) dissolved - what does that say about the proud English leagues to the world?)
Investment please, not break even..
Ta.
One view I find frustrating on here - is the the view that CcFc needs to 'break even'. There are massive benefits in spending big and I don't think people get this.
1. When you reach the premier league you get over £40 million.
2. If you buy a brand name player, you sell more tickets, more shirts, more merchandise.
3. When you are chasing promotion, you sell more tickets.
This is why some football clubs/business do it - it's not irrisponsible like some people claim - its a risk that's been calculated. Of course, some fail leaving mountains of debt - but so do many UK business every day from doing the same thing.
Fans asking for a 'break even' model, should be careful what they wish for. A break even model most is very likely to leave us mid table of what ever division we find ourselves in at the time, set for a long, long period of mediocrity, avenragness and nothingness.
This club needs investment - millions - from people who know business and are prepared to take on the long term risk. If the council got hold of it - where would they get the money for a big name signing at break even?
Like I've said time and time again - there's always someone wiling to buy a club with our fanbase - as soon as Sisu agree a price or terms or direction, these people will become interested. (Even if they liquidated, it would be a pr disaster for the FA if they didn't let us stay in the league with our original name - albeit perhaps with a point deduction/league demotion. Think about it a club that owed no money (it's only owed to sisu) dissolved - what does that say about the proud English leagues to the world?)
Investment please, not break even..
Ta.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Well, not really. Its one blokes idea. He may have well posted it on here. How could a local authority shut youth centres, care homes, libraries and then pump millions into a football club? Insane.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
The cuts to local government budgets announced today are huge and unprecedented, they will fundamentally alter the way that councils work and the work that councils do. Many people in local government will feel gloomy today because of the impact on services, communities and jobs, but tomorrow we have to roll up our sleeves and work out how we are going to do the best in incredibly challenging circumstances. This is a big leadership challenge for Councillors in particular, to get the most out of local authorities, pull together other local services, and get the community involved in making tough choices, and in developing new local voluntary and community effort and enterprise.
You are correct Torchomatic, I did say I was confused... The above statement does back up my thoughts and views from earlier, albeit vaguely.
You are correct Torchomatic, I did say I was confused... The above statement does back up my thoughts and views from earlier, albeit vaguely.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I doubt the local government rules would permit the council to take over the club. It is one thing investing in a capital project like building a stadium that can have a wide community use quite another investing annually in a loss making high risk private company when you are on a fixed budget and those losses would detract from the ability of the council to provide basic services for the whole community
The council assisted in building of the stadium and already own the freehold, even then the investment vehicles were complicated so that they could prove they were at arms length from the club etc. Not only that council budgets are split between different types and the investment was done from a capital budget not an annual revenue budget. Yes Swansea council assisted but so did Coventry council.
As much as I love my club I would not want the Council owning it ...... there would not be the flexibility or speed in decision required by a private company owning a football club for starters. For example player purchases are capital purchases a high risk and large in value - quite likely major asset expenditure would need to be discussed by the council, by which time the opportunity will have passed, or the details of the full contract published in the council minutes. Can you see any player being happy about that and wanting to come? Can you see it happening quick enough? Can you imagine the protests of the other rate payers ?
There are so many reasons why it just would not work - well not without substantial changes in the rules and procedures of the Council for starters let alone any other matters
Basically though who ever owns the club has to have a viable business, relying on hand outs from the local council is not a viable business nor is it likely to be supported by the majority of rate payers. There are plenty of ways the council can help owning the club is not one of them
The council assisted in building of the stadium and already own the freehold, even then the investment vehicles were complicated so that they could prove they were at arms length from the club etc. Not only that council budgets are split between different types and the investment was done from a capital budget not an annual revenue budget. Yes Swansea council assisted but so did Coventry council.
As much as I love my club I would not want the Council owning it ...... there would not be the flexibility or speed in decision required by a private company owning a football club for starters. For example player purchases are capital purchases a high risk and large in value - quite likely major asset expenditure would need to be discussed by the council, by which time the opportunity will have passed, or the details of the full contract published in the council minutes. Can you see any player being happy about that and wanting to come? Can you see it happening quick enough? Can you imagine the protests of the other rate payers ?
There are so many reasons why it just would not work - well not without substantial changes in the rules and procedures of the Council for starters let alone any other matters
Basically though who ever owns the club has to have a viable business, relying on hand outs from the local council is not a viable business nor is it likely to be supported by the majority of rate payers. There are plenty of ways the council can help owning the club is not one of them
Last edited:
stupot07
Well-Known Member
WillieStanley
New Member
Its not like the Daily Mail to offer a radical and extreme solutions...
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
As if what you say hasn't been going on for years anyway!...(The first part of your statements)
We ALL grasp at straws in our lives, in the hope something good will come out of it, but we always get the straw taken off us.
The Government ALLOWS increases in fuel prices, along with their own Fuel tax(It seems like every week) we moan, but pay the increase anyway.
What is said in "The Mail" is true. We are the NINTH biggest City, and anything that increases wealth to the City, should be taken on board, and be seriousy looked at.
Last edited:
@richh87
Member
My thoughts exactly Mexico. City fans seem to put their own club down too much.
You see similar sized clubs like Leicester going for it (and amusingly failing) and smaller clubs like Wigan being funded and having a great time in the top flight - meanwhile City fans beat themselves up about what a crap club they have. We don't; what we have is crap owners. We need a fresh start.
*The situation with the stadium is ridiculous. Although I think the Ricoh is a fantastic venue we should never have moved from Highfield Road - it has killed our revenue streams. Not only that, but I think the club no longer seems like a focal point for the community due to the location out by the M6. I've always thought that being in the centre of a City, so that people see the stadium every day and think "yeah - that's OUR football club" is so important.
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
And you see far, far bigger clubs who have experienced similar strife.
Wigan is interesting. One thing Dave whelan has always attempted to do is attract the best manager he can to achieve his objectives. Most of time he gets it right. Every time we get it wrong.
@richh87
Member
I'd say 90% of managerial success is based upon finances. Look at almost any league table and generally the big spenders finish up the top, average spenders in the middle, and cheaply assembled squads down the bottom.
You might buck the trend occasionally - but not over the long term.
SISU's break-even obsession, with bigger overheads than any other club in League 1 will make for the cheapest squad going. They gave up on the playing side of things last summer - after tricking everyone into renewing season tickets with promises of "the same budget as Aidy Boothroyd" and "Marlon King will sign once he's topped up his tan".
Their contempt for the fans makes me sick - under them things will only get worse and THEY are the problem as far as the playing side goes. Yes it's a difficult position financially - but who gives a **** - just get out and let someone else have a go.
While they're at it they can give those shares they were given for free to the new owners for FREE.
Last edited:
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
I'd say you were absolutely right, but wasn't it brilliant what Holloway did with Blackpool with loanees only. Not one penny spent to get promotion.
Sorry have i missed something ,why is there a cost to the rate payer,he suggests raising the money on the markets ,How much would it take to combine the whole entity together ,what would be the returns.Outside of the clubs ineptitude getting here i've always wondered if there was'nt some political stitchup to help us get here ,as he says who would sell their income streams for the want of £6m.There is some political stimulus to address the seperation of club and ground in the governance report,i'm sure somewhere in the rules it states clubs can't be run by councils,Nah confused again ,lets just sit and watch the club die a slow ,ugly death
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Yeah, as well as Dave Whelen's choices for manager has been, he is heavily subsidising them, and they were reported to be in £73m debt in 2010.
http://www.myfootballfacts.com/PremierLeagueFinances.html
http://www.myfootballfacts.com/PremierLeagueFinances.html
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Of course that's why in recent weeks Martinez has beaten teams in the top 4 and why Norwich have survived with a squad that previously had 8 games of premier league experience.
You mentioned Wigan and the reason they survive is because he spends a high proportion of budget on headhunting quality managers not relying on serial failures or a bloke who scouts for a living.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Charlie Adam wasn't signed for nothing and he single handedly got them up. I'm stunned by people here who think we should throw ourselves into deeper debt to try and get success-it's so short termist.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Slightly missing the point though - whelan would never have appointed any of our last 3 managers and if he had would have removed them very quickly. Our management recruitment strategy is and continues to be a disaster.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Tbh we haven't got a strategy let alone a management recruitment strategy. Every manager we have seems to have a difference style of football, transfer policy, etc.
Look at swansea - Brendan Rodgers didn't create that style of football he just built on what was there before him, under the previous 2/3 managers.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
True, forgot about him.....even so £500k...come on mate ...Peanuts to gain promotion to the Prem. What about the "Free transfers" of Beattie and Campbell...fooking genius ... wouldn't you say?:facepalm:
Last edited:
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Doesn't it put a perspective on things mate......Blacpool £500k (Charlie Adam)=promotion.
..............................................................Coventry £500k(Cody McDonald)=Relegation
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Not really no. Their wage bill in the season they got promoted was £12.6m ours on relegation was circa £5m
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
That's down to Holloway more than anything-he excels at managing underdog teams. Even so, Blackpool were an exception to the general rule that those who spend big usually win big.