Jon Sharp - BPA (42 Viewers)

skybluetony176 · Oct 28, 2016

stupot07 said:
Never seen any Chinese students at the football ever.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I have. Not sure if they were student's but I've seen some. Not in big numbers and admittedly not until this season. But I have seen some. I'm assuming that they were Chinese anyway, definitely from the far east and not speaking English and Chinese would be my first guess. Also second game back at the Ricoh against Yeovil I was sat in the family zone with my youngest and in the row in front of me was a very dark man with an African accent with two children, seen them at games loads since as well.

Sky Blue Kid · Oct 28, 2016

stupot07 said:
You're talking bollocks. I said nothing about them not liking football and made the point about not having disposable income.

You talk about living conditions being better than in their home countries, that means diddly squad, the cost of living in Britain is a lot higher, and we're talkong about potential if we got to the PL - you'll be talking £30-35+ per ticket, that's a lot of money, we already have people moaning on here that the current prices are too much for a lot of people.

Never seen any Chinese students at the football ever.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Don't say that in front of "Chinaman!" and I think you might find that people are saying the price is too high for the standard of football CCFC are playing in..ie- 3rd Division!

clint van damme · Oct 28, 2016

This forum is mental!
A thread about Jon Sharpe has gone off into optimum ground capacities, whether immigrants like football, the UK benefits structure and the Stone Roses!

fernandopartridge · Oct 28, 2016

dongonzalos said:
The owner is usually the most important factor.

You have completely missed the point.

Hull City? Blackpool? Luck?

dongonzalos · Oct 28, 2016

fernandopartridge said:
Hull City? Blackpool? Luck?

Hence the 'usually' bit in my post
I actually called those ones freaks earlier.
Nothing in life is ever 100%

Grendel · Oct 28, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Hence the 'usually' bit in my post
I actually called those Ines freaks earlier.
Nothing in life is ever 100%

Bournmouth?Burnley? Watford? QPR? Reading? Lots of lucky teams.

Pretty unlucky ones as well with big grounds near the bottom.

Astute · Oct 28, 2016

stupot07 said:
Do you think his parents would have been able to afford season ticket or to have gone to matches regularly? My point was paying customers

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

That is like saying that if you are not white and English you will never have a decent job or prospects. So a minimum 40% of those at primary schools will live in poverty. It isn't the case.

Maybe they won't have it as easy as the white English. But most will try harder and overcome people's prejudices. And football is a worldwide sport. So why wouldn't they want to support their local teams?

It hasn't harmed many London teams after all.

Sky Blue Kid · Oct 28, 2016

Astute said:
That is like saying that if you are not white and English you will never have a decent job or prospects. So a minimum 40% of those at primary schools will live in poverty. It isn't the case.

Maybe they won't have it as easy as the white English. But most will try harder and overcome people's prejudices. And football is a worldwide sport. So why wouldn't they want to support their local teams?

It hasn't harmed many London teams after all.

Very Astutely put

Astute · Oct 28, 2016

Grendel said:
Bournmouth?Burnley? Watford? QPR? Reading? Lots of lucky teams.

Pretty unlucky ones as well with big grounds near the bottom.

Like Portsmouth?

Most of them are there for a reason. It is mainly the same as us. Not been run very well. But if they have the capacity to hold enough supporters they havethe chance of getting back to where they were without needing a rich benefactor. But you already know this.

Sky Blue Kid · Oct 28, 2016

clint van damme said:
This forum is mental!
A thread about Jon Sharpe has gone off into optimum ground capacities, whether immigrants like football, the UK benefits structure and the Stone Roses!

Everything spoken about is rellevent.

dongonzalos · Oct 28, 2016

Grendel said:
Bournmouth?Burnley? Watford? QPR? Reading? Lots of lucky teams.

Pretty unlucky ones as well with big grounds near the bottom.

I actually have never mentioned luck FP did.
I said getting to the premiership will be down to a lot of factors but owners will usually be the key one.
Not always sometimes you will get a manager or a certain group of players in fire despite owners who are clueless (and don't have zillions).

dongonzalos · Oct 28, 2016

clint van damme said:
This forum is mental!
A thread about Jon Sharpe has gone off into optimum ground capacities, whether immigrants like football, the UK benefits structure and the Stone Roses!

Ground capacities is important in relation to Mr Sharpe. So far in what I have seen he hasn't spouted rubbish.
He seems to say what he means and he doesn't want a 25k stadium.
He seems to be pitching in the 10-14k level.

Astute · Oct 28, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Ground capacities is important in relation to Mr Sharpe. So far in what I have seen he hasn't spouted rubbish.
He seems to say what he means and he doesn't want a 25k stadium.
He seems to be pitching in the 10-14k level.

14k would be sufficient whilst we are playing shit. But I don't want us playing shit forever.

hill83 · Oct 28, 2016

clint van damme said:
This forum is mental!
A thread about Jon Sharpe has gone off into optimum ground capacities, whether immigrants like football, the UK benefits structure and the Stone Roses!

Been an enjoyable thread. Even got Grendel to play.

dongonzalos · Oct 28, 2016

Astute said:
14k would be sufficient whilst we are playing shit. But I don't want us playing shit forever.

And for me 14k at the BPA would be forever

hill83 · Oct 28, 2016

dongonzalos said:
And for me 14k at the BPA would be forever

Forever ever? Forever ever? Forever ever?

Nick · Oct 28, 2016

hill83 said:
Forever ever? Forever ever? Forever ever?

Sky Blue Kid · Oct 28, 2016

hill83 said:
Forever ever? Forever ever? Forever ever?

albatross · Oct 28, 2016

Grendel said:
Without any assett base we will not have any future. We will have no serious interest from anyone looking to purchase the club.

As for "not contravene rules" are you being serious?

For Man U / liverpool and the rest in the premier league is it their asset base or performance on the pitch that drives revenue? Its all about Pounds in vs Pounds out unless investing in a stadium drives positive revenue and improves the clubs situation then it is the wrong thing for the club at this point, not you or anybody on this board has demonstrated the benefits of the 365 revenue model. If it really was that profitable then it would have been done long ago.

Swansea were recently taken over without owning their own ground and are one of the top 30 clubs in the world in terms of revenue in.

Point taken about the Rules. only mentioned them as they are convenient for Tim to explain why we have no playing budget

Grendel · Oct 28, 2016

dongonzalos said:
And for me 14k at the BPA would be forever

Even that's better then playing in a black and gold seated stadium having any potential extra revenues being swallowed up by a Maltese hedge fund

albatross · Oct 28, 2016

stupot07 said:
Can we stop calling Coventry a "one club town"? The landscape has changed, we now share the city with one of the biggest rugby clubs in Europe who are getting larger attendance's and have managed to pull quite a few cov fans away from watching ccfc and are ongoing competition for fans, young fans and paying customers, not to mention CRFC and Blaze.

Also the city has changed immeasurably in terms of demographics and has a lot of newly arrived communities (40%+ minority ethnic group in primary school, compared to thr whole city in the 2001 ~9%), this reduces the pool of potential customers going forward.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

CCFC will always have the bigger pull for the people of Coventry, think the WASPS fan Base and CCFC base are largely different. Sure there will be those that are diverted from the football but thats down to whats happening on the Pitch. WASPS pull in people from Warwickshire / Birmingham and beyond , CCFC will be much more closely associated with the city itself

With regards to the City's demographic whats so different about what happened in the 50's and 60's in terms of the influx of people to the city? Attendances improved during that time.

Fix the on field issues and the place will be rocking again

Grendel · Oct 28, 2016

albatross said:
For Man U / liverpool and the rest in the premier league is it their asset base or performance on the pitch that drives revenue? Its all about Pounds in vs Pounds out unless investing in a stadium drives positive revenue and improves the clubs situation then it is the wrong thing for the club at this point, not you or anybody on this board has demonstrated the benefits of the 365 revenue model. If it really was that profitable then it would have been done long ago.

Swansea were recently taken over without owning their own ground and are one of the top 30 clubs in the world in terms of revenue in.

Point taken about the Rules. only mentioned them as they are convenient for Tim to explain why we have no playing budget

Swansea had a ground handed to them on a plate and the club part own the management company that runs it

clint van damme · Oct 28, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Ground capacities is important in relation to Mr Sharpe. So far in what I have seen he hasn't spouted rubbish.
He seems to say what he means and he doesn't want a 25k stadium.
He seems to be pitching in the 10-14k level.

He'd be crazy to go higher, whereas we'd be crazy to go that low.

albatross · Oct 28, 2016

Grendel said:
Swansea had a ground handed to them on a plate and the club part own the management company that runs it

similar to were we started from then!

Grendel · Oct 28, 2016

albatross said:
similar to were we started from then!

Not at all. The council supported their club emraced them in the community. Our council shafted us until the money ran out then went to London to find a replacement - but didn't shaft them as they thought a city of rugby had a nice ring to it.

skybluetony176 · Oct 28, 2016

Grendel said:
Not at all. The council supported their club emraced them in the community. Our council shafted us until the money ran out then went to London to find a replacement - but didn't shaft them as they thought a city of rugby had a nice ring to it.

Is it not true to say that CCFC were handed a share of the stadium management company at the Ricoh? Is it also not true to say that CCFC were also handed a larger share of said stadium management company by it's local council than Swansea were handed by their local council?

stupot07 · Oct 28, 2016

albatross said:
CCFC will always have the bigger pull for the people of Coventry, think the WASPS fan Base and CCFC base are largely different. Sure there will be those that are diverted from the football but thats down to whats happening on the Pitch. WASPS pull in people from Warwickshire / Birmingham and beyond , CCFC will be much more closely associated with the city itself

With regards to the City's demographic whats so different about what happened in the 50's and 60's in terms of the influx of people to the city? Attendances improved during that time.

Fix the on field issues and the place will be rocking again

Personally I think there is a much bigger overlap than you think and therefore we cannot be classed as a one club city anymore.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

albatross · Oct 28, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Is it not true to say that CCFC were handed a share of the stadium management company at the Ricoh? Is it also not true to say that CCFC were also handed a larger share of said stadium management company by it's local council than Swansea were handed by their local council?

And is also it not true that they were then allowed to sell that share to raise cash?

Sky Blue Kid · Oct 28, 2016

stupot07 said:
Personally I think there is a much bigger overlap than you think and therefore we cannot be classed as a one club city anymore.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Are yo a fooking Brummie?

Grendel · Oct 28, 2016

albatross said:
And is also it not true that they were then allowed to sell that share to raise cash?

They only had to raise cash to fund a ridiculous rental arrangement

Swansea council even covered a large proportion of match day costs including using tax payer money to install central heating.

Swansea council would have bent over backwards to support the club - not shaft them all ends up.

Grendel · Oct 28, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Is it not true to say that CCFC were handed a share of the stadium management company at the Ricoh? Is it also not true to say that CCFC were also handed a larger share of said stadium management company by it's local council than Swansea were handed by their local council?

No Tony because what they were handed was a huge rental bill - Swansea council supported the club in numerous eats so they didn't sell anything.

Your attempt at one upmanship is pathetic.

They were backed we were stabbed in the back. If you genuinely believe otherwise you'll soon be telling me you are a remain UKIP voter.

Oh hold on.....

stupot07 · Oct 28, 2016

Sky Blue Kid said:
Are yo a fooking Brummie?

No, are you?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Astute · Oct 28, 2016

Grendel said:
They only had to raise cash to fund a ridiculous rental arrangement

There you go trying to change history again.

Those that took over from Richardson were left with a 60m debt. HR had been sold. The money was gone. Yet you defend Richardson.

You say that it was the rent that caused us the trouble. The wage bill was over 10m. Yet you say that it was OK.

Yes the rent was too high. But it was only a small percentage of the outgoings. Outgoings caused by Richardson.

fernandopartridge · Oct 28, 2016

Grendel said:
No Tony because what they were handed was a huge rental bill - Swansea council supported the club in numerous eats so they didn't sell anything.

Your attempt at one upmanship is pathetic.

They were backed we were stabbed in the back. If you genuinely believe otherwise you'll soon be telling me you are a remain UKIP voter.

Oh hold on.....

If the AHT hadn't bought the CCFC share, CCFC would still have had to effectively pay £10.5m as a 50/50 shareholder in ACL for the lease premium (which was raised through the Yorkshire Bank loan). One way or another the club was going to pay £1.2m a year, be it as the leaseholder or sub-letting. It was shafted from day one.

skybluetony176 · Oct 28, 2016

Grendel said:
No Tony because what they were handed was a huge rental bill - Swansea council supported the club in numerous eats so they didn't sell anything.

Your attempt at one upmanship is pathetic.

They were backed we were stabbed in the back. If you genuinely believe otherwise you'll soon be telling me you are a remain UKIP voter.

Oh hold on.....

So we weren't handed a 50% share of the stadium management company then?

Jon Sharp - BPA (42 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency