Kcic front bid to buy club (36 Viewers)

Irish Sky Blue · Jun 21, 2014

Paxman II said:
This is completely silly. If they returned to the Ricoh on a 'free' rent deal for even just one year they would attract support and larger gate receipts. this means they could more than afford the rent deal anyway on their own.
What everyone wishes to dismiss is the very fact that the fight is over the ownership of the stadium long term and they are making a stand against that. They will not return temporarily to the Ricoh to benefit ACL or the council and deflate their stance. You think they don't have a few quid to pay the rent? What nonsense. It's not about that. Everyone is losing focus.

Sisu won't admit this though. This proposal means that they have no where to hide. It is clear that financially they would be far better off if they accept and return to the Ricoh. If they don't accept their lie is exposed as it becomes clear, hopefully even to the FL, that their only agenda is to acquire the Ricoh on the cheap. If they accept, although it still sticks in the throat to give them money, it means that for most fans we can watch our own team in our own city. I don't know where this would leave Sisu and their plans. For this reason I think they will refuse.

skybluetony176 · Jun 21, 2014

Nick said:
I have already made up my mind it's bullshit so don't need to ask.

Much like this offer as there are no answers and people getting angry at questions being asked.

Interesting how you think it's ok for Michael to not answer because the club don't and get so wound up by simple questions, most people would just let details do the talking

You've already made your mind your mind up that TF & ML's answers would be bullshit so you don't ask. You have also decided that KCIC's offer is also bullshit but yet you continue to ask.

Hypocrisy in motion.

And you wonder why people get angry with your posts.

lordsummerisle · Jun 21, 2014

Michael sseems a really nice bloke, but do fear he, and kcic being used a Trojan Horse by those who already have very good experience of fucking the club at least once before which led to the bunch of shysters that we have in charge now.

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 21, 2014

mrtrench said:
He assumes that the details are favourable to CCFC. You appear to assume they are not. Neither is an informed view. Michael - stop all this nonsense here now and tell us the detail about the terms when crowds exceed 5k. Is this an average or per game? What is CCFC's contribution?

You are an oasis of sanity in a desert of mentalism!

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 21, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
Michael sseems a really nice bloke, but do fear he, and kcic being used a Trojan Horse by those who already have very good experience of fucking the club at least once before which led to the bunch of shysters that we have in charge now.

tbf, we now know all the detail about what's gone down, after reading this thread...

I think the backer of this deal is one Ms. J. Seppala.

mark82 · Jun 21, 2014

Just got back off holiday and missed all this, but seems it is yet someone else offering a false free rent. To be honest the offer letter posted on the Facebook page doesn't provide enough detail to know if it's a good deal - ie. Do the club have to pay full rent if crowd is over 5000?

Just seems on the face of it that it's people trying to generate something else to beat the owners with.

If they said no costs until 15,000 attendance I would be more hopeful of the club considering.

In terms of the offer to buy the club, why even bother? Can't see them going for that in a million years. Hope I'm wrong obviously.

Nick · Jun 21, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
You've already made your mind your mind up that TF & ML's answers would be bullshit so you don't ask. You have also decided that KCIC's offer is also bullshit but yet you continue to ask.

Hypocrisy in motion.

And you wonder why people get angry with your posts.

Are you fucking serious? Have you read yours? If we don't get answers I'll assume this is bullshit also.

Michael doesn't need to answer to anybody apart from those involved??? Take a look at kcic if you want hypocrisy....

How about you just fuck off and let people talk properly and discuss things?

skybluetony176 · Jun 21, 2014

Nick said:
Are you fucking serious? Have you read yours? If we don't get answers I'll assume this is bullshit also.

Michael doesn't need to answer to anybody apart from those involved???

How about you just fuck off and let people talk properly and discuss things?

Sounds like someone has had a taste of their own medicine and finds it a bitter pill to swallow.

Go and take a lie down Nick. I'm envisaging a vein in the middle of your head is close to exploding. Deep breaths, deep breaths.

Nick · Jun 21, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
Sounds like someone has had a taste of their own medicine and finds it a bitter pill to swallow.

Go and take a lie down Nick. I'm envisaging a vain in the middle of your head is close to exploding. Deep breaths, deep breaths.

What medicine is that? Some silly prick talking rubbish non stop.

Nothing is close to exploding, sat on the toilet replying on my phone calm as can be so not really sure what you are talking about, for a change?

Really not sure why people are so angry about a few simple basic questions?

kg82 · Jun 21, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
Sounds like someone has had a taste of their own medicine and finds it a bitter pill to swallow.

Go and take a lie down Nick. I'm envisaging a vain in the middle of your head is close to exploding. Deep breaths, deep breaths.

Vein......

lordsummerisle · Jun 21, 2014

kg82 said:
Vein......

"He's so vain, he doesn't realise this post is about him.."

skybluetony176 · Jun 21, 2014

Nick said:
What medicine is that? Some silly prick talking rubbish non stop.

Nothing is close to exploding, sat on the toilet replying on my phone calm as can be so not really sure what you are talking about, for a change?

Sat on the toilet? I suppose if you're going to talk shit it's the ideal place. Just remember to wipe side to side otherwise you might get some of that shit stuck up a nostril.

skybluetony176 · Jun 21, 2014

kg82 said:
Vein......

Cheers, now edited.

Nick · Jun 21, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
Sat on the toilet? I suppose if you're going to talk shit it's the ideal place. Just remember to wipe side to side otherwise you might get some of that shit stuck up a nostril.

Genius, it shows just how much you bring to this place.

All because I asked how much the club will need to pay, just kind of shows the faith you really have in it, otherwise the simple way is for Michael to post up the details and let them do the talking.

chiefdave · Jun 21, 2014

Nick said:
How do you know it's tremendous without knowing the details???

What further details do you need past what KCIC have posted to prove its a good deal?

KCIC said:
The offer made by kcic to sisu is to pay rent and associated match day costs. Only if crowds are over 5,000, more than double the average attendance for Sky Blues games at Northampton Town FC last season, will reimbursement be sought, meaning there is absolutely no financial risk to SISU. Even if no fans at all turned up for a City game back at the Ricoh, it would not cost sisu a penny. Finance is in place and proof of funds will be immediately available to sisu, if sisu say they will take up the offer.

I can understand people asking questions about who is behind it etc but I'm not sure on what basis it could be claimed to not be a good deal compared to our current situation. It looks to me like this deal is setup in a way that makes it impossible for the club to be worse off financially than they are at present. A lot of people seem to be saying the club having to reimburse KCIC if more than 5,000 show up is unreasonable, you do appreciate the club don't let the first 5,000 in for free don't you?

Is this basically coming down to people not believing what KCIC are saying and don't think they could come through should SISU accept? To me that would be to SISU's advantage, they could accept this deal and if it all falls apart due to KCIC (or ACL, CCC, Higgs etc) they can legitimately claim they were prepared to come back but the deal they were promised didn't come through. That would mean for the first time in this whole saga they could have some justification for playing at Sixfields.

I appreciate some are saying there is no chance of the crowds being below 5,000 but even in that scenario this proposal has a huge plus. Most recently SISU have claimed we can't return to the Ricoh on a short term deal while the new stadium is built as they can't deal with ACL. With this proposal they wouldn't have to, KCIC would. Who knows, being back in the stadium might see the relationship start to be fixed and if at the end of this offer the new stadium hasn't come to fruition SISU and ACL may be at a place where they can both enter negotiations for a permanent solution in a meaningful manner.

To me we should be pushing SISU to accept this deal, get is back home and then try and progress things from there.

AFCCOVENTRY · Jun 21, 2014

Toilet is a great place to think about all things Coventry. I guess it's a but like where our club has got to.

Our club is good and proper down the shitter...

Kingokings204 · Jun 21, 2014

chiefdave said:
What further details do you need past what KCIC have posted to prove its a good deal?

I can understand people asking questions about who is behind it etc but I'm not sure on what basis it could be claimed to not be a good deal compared to our current situation. It looks to me like this deal is setup in a way that makes it impossible for the club to be worse off financially than they are at present. A lot of people seem to be saying the club having to reimburse KCIC if more than 5,000 show up is unreasonable, you do appreciate the club don't let the first 5,000 in for free don't you?

Is this basically coming down to people not believing what KCIC are saying and don't think they could come through should SISU accept? To me that would be to SISU's advantage, they could accept this deal and if it all falls apart due to KCIC (or ACL, CCC, Higgs etc) they can legitimately claim they were prepared to come back but the deal they were promised didn't come through. That would mean for the first time in this whole saga they could have some justification for playing at Sixfields.

I appreciate some are saying there is no chance of the crowds being below 5,000 but even in that scenario this proposal has a huge plus. Most recently SISU have claimed we can't return to the Ricoh on a short term deal while the new stadium is built as they can't deal with ACL. With this proposal they wouldn't have to, KCIC would. Who knows, being back in the stadium might see the relationship start to be fixed and if at the end of this offer the new stadium hasn't come to fruition SISU and ACL may be at a place where they can both enter negotiations for a permanent solution in a meaningful manner.

To me we should be pushing SISU to accept this deal, get is back home and then try and progress things from there.

Head on the nail. (Please re-arrange)

mrtrench · Jun 21, 2014

Nick said:
We can't assume anything can we? I haven't once said it's a bad offer and shouldn't be taken as I don't know the details.

Nick said:
I have already made up my mind it's bullshit so don't need to ask.

Astute · Jun 21, 2014

Nick said:
Are you fucking serious?

How about you just fuck off and let people talk properly and discuss things?

I am going to report this post to the person who runs this site

Nick · Jun 21, 2014

chiefdave said:
What further details do you need past what KCIC have posted to prove its a good deal?

I can understand people asking questions about who is behind it etc but I'm not sure on what basis it could be claimed to not be a good deal compared to our current situation. It looks to me like this deal is setup in a way that makes it impossible for the club to be worse off financially than they are at present. A lot of people seem to be saying the club having to reimburse KCIC if more than 5,000 show up is unreasonable, you do appreciate the club don't let the first 5,000 in for free don't you?

Is this basically coming down to people not believing what KCIC are saying and don't think they could come through should SISU accept? To me that would be to SISU's advantage, they could accept this deal and if it all falls apart due to KCIC (or ACL, CCC, Higgs etc) they can legitimately claim they were prepared to come back but the deal they were promised didn't come through. That would mean for the first time in this whole saga they could have some justification for playing at Sixfields.

I appreciate some are saying there is no chance of the crowds being below 5,000 but even in that scenario this proposal has a huge plus. Most recently SISU have claimed we can't return to the Ricoh on a short term deal while the new stadium is built as they can't deal with ACL. With this proposal they wouldn't have to, KCIC would. Who knows, being back in the stadium might see the relationship start to be fixed and if at the end of this offer the new stadium hasn't come to fruition SISU and ACL may be at a place where they can both enter negotiations for a permanent solution in a meaningful manner.

To me we should be pushing SISU to accept this deal, get is back home and then try and progress things from there.

Surely the rent amounts, match costs, if the club gets any match day revenue etc.

It may well be a fantastic offer but if it had come out openly with the terms and sisus past excuses covered it puts it to them even more...

When it's released as free rent and you only have to read four lines in to see it isn't, what are the catches and terms? I by no means expect the club to play rent free but take all the profits but it would be nice to know before deciding and I have said in the past about the other rental offers acl should have just been open about all of the terms and when Fisher tries to make an excuse it's there in black and white.

We do need to be cynical sometimes, especially after the past. Especially after trusting people like elliotts judgement.

Nick · Jun 21, 2014

How about you quote me in context? The bullshit bit was about the stadium.

Jesus Christ

stupot07 · Jun 21, 2014

chiefdave said:
What further details do you need past what KCIC have posted to prove its a good deal?

I can understand people asking questions about who is behind it etc but I'm not sure on what basis it could be claimed to not be a good deal compared to our current situation. It looks to me like this deal is setup in a way that makes it impossible for the club to be worse off financially than they are at present. A lot of people seem to be saying the club having to reimburse KCIC if more than 5,000 show up is unreasonable, you do appreciate the club don't let the first 5,000 in for free don't you?

Is this basically coming down to people not believing what KCIC are saying and don't think they could come through should SISU accept? To me that would be to SISU's advantage, they could accept this deal and if it all falls apart due to KCIC (or ACL, CCC, Higgs etc) they can legitimately claim they were prepared to come back but the deal they were promised didn't come through. That would mean for the first time in this whole saga they could have some justification for playing at Sixfields.

I appreciate some are saying there is no chance of the crowds being below 5,000 but even in that scenario this proposal has a huge plus. Most recently SISU have claimed we can't return to the Ricoh on a short term deal while the new stadium is built as they can't deal with ACL. With this proposal they wouldn't have to, KCIC would. Who knows, being back in the stadium might see the relationship start to be fixed and if at the end of this offer the new stadium hasn't come to fruition SISU and ACL may be at a place where they can both enter negotiations for a permanent solution in a meaningful manner.

To me we should be pushing SISU to accept this deal, get is back home and then try and progress things from there.

But 5k+ will turn up. So sisu will be reimbursing KCIC, therefore SISU will be paying the rent. Which begs the question how is this offer anymore beneficial than sisu and ACL agreeing terms separately. Quite funny really as Andy's Turners article completely ignores the reimbursement element. Even if KCIC are middlemen sisu will have to deal with ACL anyway.

From sisu's pov this is no different from Hoffmans offer.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Nick · Jun 21, 2014

stupot07 said:
But 5k+ will turn up. So sisu will be reimbursing KCIC, therefore SISU will be paying the rent. Which begs the question how is this offer anymore beneficial than sisu and ACL agreeing terms separately. Quite funny really as Andy's Turners article completely ignores the reimbursement element. Even if KCIC are middlemen sisu will have to deal with ACL anyway.

From sisu's pov this is no different from Hoffmans offer.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Wasn't hoffman asking for ticket money or something though? I may be wrong.

Lorksalordy · Jun 21, 2014

Still cannot see what is different. They have had low rent offers previously that have been rejected despite them plainly offering better financial value than 2k crowds at Sixfields. This is no different at all as they would be paying rent for every game with greater than 5k i.e. every game !

So, the key question is the rent / costs any different to the previous offers ?

If terms were simply laid out then SISU cannot squirm their way out of explaining rejection with "if only you knew terms then you would realise not such a good deal" type arguments. I think it would add significant pressure on them if the offer was crystal clear and then subsequently rejected. It has to be in everyone's interests for there to be some clarity doesn't it ? Otherwise all continue to accuse each other of spin and further fuel the general impression that no-one at all can be trusted in the bollocks of a mess.

Nick · Jun 21, 2014

Lorksalordy said:
Still cannot see what is different. They have had low rent offers previously that have been rejected despite them plainly offering better financial value than 2k crowds at Sixfields. This is no different at all as they would be paying rent for every game with greater than 5k i.e. every game !

So, the key question is the rent / costs any different to the previous offers ?

If terms were simply laid out then SISU cannot squirm their way out of explaining rejection with "if only you knew terms then you would realise not such a good deal" type arguments. I think it would add significant pressure on them if the offer was crystal clear and then subsequently rejected. It has to be in everyone's interests for there to be some clarity doesn't it ? Otherwise all continue to accuse each other of spin and further fuel the general impression that no-one at all can be trusted in the bollocks of a mess.

Exactly, by whacking all of the terms up it would give the offer even more of an advantage and call sisus bluff even more.

"We know in the past sisu wanted matchday revenue so we have negotiated 20p on every pie"

Bullet point each and every excuse they have used in the past.

stupot07 · Jun 21, 2014

Nick said:
Wasn't hoffman asking for ticket money or something though? I may be wrong.

"I'm offering to pay the rent, and sharing half of that ticket money with Otium. We would just take the [rent money] back and the rest could be invested in the academy."

Kind of but the money reinvested into the club, so wouldn't only take back the rent. So not that different to KCIC offer

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

wingy · Jun 21, 2014

I could'nt give a Flying . It's a brilliant Idea for the engagement of the Fanbase ,but more Importantly I'd be Intrigued to know what Mr Pressley would prefer.

wince · Jun 21, 2014

I'm offering to pay the rent, and sharing half of that ticket money with Otium. We would just take the [rent money] back and the rest could be invested in the academy."

Kind of but the money reinvested into the club, so wouldn't only take back the rent. So not that different to KCIC offer

You still don't understand after all this time,The first deal was a good one for ccfc not for sisu but for ccfc, it was rejected because fisher said he could not trust acl , the second one takes away that problem ,how can any Coventry fan have a problem with that

Grendel · Jun 21, 2014

wince said:
You still don't understand after all this time,The first deal was a good one for ccfc not for sisu but for ccfc, it was rejected because fisher said he could not trust acl , the second one takes away that problem ,how can any Coventry fan have a problem with that

Because if there are more than 5,000 fans sisu have to deal with ACL.

mrtrench · Jun 21, 2014

Nick said:
How about you quote me in context.

Jesus Christ? Some silly prick talking rubbish non stop

mrtrench · Jun 21, 2014

Nick said:
I may be wrong.

.

covmark · Jun 21, 2014

I expect the posters whinging and moaning about a few questions being asked of the offer, are the same morons that were worshipping Teflon Joe at the charity match. Well you also have Michael to worship now.
Bury them heads in the sand guys.

Grendel · Jun 21, 2014

Nick said:
Genius, it shows just how much you bring to this place.

All because I asked how much the club will need to pay, just kind of shows the faith you really have in it, otherwise the simple way is for Michael to post up the details and let them do the talking.

To be fair he's getting almost to sky blue kid levels for entertainment. He is reminding me of that Michael Douglas character who goes from mild mannered nobody to an insane gunman.

The meltdown is hilarious.

wince · Jun 21, 2014

Because if there are more than 5,000 fans sisu have to deal with ACL

OF course they will but if it all goes wrong they will still get more money than they are getting at sixfeilds , again how can any Coventry fan be against that ??

Grendel · Jun 21, 2014

wince said:
OF course they will but if it all goes wrong they will still get more money than they are getting at sixfeilds , again how can any Coventry fan be against that ??

There are no fans against playing in Coventry - that's not the issue is it?

Kcic front bid to buy club (36 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Super Moderator

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

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

Administrator

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

New 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

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency