dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
SISU have been preparing for this since setting the charge against ARVO last year.
Whereas the council and the Higgs charity actually have a genuine interest in Coventry City Football Club.
Yes they have: £££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££
SISU have been preparing for this since setting the charge against ARVO last year.
No, it's just something MMM and Brighton trot out in every post.
Not an invalid argument. Wood and Bell combined would cost more than the revised rent offer on the table.
Not an invalid argument. Wood and Bell combined would cost more than the revised rent offer on the table.
It's a nonsense argument that you can easily flip on it's head.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>People who say attendances are too low, and argue that a thousand more on the gate would make a a difference; you could easily argue back that the extra revenue wouldn't even cover Wood and Bell's wages. True, but we'd still like that extra 1,000 people wouldn't we?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have just negotiated a reduction in price with a supplier, but that reduction was wiped out the next day when I bought some computer equipment. I could have managed without it, but I needed it and it doesn't mean it wasn't worth negotiating that reduction.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Football clubs need players, and sometimes those players will be out injured for extended periods or will just under perform. That's way it is, but to dismiss every attempt to reduce costs by pointing out that money wouldn't cover the wages of this or that player is just silly. Why don't we just get rid of all of them and play the youth team, no need for any cost reduction then!
<p>
I think he was highlighting how trivial it all is. The fact that sisu are willing to end 130 years of football in the city over the equivalent cost of two players.
It would be a bit like your business shutting down over that computer cost.
Forget the whole of ACL; you agree that Higgs were prepared to negotiate and cited £8 to £10m. Maybe £6m?
SISU got the club shares for free. Would the club shares plus half of the ACL and everything that went with it be bad business for that value?
And from that point, they would have had a springboard to begin negotiations with the council. Let's be frank, the council have been supportive of the venture in recent times. With an honest, candid and transparent SISU working in conjunction, as opposed to head-on, couldn't SISU have been the net beneficiary of this stance?
When TF came in and tried to start negotiation with ACL he may have met a determined opposition rather than a friendly allied.
I don't know - I wasn't there, but it does look like TF had an uphill battle on the back of Ransons and Dulieu's failures.
ACL compromised on rent and on matchday income. Some flexibility on the arrears would have been a sign from SISU that they were - equally - prepared to move. Think about it, the arrears are a function of two things. Value and term. The value was addressed, the sticking point was the term. The longer Fisher's been buggering about at Hinckley, Rushden and Diamonds, agreeing terms then to change his mind, offering mediation, looking at a new build somewhere else, etc - has been wasting time and increasing the accruals; the very problem that's now so insurmountable to to place us in administration
It's a nonsense argument that you can easily flip on it's head.
People who say attendances are too low, and argue that a thousand more on the gate would make a a difference; you could easily argue back that the extra revenue wouldn't even cover Wood and Bell's wages. True, but we'd still like that extra 1,000 people wouldn't we?
I have just negotiated a reduction in price with a supplier, but that reduction was wiped out the next day when I bought some computer equipment. I could have managed without it, but I needed it and it doesn't mean it wasn't worth negotiating that reduction.
Football clubs need players, and sometimes those players will be out injured for extended periods or will just under perform. That's way it is, but to dismiss every attempt to reduce costs by pointing out that money wouldn't cover the wages of this or that player is just silly. Why don't we just get rid of all of them and play the youth team, no need for any cost reduction then!
I suppose what I'm saying is that the club's priorities are wrong. David Bell and Freddie Eastwood, in transfer fees and wages, have likely cost as much as the rent paid since they signed, perhaps more. Neither has contributed on the pitch and have done nothing to justify their contracts or signings. £400k/year is deemed acceptable by Fisher for rent, he has F+B profit share and the offer of F+B revenues to be invoiced to the club, and a lengthy repayment schedule for the arrears he racked up with his boycott.
Yet he has rejected it and would rather have the club put in administration-pathetic.
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?