Les Reid Twitter (18 Viewers)

torchomatic · Oct 6, 2014

Seems an odd thing to do with the "civic asset", doesn't it? Sell the thing to a team with no historical ties to the City and who play a sport that isn't well supported in the City. CCFC fans in the main didn't support CCFC at Sixfields and neither did local Northampton residents. There's a good chance of a repeat here. Not many fans are going to travel from London to see Wasps and I would have thought rugby fans in the City would want to support the home team rather than a franchised one.

Rusty Trombone said:
I've always assumed the stadium to be the civic asset, not the management company.

Grendel · Oct 6, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
People often sell profitable businesses, maybe they have had enough, maybe they have received an offer too good to refuse.

Name some profitable business's sold then.

skybluefred · Oct 6, 2014

theferret said:
The council stance is idiotic and wreaks of short-termism. It makes no commercial sense. Council's in places like Swansea and Southampton talk endlessly of the wider economic benefits of having a top-flight football team. It is fantastic PR and can change perceptions and encourage inward investment, particularly from overseas.

The Ricoh is not loss making, and ACL are meeting their repayment obligations. There is no reason to sell at this point. The football club has the potential to be a huge asset and the council are on the brink of shafting it for a quick buck. Shame on all of them.

Southampton & Swansea are top flight football clubs attracting good crowds and making money for their Cities. CCFC are just the opposite and are in
a state of free fall, They even struggle to get gates of 7,500. Seppala stated she was NOT interested in getting involved in the Ricoh deal.

Far from idiotic the Council deal if they can raise circa £30m is an excellent deal for Coventry's ratepayers.

Seaside-Skyblue · Oct 6, 2014

skybluefred said:
Southampton & Swansea are top flight football clubs attracting good crowds and making money for their Cities. CCFC are just the opposite and are in
a state of free fall, They even struggle to get gates of 7,500. Seppala stated she was NOT interested in getting involved in the Ricoh deal.

Far from idiotic the Council deal if they can raise circa £30m is an excellent deal for Coventry's ratepayers.

They will lose more than £30 million without a recognised professional football club in the city.

sky blue john · Oct 6, 2014

If wasps buy Acl at the end of the day its just a landlord change. Sisu will continue to kill our club if Acl are sold or not !!

theferret · Oct 6, 2014

skybluefred said:
Southampton & Swansea are top flight football clubs attracting good crowds and making money for their Cities. CCFC are just the opposite and are in
a state of free fall, They even struggle to get gates of 7,500. Seppala stated she was NOT interested in getting involved in the Ricoh deal.

Far from idiotic the Council deal if they can raise circa £30m is an excellent deal for Coventry's ratepayers.

No, it's idiotic in the extreme and an absolutely terrible deal for the Coventry ratepayers (it represents a very modest return on the amount invested). The City Council own swathes of land all over Coventry that they could sell on at any given time and fill their coffers, but they choose to hold on to those assets. Why is this different, given the fact it is curently costing them nothing, and that the building is hugely important to people in the city.

There is no need to sell the club on at this point, none at all.

As for Southamption and Swansea, both those clubs were playing at the level we are relatively recently (Swansea went for years with gates of 3000-4000). I like to think one day we can travel that path ourselves and owning the Ricoh would help us generate the resources needed for that - and if we could, the economic benefits to the city would far outstrip what they would make back from this act of betrayal.

Limey · Oct 6, 2014

theferret said:
No, it's idiotic in the extreme and an absolutely terrible deal for the Coventry ratepayers (it represents a very modest return on the amount invested). The City Council own swathes of land all over Coventry that they could sell on at any given time and fill their coffers, but they choose to hold on to those assets. Why is this different, given the fact it is curently costing them nothing, and that the building is hugely important to people in the city.

There is no need to sell the club on at this point, none at all.

As for Southamption and Swansea, both those clubs were playing at the level we are relatively recently (Swansea went for years with gates of 3000-4000). I like to think one day we can travel that path ourselves and owning the Ricoh would help us generate the resources needed for that - and if we could, the economic benefits to the city would far outstrip what they would make back from this act of betrayal.

Spot on.

Nick · Oct 6, 2014

skybluefred said:
Southampton & Swansea are top flight football clubs attracting good crowds and making money for their Cities. CCFC are just the opposite and are in
a state of free fall, They even struggle to get gates of 7,500. Seppala stated she was NOT interested in getting involved in the Ricoh deal.

Far from idiotic the Council deal if they can raise circa £30m is an excellent deal for Coventry's ratepayers.

Why is it so good for the rate payers, what will they gain? Have you seen the gates Wasps get?

skybluefred · Oct 6, 2014

torchomatic said:
Nope. Selling HR did.

Not true Torchy. 99% of CCFC fans wanted investment in the team and a prolonged stay in the Premiership. With a ground that only held
some 22,000 fans the Club and therefore the owner could not afford to meet the fans expectations. This led to falling attendance and relegation.

The site for the new stadium was wrong given the underlying problems with pollution, and involving the Council was a total disaster.

Sick Boy · Oct 6, 2014

I am ashamed to be associated with a club which has a section of its own fans celebrating in its demise.

No other club's fans would say this sort of stuff and support a council over their own club.

Sick Boy · Oct 6, 2014

skybluefred said:
Not true Torchy. 99% of CCFC fans wanted investment in the team and a prolonged stay in the Premiership. With a ground that only held
some 22,000 fans the Club and therefore the owner could not afford to meet the fans expectations. This led to falling attendance and relegation.

The site for the new stadium was wrong given the underlying problems with pollution, and involving the Council was a total disaster.

Did attendances actually fall up to the relegation season? I remember there being 9k there for opening day fixture in the mid 90's.

Rusty Trombone · Oct 6, 2014

theferret said:
When you have a 50 year lease it amounts to the same thing.

I disagree, and I guess SISU do as well, otherwise they wouldn't be obsessed with freehold.

theferret · Oct 6, 2014

Sick Boy said:
Did attendances actually fall up to the relegation season? I remember there being 9k there for opening day fixture in the mid 90's.

Average gates in our last 6 Premiership seasons were:

20,582 (relegation year)
20,809
20,773
19,718
19,625
18,507

...so they didn't fall.

torchomatic · Oct 6, 2014

Don't agree with you there, Fred. The team was getting investment and that was the problem, too much investment. So much so that wages accounted for 125%. Crowds were dropping and 22K was more than adequate for us and still would be. The new stadium should never have been built. It was a bad idea implemented very, very badly.

skybluefred said:
Not true Torchy. 99% of CCFC fans wanted investment in the team and a prolonged stay in the Premiership. With a ground that only held
some 22,000 fans the Club and therefore the owner could not afford to meet the fans expectations. This led to falling attendance and relegation.

The site for the new stadium was wrong given the underlying problems with pollution, and involving the Council was a total disaster.

Rusty Trombone · Oct 6, 2014

Grendel said:
Name some profitable business's sold then.

I was mainly referring to smallish businesses that I used to do some accounts work for, but a large company example would be John Caudwell who set up Phones 4 u.

Frisky blue · Oct 6, 2014

Grendel said:
Name some profitable business's sold then.

Chad Hurley sold You Tube to Google for $1.65 billion, for starters Grendel. A really daft question that.

ointlaugh:

Grendel · Oct 6, 2014

Frisky blue said:
Chad Hurley sold You Tube to Google for $1.65 billion, for starters Grendel. A really daft question that.

ointlaugh:

Not daft at all. The main examples are big businesses sold at collosal profit - IT and phone companies.

The purpose of the question was to highlight the obvious response you have made.

Given the debt to ACL and the sponsorship money coming in the amount for the sale is very small as a % of profit from its last accounts.

The decision is illogical in that context. Some loss making management companies owned by councils have sold out but none that are , as is claimed on here, financially stable.

Rusty Trombone · Oct 6, 2014

Grendel said:
Not daft at all. The main examples are big businesses sold at collosal profit - IT and phone companies.

The purpose of the question was to highlight the obvious response you have made.

Given the debt to ACL and the sponsorship money coming in the amount for the sale is very small as a % of profit from its last accounts.

The decision is illogical in that context. Some loss making management companies owned by councils have sold out but none that are , as is claimed on here, financially stable.

What sale amount are you basing your hypothesis on?

Astute · Oct 7, 2014

Sick Boy said:
I am ashamed to be associated with a club which has a section of its own fans celebrating in its demise.

No other club's fans would say this sort of stuff and support a council over their own club.

Someone isn't supporting CCC just because they can look at the whole picture instead of what would be best for CCFC.

Higgs have always wanted out. The money paid to our club was supposed to have been a temporary loan which was to have kept our club going at a time of need. The 50% share in ACL was just to secure the loan. Higgs don't want a part in it. SISU made the situation even worse by the actions they have taken. SISU have said that they don't want the Ricoh. CCC have more important things than to keep up with wasting time on litigation and the expense that comes with it. So SISU look to have got what they wanted. A forced sale of the arena, but are now said to not be interested in it :thinking about:

Maybe if our club was a good tenant and worked with CCC and not against it every time they got a chance we wouldn't find ourselves in this situation. But we all know this not to be true.

skybluetony176 · Oct 7, 2014

Grendel said:
Not daft at all. The main examples are big businesses sold at collosal profit - IT and phone companies.

The purpose of the question was to highlight the obvious response you have made.

Given the debt to ACL and the sponsorship money coming in the amount for the sale is very small as a % of profit from its last accounts.

The decision is illogical in that context. Some loss making management companies owned by councils have sold out but none that are , as is claimed on here, financially stable.

So using your theory just how much should SISU pay someone to take the club of their hands?

theferret · Oct 7, 2014

Astute said:
Someone isn't supporting CCC just because they can look at the whole picture instead of what would be best for CCFC.

Higgs have always wanted out. The money paid to our club was supposed to have been a temporary loan which was to have kept our club going at a time of need. The 50% share in ACL was just to secure the loan. Higgs don't want a part in it. SISU made the situation even worse by the actions they have taken. SISU have said that they don't want the Ricoh. CCC have more important things than to keep up with wasting time on litigation and the expense that comes with it. So SISU look to have got what they wanted. A forced sale of the arena, but are now said to not be interested in it :thinking about:

Maybe if our club was a good tenant and worked with CCC and not against it every time they got a chance we wouldn't find ourselves in this situation. But we all know this not to be true.

People making stuff up again. SISU, at the time the new deal was made, said that were still intent on owning their own ground, and that they were prepared to build one, but the PREFERRED OPTION was ownership of the Ricoh. It has NEVER been ruled out categorically. And we all know, those of us with a brain, that a new stadium would not and could not have been built while the Ricoh was there and CCFC had an option to buy it - and option that has been taken away because of a kneejerk sale that makes no sense commercially - before we even consider all the moral and emotional issues.

We are fucked as a club for the forseeable future. The once great Cov RFC can wave good-bye to aspirations of top-flight Rugby and will just become a glorified feeder-club, and the image of this city has taken a massive hit. There will be a huge outcry from the sporting press when this is finally announced. Shame on the council, and shame on those who defend them with their twisted logic.

Astute · Oct 7, 2014

theferret said:
People making stuff up again. SISU, at the time the new deal was made, said that were still intent on owning their own ground, and that they were prepared to build one, but the PREFERRED OPTION was ownership of the Ricoh. It has NEVER been ruled out categorically. And we all know, those of us with a brain, that a new stadium would not and could not have been built while the Ricoh was there and CCFC had an option to buy it - and option that has been taken away because of a kneejerk sale that makes no sense commercially - before we even consider all the moral and emotional issues.

So would you like to explain why Joy has said that they don't want the Ricoh and will continue with building a new stadium that has taken two years now from when they first informed the FL, and all they have done so far is shown us a few pictures?

If the preferred option was ownership of the Ricoh.....and they were being truthful.........why have they been so quiet other than to say they don't want it?

Why can't Joy and Fisher get their stories straight?

duffer · Oct 7, 2014

samccov1987 said:
Only works if the fans go.....

Well it doesn't much like Wasps fans are interested in coming. So you're saying this isn't right for them then, no?

wes_cov · Oct 7, 2014

To get back on topic it seams Les Reid has resigned at the telegraph! according to twitter

Senior Vick from Alicante · Oct 7, 2014

wes_cov said:
To get back on topic it seams Les Reid has resigned at the telegraph! according to twitter

And he has tweeted that he has more to come, one presumes their are editorial differences in what he wanted and they wanted printing!

Nick · Oct 7, 2014

Sounds interesting

Jack Griffin · Oct 7, 2014

wes_cov said:
To get back on topic it seams Les Reid has resigned at the telegraph! according to twitter

Waiting to hear about a lawsuit..?

torchomatic · Oct 7, 2014

Christ, must be like Christmas Day for you.

Jack Griffin said:
Waiting to hear about a lawsuit..?

fernandopartridge · Oct 7, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
I was mainly referring to smallish businesses that I used to do some accounts work for, but a large company example would be John Caudwell who set up Phones 4 u.

Is that the same Phones 4 U that went bust last month?

In that case I think perhaps he saw the writing on the wall in the long term! I really hope it isn't a similar case with ACL.

Rusty Trombone · Oct 7, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
Is that the same Phones 4 U that went bust last month?

In that case I think perhaps he saw the writing on the wall in the long term! I really hope it isn't a similar case with ACL.

Always good to know when to sell up, also a lesson in not relying on one big supplier/customer.

Astute · Oct 7, 2014

Senior Vick from Alicante said:
And he has tweeted that he has more to come, one presumes their are editorial differences in what he wanted and they wanted printing!

At last. He has found the smoking gun he told us about last time.

limoncello · Oct 7, 2014

Les Reid @Lesreidpolitics · 3m 3 minutes ago

Breaking more: Sources say up to 14 Labour councilrs threatening to defy party whip & resign unless Lucas postpones today's Ricoh Wasps vote

Nick · Oct 7, 2014

limoncello said:
Les Reid @Lesreidpolitics · 3m 3 minutes ago

Breaking more: Sources say up to 14 Labour councilrs threatening to defy party whip & resign unless Lucas postpones today's Ricoh Wasps vote

So why isn't the CET reporting this?

Nick · Oct 7, 2014

Jack Griffin said:
Waiting to hear about a lawsuit..?

Thanks all. I resigned from @covtelegraph last week declaring intentions of tribunal & book on decline of public interest journalism

The same time that the editor has left without a new job? Something smells fishy doesn't it? I may be adding 2 + 2 = 5 but if somebody is "silenced" and then seem to appear again and resigns with plans to take them to court just as the boss "leaves" without a new job. Looks a bit strange.

Edit : The no new job bit may be wrong, see link further down!

torchomatic · Oct 7, 2014

Give Simon a chance to read for the forum and they will!

Nick said:
So why isn't the CET reporting this?

Les Reid Twitter (18 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

New Member

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

limoncello

Guest

Administrator

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency