D
Not sure as I follow. Correction- 2500 people surveyed from the KCIC email circ list- would that not make it a slightly skewed survey?
Not sure as I follow. Correction- 2500 people surveyed from the KCIC email circ list- would that not make it a slightly skewed survey? I wasnt advocating nor denying its conclusion just not sure it could be relied upon to be impartial
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/survey-majority-sky-blues-fans-6070444
For fecks sake please move forward.
Agree but HOW is the $64,000 question[/Q
$64000. If only
As you say no survey can be relied upon and a lot of that survey is dealing in spurious hypotheticals. As Les Reid says, very eloquently, we have to deal with what we have in front of us and move forward. For fecks sake please move forward.
My issue is sisu have no intention of going back to the Ricoh, at least as tenants. They only want to buy it, and the thought of them owning our stadium after their tactics/behaviour in this affair makes me feel sick.
"If all parties genuinely want the Sky Blues back at the Ricoh, it is becoming increasingly accepted that the best way of ensuring it happens soon is to sell the stadium to Otium/Sisu."
I think this tells us everything we need to know about the impartiality of Les Reid. A lowly paid journalist of no intellectual capacity.
If this guy was any sort of journalist, in the proper sense of the word (ie not a columnist), then he would have doorstepped Seppala with probing questions and reported on her reactions/answers together with pictures. He would also have done the rounds of adjoining LA's to see if any planning proposals were in the offing for a new stadium. Just my opinion!
Incidentally, right at the start of all this mess I did suggest that if Fisher marched the club out of the Ricoh then what would stop CCC considering levelling the site and building houses. After all the LA have a duty to all of its council tax payers and not just some of them who happen to attend matches, and many fans (myself included) do not pay council tax to CCC. Please don't misunderstand me, I would prefer for CCFC to return to the Ricoh, but if trust is so broken down between the 2 parties that a deal cannot be struck what I have suggested may become a reality; after all that has happened I cannot see the 2 sides coming together.
I'm not questioning Les's journalistic credibility- but his personal conclusion which simplistically I read as " Sell SISU the Ricoh- it is the only way forward" is one I cannot agree with. I'm not convinced that this is the only way forward, that it best serves CCFC or the people of Coventry.
The notion that selling the stadium to the owners Otium being the way forward is flawed is it not? This romantic notion that in so doing the football club would then own the stadium and thus we all live happily ever after is fallacy. I would suggest that if Otium acquired the stadium- the stadium would be rented to the football club how is this any different to the present set up... arguably worse as marking ones own homework leads to inaccurate results and instability moving forward?
And while taxpayers of Coventry lose, the Mayfair-based financiers would likely make a profit:
"A sale to Otium/Sisu may seem unpalatable... But it may also represent the best way of seeing Sisu/Otium ultimately exit the club and the city in the medium term. It would still appear to represent Sisu's best hope of a return on investment."
Opinion pieces are generally designed to provoke debate and this certainly seems to do that.
In essence, this one seems to be asking: Should Coventry's taxpayers write off some of the money spent on the stadium to get the football club back in Coventry and allow some financiers to profit from the subsequent resale of that asset?
It wouldn't be worse as effectively it would be the same company. Any organisation that owned the property and the football club would separate the two entities - any that didn't you wouldn't want owning the club as it would demonstrate financial incompetence.
There is no evidence that they would charge a high commercial rent and there is very little point in th doing do.
It's interesting that the journalist held on a pedestal is now a clueless local hack. How about the port vale chairman who said on Cwr the lease had to be broken and that the losses absorbed over 3 years will be containable? Don't tell me the self made multi millionaire knows nothing about business compared to the financial experts on here.
ah morning G....interesting you quote financial incompetence as a case for the defence.. really? :thinking about:. Did I say high rent- no just that it would be a rent. None of us know the amount as it is pure speculation like most? I just don't think its the way forward with the present incumbents, they have a disproven track record do they not?
I am not discrediting Les at all- please re read my posts... merely questioning the inferred conclusion to his report i.e sell the ground to Otium being the only way forward.
Nick you do know Sisu agreed the rental contract by now dont you?
As to them getting the Ricoh. Sisu are a failed and unethical business, most everyone wants gone. They will be nothing but trouble for Coventry.
But the non-starter will be they want it at way below market rate and the Council are legally obliged to get value for money- i.e. the market rate.
(plus politically the vast majority of the City hate Sisu and the Council selling to them would be political suicide). The Council and fans need to stand firm and Sisu will sell up, this sort of nonsense from Les Reid just makes them stay longer in the hope of getting the Ricoh on the cheap..
Nick you do know Sisu agreed the rental contract by now dont you?
As to them getting the Ricoh. Sisu are a failed and unethical business, most everyone wants gone. They will be nothing but trouble for Coventry.
But the non-starter will be they want it at way below market rate and the Council are legally obliged to get value for money- i.e. the market rate.
(plus politically the vast majority of the City hate Sisu and the Council selling to them would be political suicide). The Council and fans need to stand firm and Sisu will sell up, this sort of nonsense from Les Reid just makes them stay longer in the hope of getting the Ricoh on the cheap..
Unfounded sanctimonious twaddle.
It is amazing the amount of people who don't want sisu to have it because they will rent it to the club...
Yet say acl are not at fault for charging us massive rent, it is sisus.
Blind, one sided hate is a bastard
Nick- how many times! Sisu took on all these previous contracts legally, after completing due diligence. They signed over the contracts and legally took them over. They agreed them. They could have negotiated and implemented contract changes, they didnt.
Its not a debating issue its a legal fact!
Is it sarcasm?.It was agreed way before sisu...
Another quality piece of debate from Grovel.
They didn't agree them they took them on. Is it a legal fact they could have negotiated? Haven't they tried a few times but flatly turned down?
your missing the point nick SISU could and even should of renegotiated the rent deal in a proper manner instead they went for the other route distressing ACL that hasn't worked so why should ACL sell up to a set of scoundrels
who don't have the club or city at heart.they have already proved that bit with northampton
So when SISU took us over they didnt calculate the rent figure at £1.2m/annum- they missed it.... due diligence failed to recognise it.. really? Come on... I dont like them- but they are nobody's fools?
Why should we care about acl? Look at how they treated the club when we moved in? Hasnt fletcher said how bad a deal it was for the club but they had no choice?
They didn't agree them they took them on. Is it a legal fact they could have negotiated? Haven't they tried a few times but flatly turned down?
You won't mind if sisu build a stadium and charge massive rents then will you?
My point is they didn't agree and negotiate it in the first place, fletcher who was involved has said how bad a deal it was for the club but they had no choice.
I'm not saying they are innocent but surely neither are the council and acl who screwed us over when the original deal was done.
Of course it should have been negotiated at the time but how do we know they didn't try at the time? They did try after and didn't get anywhere did they?
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?