Loan news (2 Viewers)

Astute · Sep 23, 2011

Mumford and Daughter said:
Uusually the owner club pays half and the the other club (Cov) will pay towards. So a player on 10k should be gettable. I think it boils down to no funds whatsoever and if thats the case why dont they just say?

The question was how many players in the Prem are only on 10k a week as players would not sign for Blackpool for 10k a week or less.

6 Generations · Sep 23, 2011

Sarcasm remains the lowest form of wit!!

Rich said:
Would there be a case for legal action here? The supplier (CCFC) has lied, in writing to the customer (Fans).

It's almost a case for false advertisement

We'll_live_and_die · Sep 23, 2011

Yes and when it's not sarcasm then what? No win no fee anyone? I'm serious I think there could be something in this.

valiant15 · Sep 23, 2011

Thats my main gripe with sisu/the board,the constant bullshitting.If we have no budget for players clouting,just tell us.If we cant afford to get any half decent loan players in from the prem,then tell us.All we want is the truth.This constant vicious circle of porky pies has got to stop.Getting our hopes up then kicking us in the balls seems to be the name of the game for sisu/the board.Then they get annoyed with the fans when we start singing anti sisu songs and taking banners up to the matches!! What planet do these people live on???

6 Generations · Sep 23, 2011

Rich said:
Yes and when it's not sarcasm then what? No win no fee anyone? I'm serious I think there could be something in this.

I imagine that as it was purely a letter of intent, and is not in any way a legally binding contract between supplier and customer,

then there would be no grounds for action.

What is certain, is that they have and will continue to mislead us as long as they are at the helm.

I despise everything about them, and refuse to believe one more word.

Sadly, we appear to be lumbered until they is a viable alternative.

PUSB

We'll_live_and_die · Sep 23, 2011

6 Generations said:
I despise everything about them, and refuse to believe one more word.

Sadly, we appear to be lumbered until they is a viable alternative.

PUSB

booo SISU Sympathiser

ccfcway · Sep 23, 2011

no loans = DOWN

We'll_live_and_die · Sep 23, 2011

I managed to get away without reading the letter. Thought it might be better off if I didn't get my hopes up.

6 Generations · Sep 23, 2011

Rich said:
booo SISU Sympathiser

We look forward to seeing you and your blind faith at tomorrows game, where we shall proudly continue our innovative policy of replacing seasoned professionals with
academy players.

Kind regards,

Ken, Len, Paul and Onye

Mumford and Daughter · Sep 23, 2011

Astute said:
The question was how many players in the Prem are only on 10k a week as players would not sign for Blackpool for 10k a week or less.

I'm sure there's players who are more then capable of doing a job for us on 10k in the Prem who are not regulary playing.

Tankie · Sep 23, 2011

It is pointless looking at other clubs who have loanees because it is only worthwhile getting players that the manager wants to enhance the squad.

That shouldn't be a hard choice then, just about every one who's availiable should fit the bill. It must be clear now , even to the most Naive of sky Blue supporters, that Sisu aren't going to spend anything at all, I still cant work out their devious plot, but it sure looks as if they are going to stand by, do nothing, and Waste us

Tank Top..

oakey · Sep 23, 2011

There must be a few unattached players still who are half decent?
These would be willing to sign on a pay as you play deal I would wager.
Therefore I don't believe the spin that there is nobody available or that we cannot afford their wages.
It looks like AT is not getting any support from SISU. Not surprised but unfair on the manager and the players we have who cannot be rested or even subbed now and again for a breather.

oakey · Sep 23, 2011

On a different tack the FA should make a rule that all Premier league clubs can keep their 25 players + number of standbys, say 5.
After that the rest of the pros are loans but the owner clubs still pay the wages. If they cannot afford it, tough, reduce your squad. No club would be allowed to borrow more than one from a certain club and there would still be a limit of, say, 5 loanees per club.
Good for the game. Good for the players who get to PLAY rather than bench warm and good for the fans.
Won't happen, too many greedy vested interests.

Otis · Sep 23, 2011

I am sure that the rational minded amongst us City fans would accept it if Sisu came out and said that unfortunately we are going to have to work with what we have. They did say however that we have the same budget as last year and that they were intending on bringing players (plural) in, in the transfer window and then said they would use the loan system.

The truth may hurt but I think we would all be a lot more accepting if it was the truth they told us.

If the goalposts have moved tell us the goalposts have moved. I think it is the fact that the fans believe they are being lied to as much as anything else that's really sticking in the throat and causing the resentment.

AFCCOVENTRY · Sep 23, 2011

I think this is a very shrewd move by sisu to not let Thorn have any loan signings.

There plans to fuck this club and piss off supporters is working.

Nonleagueherewecome · Sep 23, 2011

oakey said:
There must be a few unattached players still who are half decent?
These would be willing to sign on a pay as you play deal I would wager.

You'd think so, but the amount they are making available isn't even enough to coax Paul Watson and Andy Impey back :laugh:

Nonleagueherewecome · Sep 23, 2011

oakey said:
On a different tack the FA should make a rule that all Premier league clubs can keep their 25 players + number of standbys, say 5.
After that the rest of the pros are loans but the owner clubs still pay the wages. If they cannot afford it, tough, reduce your squad. No club would be allowed to borrow more than one from a certain club and there would still be a limit of, say, 5 loanees per club.
Good for the game. Good for the players who get to PLAY rather than bench warm and good for the fans.
Won't happen, too many greedy vested interests.

I thought it was 25 + any home nation trained player under 21? Maybe I imagined it. That's part of the problem; they'll hang on to relatively cheap youngsters who could do a job for the first team.

Seeing Lansbury come on as a sub against us the other night really did rub our noses in it. Exactly the kind of loan we need, and he can't get a start elsewhere in our division!

Skyblue4u · Sep 23, 2011

Aren't we already in div 1?

skybluesben · Sep 23, 2011

Time to go SISU, lets rally the troops for tomorrow and Tuesday :blue::blue:!

Skybluetracy · Sep 23, 2011

There will be one out next week I am told. None in until that happens.

Macca · Sep 23, 2011

Skyblue4u said:
Aren't we already in div 1?

Division 2 isn't it

Tonylinc · Sep 23, 2011

Skybluetracy said:
There will be one out next week I am told. None in until that happens.

Yes that will be correct. Bell to Manure for £5mill. (he is on a 4year contract) to replace an ageing Giggs and a £250,000 replacement from Weymouth reserves!

Grendel · Sep 23, 2011

Is Anyone Surprised?

I work around Hampshire and know a few Southampton fans. They think it is hilarious we have Ken Diellue (or what ever his name is) as chairman.

He did his level best when he was with them to get SISU in and then ruin the club. It was so bad they begged Rupert Lowe to come back. How he has the gall to resurface in the football world defeats me.

SISU are a disgrace. I have taken stick about criticising Thorn but really what proper manager would put up with this? He knows his best interests are keeping SISU on board as he is not a real manager at all and any real football board would bin him. He is just as bad as Ken, Paul Clouting and the other faceless officials that run the club.

Shame on all of them.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Sep 23, 2011

It doesn't really sound like SISU are blocking any move, more the right player isn't available or at the right price. We know nothing about the loan budget given to Thorn, bearing in mind that most "experience" premiership reserves are probably on 20k p/w it goes without saying most championship clubs can't afford it.
I thought we may get in a few younger players but this doesn't seem to be the route Thorn wants to go down with loans.

blend · Sep 23, 2011

What I can't understand in any of this is what they think they may gain by continually leading fans up the garden path. Am I missing something? Or is it simply that they are used to tearing companies apart with regard for no-one. Maybe they keep forgetting its a footy club with supporters.

Grendel · Sep 23, 2011

I don't think it is a strategy they are just incompetent and were duped into buying a football club by Ransom. Now they do no know what to do.

georgehudson · Sep 24, 2011

own up sisu cohorts, tell the truth for once, you are not wanted, your track record is abysmal, stop trying to rip the club apart, accept with good grace that you are despised, you have the ALL TIME low of regard from CCFC fans,
by the way,
magnanimousity would be cathartic,
oops sorry
'one step beyond'
PUSB

gears87 · Sep 24, 2011

please help me understand-club policy - get hungry youngsters in----none come

now get old heads in --none come

CONFUSED ?

cant see the light only see BULLSH*T

TommyAtkins · Sep 24, 2011

Mumford and Daughter said:
Tommy the quote of funds is this issue. Thorn admitted that with the line "the difference is that the ones who are playing in the reserves in top-flight clubs earn quite a lot of money" meaning we won't bring in becasue we cant afford. As Vailant points out, we were promised same budget as last year. We haven't. Simple. Why can't the board admit that instead of getting fans hope up?

That is why we want SISU out. They tell us what we want to hear not the truth.

Yes good point - I registered this quote and I was alluding to it when I said that Thorn is limiting his options by looking at experienced players, largely because of wages.

What I was doing was deconflicting the 2 issues:

- we can't sign players we can't afford (rightly or wrongly)

- we shouldn't sign those players who won't improve the squad.

I probably don't agree that we were promised anything. Clouting did indeed say that Thorn would have the same budget. But one has to consider that circumstances change and therefore, Clouting didn't "lie" - rather the club changed direction and changed policy. A simple analogy would be promising your children a Play-Station 3 for Christmas and then being forced to buy a ZX-81 because of pay-cuts at work, something outside of your control.

The issue here is that SISU didn't necessarily lie. The wider problem is that SISU and their intent has always been opaque. This has clouded the communication between SISU and the fans since day one. The best option would have not to make the statement in the first place.

But SISU are stuck, like most owners. Fans demand investment in the squad at every club. I would like to think we would appreciate honesty but I think there would have been anger if Clouting had said - "much reduced budget" or more accurately, "cock all budget".

Perhaps they did lie, perhaps they didn't. The essential truth is that there is no money at Coventry City and SISU aren't the people to throw money at a football club. That much was true when the takeover happened and it is certainly true now.

blend · Sep 24, 2011

Clouting said at fans forum a few weeks back that the wages from player releases were there for Thorn to make signing.

I would say its more like not having bought your kid a present at all for their birthday but constantly telling them their will be lots of presents. And then even after the event keep saying the same thing. Not even my 4 yr old would take that BS

Loan news (2 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

New Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency