Lying (1 Viewer)

[MichaelCCFC]

There are often allegations that acl/sisu are lying and then the usual suspects come on defending the party they support, often by throwing in lots more information and making things very complicated.

But will we see in the next few weeks two very clear cut concrete things, rather than just talk, that will determine the honesty of acl-sisu?

First, it has been stated very clearly that acl can survive without ccfc. But the last set of accounts was the first time acl had made a profit net of football income. Either the forthcoming set of accounts will show another profit net of football income or they won’t. If it’s the latter, the claim that acl can survive without football income will look very questionable and some might question the honesty of that claim.

Second, when Fisher announced on 18 May that a new ground would be built he stated that "we retained stadium specialists some months ago to advise us on suitable sites for a permanent club stadium in the local Coventry area”. That suggests that stadium specialists were retained at the latest by Feb 2013. Like the acl accounts, the new ground is a clear cut issue: either it will be built or statements made by Seppala, Fisher and Labovitch will prove to have been untrue. If a full year after retaining stadium specialists a site has not been identified, is that a point at which the building of a new ground will look very questionable and some might question the honesty of that claim?

So before the pro/anti acl/sisu people try and complicate things or dismiss this as nonsense, if the above is wrong can they suggest other concrete examples where truth and lies can be established in a factual, clear cut way not the usual tit for tat claims and counter claims?

 

---

[theferret]

There are often allegations that acl/sisu are lying and then the usual suspects come on defending the party they support, often by throwing in lots more information and making things very complicated.

But will we see in the next few weeks two very clear cut concrete things, rather than just talk, that will determine the honesty of acl-sisu?

First, it has been stated very clearly that acl can survive without ccfc. But the last set of accounts was the first time acl had made a profit net of football income. Either the forthcoming set of accounts will show another profit net of football income or they won’t. If it’s the latter, the claim that acl can survive without football income will look very questionable and some might question the honesty of that claim.

Second, when Fisher announced on 18 May that a new ground would be built he stated that "we retained stadium specialists some months ago to advise us on suitable sites for a permanent club stadium in the local Coventry area”. That suggests that stadium specialists were retained at the latest by Feb 2013. Like the acl accounts, the new ground is a clear cut issue: either it will be built or statements made by Seppala, Fisher and Labovitch will prove to have been untrue. If a full year after retaining stadium specialists a site has not been identified, is that a point at which the building of a new ground will look very questionable and some might question the honesty of that claim?

So before the pro/anti acl/sisu people try and complicate things or dismiss this as nonsense, if the above is wrong can they suggest other concrete examples where truth and lies can be established in a factual, clear cut way not the usual tit for tat claims and counter claims?

Without wanting to get into an argument, I think I am right in saying that ACLs last set of accounts filed were for the financial year ending 31/5/2012, which is about when the rent strike started is it not? So it is not true to say they made a profit net of football income. The accounts to be filed in February will be the first insight we have into their financial well-being without the football club (and even then some will say that there was still a large amount of income generated from football up until the end of their last financial year given that match fees, car park revenues, catering monies etc were still being received).

 

[quinn1971]

There are often allegations that acl/sisu are lying and then the usual suspects come on defending the party they support, often by throwing in lots more information and making things very complicated.

But will we see in the next few weeks two very clear cut concrete things, rather than just talk, that will determine the honesty of acl-sisu?

First, it has been stated very clearly that acl can survive without ccfc. But the last set of accounts was the first time acl had made a profit net of football income. Either the forthcoming set of accounts will show another profit net of football income or they won’t. If it’s the latter, the claim that acl can survive without football income will look very questionable and some might question the honesty of that claim.

Second, when Fisher announced on 18 May that a new ground would be built he stated that "we retained stadium specialists some months ago to advise us on suitable sites for a permanent club stadium in the local Coventry area”. That suggests that stadium specialists were retained at the latest by Feb 2013. Like the acl accounts, the new ground is a clear cut issue: either it will be built or statements made by Seppala, Fisher and Labovitch will prove to have been untrue. If a full year after retaining stadium specialists a site has not been identified, is that a point at which the building of a new ground will look very questionable and some might question the honesty of that claim?

So before the pro/anti acl/sisu people try and complicate things or dismiss this as nonsense, if the above is wrong can they suggest other concrete examples where truth and lies can be established in a factual, clear cut way not the usual tit for tat claims and counter claims?

It seems like they're going to a lot of trouble if they have no intention of building a new ground. They've done what they said they were going to do so far, we thought the ground share would never happen and they went ahead with it, we won't be going back to the Ricoh so I can't see any other option than to build a new ground.

 

[RFC]

There are often allegations that acl/sisu are lying and then the usual suspects come on defending the party they support, often by throwing in lots more information and making things very complicated.

But will we see in the next few weeks two very clear cut concrete things, rather than just talk, that will determine the honesty of acl-sisu?

First, it has been stated very clearly that acl can survive without ccfc. But the last set of accounts was the first time acl had made a profit net of football income. Either the forthcoming set of accounts will show another profit net of football income or they won’t. If it’s the latter, the claim that acl can survive without football income will look very questionable and some might question the honesty of that claim.

Second, when Fisher announced on 18 May that a new ground would be built he stated that "we retained stadium specialists some months ago to advise us on suitable sites for a permanent club stadium in the local Coventry area”. That suggests that stadium specialists were retained at the latest by Feb 2013. Like the acl accounts, the new ground is a clear cut issue: either it will be built or statements made by Seppala, Fisher and Labovitch will prove to have been untrue. If a full year after retaining stadium specialists a site has not been identified, is that a point at which the building of a new ground will look very questionable and some might question the honesty of that claim?

So before the pro/anti acl/sisu people try and complicate things or dismiss this as nonsense, if the above is wrong can they suggest other concrete examples where truth and lies can be established in a factual, clear cut way not the usual tit for tat claims and counter claims?

To me it's crystal clear (although the majority on this site can't see the wood from the trees, IMHO!), we need to own our own ground (either club or owners) and since the council have no intention of selling the Ricoh to SISU (or anyone else for that matter) the only way forward is to build a new ground.

PUSB!

 

[skybluetony176]

To me it's crystal clear (although the majority on this site can't see the wood from the trees, IMHO!), we need to own our own ground (either club or owners) and since the council have no intention of selling the Ricoh to SISU (or anyone else for that matter) the only way forward is to build a new ground.

PUSB!

wrong. we need the leasehold. there is no further benefit to the club in owning the free hold, this only benefits SISU.

 

[valiant15]

To me it's crystal clear (although the majority on this site can't see the wood from the trees, IMHO!), we need to own our own ground (either club or owners) and since the council have no intention of selling the Ricoh to SISU (or anyone else for that matter) the only way forward is to build a new ground.

PUSB!

Or for sisu to realise they'll never get their money back and piss off.

 

[Grendel]

There are often allegations that acl/sisu are lying and then the usual suspects come on defending the party they support, often by throwing in lots more information and making things very complicated.

But will we see in the next few weeks two very clear cut concrete things, rather than just talk, that will determine the honesty of acl-sisu?

First, it has been stated very clearly that acl can survive without ccfc. But the last set of accounts was the first time acl had made a profit net of football income. Either the forthcoming set of accounts will show another profit net of football income or they won’t. If it’s the latter, the claim that acl can survive without football income will look very questionable and some might question the honesty of that claim.

Second, when Fisher announced on 18 May that a new ground would be built he stated that "we retained stadium specialists some months ago to advise us on suitable sites for a permanent club stadium in the local Coventry area”. That suggests that stadium specialists were retained at the latest by Feb 2013. Like the acl accounts, the new ground is a clear cut issue: either it will be built or statements made by Seppala, Fisher and Labovitch will prove to have been untrue. If a full year after retaining stadium specialists a site has not been identified, is that a point at which the building of a new ground will look very questionable and some might question the honesty of that claim?

So before the pro/anti acl/sisu people try and complicate things or dismiss this as nonsense, if the above is wrong can they suggest other concrete examples where truth and lies can be established in a factual, clear cut way not the usual tit for tat claims and counter claims?

ACL's survival won't depend on one set of accounts either way.

There has never been a stadium in history that has survived with no permenant tenant. Did they get the Olympics as they had a permenant tenant and did they fail to get the rugby World Cup due to the unrest at the time of bidding. Many "normal" grounds have hosted more big concerts than the Ricoh. Leicester have approval now to host major events.

As I have said before I wish ACL well - history suggests they will fail - I hope and prey for the well being of Coventry taxpayers they can rewrite history.

 

[RFC]

wrong. we need the leasehold. there is no further benefit to the club in owning the free hold, this only benefits SISU.

Sorry but whoever the owners are they are all only interested in owning the stadium (that includes at least four other parties who wanted to buy the club on 'that condition', however CCC refused to discuss with any of them).

Investors in any club have to benefit, after all they must make a return on their investment, it's not rocket science, is it?????????

 

[Grendel]

Sorry but whoever the owners are they are all only interested in owning the stadium (that includes at least four other parties who wanted to buy the club on 'that condition', however CCC refused to discuss with any of them).

Investors in any club have to benefit, after all they must make a return on their investment, it's not rocket science, is it?????????

This is of course correct. The quickest way to change owners is for them to get freehold access. It's now fairly obvious the white elephant is hopeless without the club so the suggest they will be sold separately is scaremongering.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

So which grounds were these that failed did they only have a sports team and nothing else or are the comparisons your making irrelevant.

any way ACL say they have alternative options? again as with the building of our New ground only time will tell.

ACL's survival won't depend on one set of accounts either way.

There has never been a stadium in history that has survived with no permenant tenant. Did they get the Olympics as they had a permenant tenant and did they fail to get the rugby World Cup due to the unrest at the time of bidding. Many "normal" grounds have hosted more big concerts than the Ricoh. Leicester have approval now to host major events.

As I have said before I wish ACL well - history suggests they will fail - I hope and prey for the well being of Coventry taxpayers they can rewrite history.

 

[theferret]

ACL's survival won't depend on one set of accounts either way.

There has never been a stadium in history that has survived with no permenant tenant. Did they get the Olympics as they had a permenant tenant and did they fail to get the rugby World Cup due to the unrest at the time of bidding. Many "normal" grounds have hosted more big concerts than the Ricoh. Leicester have approval now to host major events.

As I have said before I wish ACL well - history suggests they will fail - I hope and prey for the well being of Coventry taxpayers they can rewrite history.

Rumour is that the Ricoh has not secured any summer concerts in 2014 which I guess will pose a problem for them (although they do have that SpringFest thing).

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Sorry but whoever the owners are they are all only interested in owning the stadium (that includes at least four other parties who wanted to buy the club on 'that condition', however CCC refused to discuss with any of them).

Investors in any club have to benefit, after all they must make a return on their investment, it's not rocket science, is it?????????

I know of thirty that only wanted the lease can I prove it? I dont have to just like you saying that there were four that wanted to buy it.

 

[Grendel]

I know of thirty that only wanted the lease can I prove it? I dont have to just like you saying that there were four that wanted to buy it.

If he can name the four you'd better be able to name the 30.

 

[Hobo]

Fact 31/5/2012 no accounts filed
Coventry city Ltd
Coventry City Holdings
Otium.

In fact Otium were being liquidated with zero assets.

After six years in charge at Coventry SISU have never made an offer to buy the Rico or part of it. Yet the Alan Higgs Trust have wanted to sell their share from day one.

We were in the Championship we are now mid table in League 1 (even with 10 points back we are nowhere near the top 3 sides in this league).

ACL have shifted and have reduced rent etc.

We play in Northampton. We have a picture of a new stadium that looks like a toilet seat with some Harpic squirted under the rim.

We have debts between 30-60 million to our owners and their subsidiaries accumulated during the last 6 years of slide, if you believe them?

Fact I am one pissed off supporter who has travelled all over the country following my team.

Fact I will not go to Sixfields under any circumstances.

 

[RFC]

If he can name the four you'd better be able to name the 30.

Once again sorry but I don't need to prove anything! I know what I know and am only stating fact, if you don't want to believe it fine by me.

History and future developments will prove I'm right.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Once again sorry but I don't need to prove anything! I know what I know and am only stating fact, if you don't want to believe it fine by me.

History and future developments will prove I'm right.

Of course you dont
Of course you are
AND this club is close to being history.

 

[RFC]

Fact 31/5/2012 no accounts filed
Coventry city Ltd
Coventry City Holdings
Otium.

In fact Otium were being liquidated with zero assets.

After six years in charge at Coventry SISU have never made an offer to buy the Rico or part of it. Yet the Alan Higgs Trust have wanted to sell their share from day one.

We were in the Championship we are now mid table in League 1 (even with 10 points back we are nowhere near the top 3 sides in this league).

ACL have shifted and have reduced rent etc.

We play in Northampton. We have a picture of a new stadium that looks like a toilet seat with some Harpic squirted under the rim.

We have debts between 30-60 million to our owners and their subsidiaries accumulated during the last 6 years of slide, if you believe them?

Fact I am one pissed off supporter who has travelled all over the country following my team.

Fact I will not go to Sixfields under any circumstances.

I think you have a severe problem, I'm discussing (posting) about one aspect and don't have the slightest intention of slagging-off anyone of the parties (who ALL must share responsibility for our current situation, including previous owners).

If you choose not to go to Sixfields fine (won't lose any sleep about it) but you're the one missing out, enjoyed this afternoon and we deserved to win but hey-ho, not the end of the world.

A Very Happy New Year to ALL who support the Sky Blues.

 

[Jack Griffin]

ACL's survival won't depend on one set of accounts either way.

There has never been a stadium in history that has survived with no permenant tenant. Did they get the Olympics as they had a permenant tenant and did they fail to get the rugby World Cup due to the unrest at the time of bidding. Many "normal" grounds have hosted more big concerts than the Ricoh. Leicester have approval now to host major events.

As I have said before I wish ACL well - history suggests they will fail - I hope and prey for the well being of Coventry taxpayers they can rewrite history.

Apart from White City which lasted from 1908 to 1985 without a regular tenant.

Can you name a stadium that has a 6000 capacity indoor hall, a 120 bed hotel and a tenant Casino to keep it solvent?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

White City's slightly disengenuous though, as they moved heaven and earth to get a regular tenant. Bought themselves a Rugby League team... that failed, tried to get QPR there... ended up with speedway and greyhound racing; got decent crowds for greyhound racing, they kept it going.

If the Ricoh can become a major Greyhound venue, it may have a chance...

 

[RFC]

Of course you dont
Of course you are
AND this club is close to being history.

Should it become history as you put it, it'll be because people haven't supported Steven & the Team at Sixfields (as I do), regardless of club ownership.

Pity the majority don't look at the much bigger picture and the other parties involved and some of the political manipulation, not just the owners involved then?

 

[Jack Griffin]

White City's slightly disengenuous though, as they moved heaven and earth to get a regular tenant. Bought themselves a Rugby League team... that failed, tried to get QPR there... ended up with speedway and greyhound racing; got decent crowds for greyhound racing, they kept it going.

If the Ricoh can become a major Greyhound venue, it may have a chance...

Admit it, it's no more disingenuous than the shit Grendel comes out with ;-)

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Should it become history as you put it, it'll be because people haven't supported Steven & the Team at Sixfields (as I do), regardless of club ownership.

Pity the majority don't look at the much bigger picture and the other parties involved and some of the political manipulation, not just the owners involved then?

Here we go its not the nice benevolent owners fault its the fans that dont go fault:claping hands:

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Should it become history as you put it, it'll be because people haven't supported Steven & the Team at Sixfields (as I do), regardless of club ownership.

Pity the majority don't look at the much bigger picture and the other parties involved and some of the political manipulation, not just the owners involved then?

The bigger picture framed by who though? The local taxpayer? TF? Me? Ah no...it's the one framed by you that you're on about isn't it?

 

[theferret]

As far as the viability of the Ricoh is concerned, we're all guessing. Even the accounts to be filed next year will cover a period when the club were still playing there (no rent of course, but there were matchday revenues), so it will be February 2015 when we get a real insight.

I think the Ricoh has a lot of faults, but there are also some really good facilities there, that is undeniable. With a few tweaks here and there and the addition of a train station, it will be well placed to be a successful leisure venue for many years - but I genuinely believe its long term success is dependent on having an anchor tenant. But again, we're just guessing. The fact it seems to have been ditched as a stadium concert venue has to be a concern though.

 

[Hobo]

I think you have a severe problem, I'm discussing (posting) about one aspect and don't have the slightest intention of slagging-off anyone of the parties (who ALL must share responsibility for our current situation, including previous owners).

If you choose not to go to Sixfields fine (won't lose any sleep about it) but you're the one missing out, enjoyed this afternoon and we deserved to win but hey-ho, not the end of the world.

A Very Happy New Year to ALL who support the Sky Blues.

The only severe problems I have is SISU owning our club.
I won't lose any sleep over you going to Sixfields either, I have always said it is individual choice.

I am not the only one missing out. A draw was a point gained, I predicted we would lose 1-0. I'm not all doom and gloom I predicted we would beat Peterborough.

No it is not the end of the world it is one game in a long season. We can still make the play offs, getting tough but do able with another month like November.

A very happy New Year to you RFC and all our other fans regardless of where you seat the blame of our clubs demise.

 

[RFC]

Here we go its not the nice benevolent owners fault its the fans that dont go fault:claping hands:

Please don't try and intimidate and miss quote me, once again I'm not on anyone's side (other than Steven Pressley & the TEAM).

We have to move-on, onwards & upwards as far as I'm concerned. PUSB!

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Please don't try and intimidate and miss quote me, once again I'm not on anyone's side (other than Steven Pressley & the TEAM).

We have to move-on, onwards & upwards as far as I'm concerned. PUSB!

Who is trying to indimidate you would that be me? The same person who Mr Fisher said threatened him?

 

[RFC]

Really appreciate that sentiment 'Hobo' as it's been a very difficult and frustrating year in so many ways and aspects, don't think anybody enjoys what we have to go through to attend but after all, it's my team & my club and they are far more important to me (personally) than anyone else involved in our present situation and predicament.

Got to the stage where it's totally pointless trying to apportion blame IMHO!

Have a Good One, One and ALL!

The only severe problems I have is SISU owning our club.
I won't lose any sleep over you going to Sixfields either, I have always said it is individual choice.

I am not the only one missing out. A draw was a point gained, I predicted we would lose 1-0. I'm not all doom and gloom I predicted we would beat Peterborough.

No it is not the end of the world it is one game in a long season. We can still make the play offs, getting tough but do able with another month like November.

A very happy New Year to you RFC and all our other fans regardless of where you seat the blame of our clubs demise.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

I support the team you support the regime.

Move on to where? as for upwards that has not happened under your beloved owners yet.


We are still waiting for that one.

Please don't try and intimidate and miss quote me, once again I'm not on anyone's side (other than Steven Pressley & the TEAM).

We have to move-on, onwards & upwards as far as I'm concerned. PUSB!

 

[dongonzalos]

I thought mr Haskell wanted to buy the club and the Higgs share of ACL?

 

[RFC]

I support the team you support the regime.

Move on to where? as for upwards that has not happened under your beloved owners yet.


We are still waiting for that one.

Sorry but you're talking nonsense, we're not in a position to choose so very many things include who owns the club. You are somewhat miss guided because I don't ever recall supporting an owner of our football club (except maybe one & even he had 'baggage') and that's almost 60 years!

 

[shmmeee]

Both are conjecture. Stadium plans can take time and hit unforeseen issues. Almost any ground you look into is a few years between initial announcement and final plans, even if initial plans are available.

Similarly, last years accounts still cover a period of uncertainty around CCFCs future at the Ricoh, one that exists still today. Only when that issue is finalised can ACL truly "move on" and we can see the result of their plans.

You ask for concrete examples and without being facetious Id have to say ultimately any claims validity can only be judged fully in retrospect.

I'd also say that on both sides people are quick to shout "lie" when the truth is closer to "changed plans".

Unless a statement is specific, measurable and time constrained it can't really ever be judged as "lying".

 

[letsallsingtogether]

You are doing it now.
Don't get uptight about it you do what you do do live with it.
As for misguided you need to look at yourself again.

Sorry but you're talking nonsense, we're not in a position to choose so very many things include who owns the club. You are somewhat miss guided because I don't ever recall supporting an owner of our football club (except maybe one & even he had 'baggage') and that's almost 60 years!

 

[shmmeee]

Sorry but you're talking nonsense, we're not in a position to choose so very many things include who owns the club. You are somewhat miss guided because I don't ever recall supporting an owner of our football club (except maybe one & even he had 'baggage') and that's almost 60 years!

It's about supporting an owners decisions not the owner themselves. And fans have been in control of that for ages. See the McGinnity badge change mess for an example close to home. Or cashless catering at the Ricoh. There are plenty of things fans can influence with a sensible owner so I find this whole defence of "hey what can you do?" pathetically spineless to be perfectly honest.

Say you don't care about the ground share if you like. But don't hide behind some poorly thought through idea with no evidence behind it.

This isn't aimed specifically at you, I've seen this attitude on podcasts and other forums as well.

 

[RFC]

I thought mr Haskell wanted to buy the club and the Higgs share of ACL?

Think you might find he didn't have the money! LOL