Calista
Well-Known Member
12[SUP]th[/SUP] June 2014, final day of the Judicial Review (CCFC official website):-
“SISU QC responded by saying that CCFC were interested in a deal which provided them with match-day revenues, not an interest in the stadium. He recited that the issue which faced the Club was access to a share of revenue generated from the match days.”
12[SUP]th[/SUP] June 2014 Mark Labovitch (statement in CET)
“The club cannot be financially viable unless it can access the match-day revenues it generates. However, the council leadership has refused categorically to sell an interest in the stadium to the club. The club is therefore building its own stadium.”
24th April 2014 Supporters’ Consultative Group minutes (CCFC official website):-
Tim Fisher – “... the real value is not just in the stadium but land enablement and what is around it.”
Nobody can pretend it’s clear. Which is it - match day revenues or the stadium?
And who are we talking about – CCFC or SISU? Perhaps the interests of the football club and its current owners are diametrically opposed. The club desperately needs to have its mountain of debt written off and to start again with a clean sheet. But maybe the owners need to keep the club on basic life support for evermore, so it can carry on paying interest to them and open the door to property deals which won’t benefit the football club at all.
This lack of clarity is the cause of division between supporters. Financial Fair Play seems to severely restrict the kind of income that can be used to fund the football. So tell us the plan in plain English Joy - how would SISU owning the Ricoh benefit COVENTRY CITY FOOTBALL CLUB? I am genuinely open to persuasion – but PLEASE don’t say “access to match day revenues”, I’m too confused already!
“SISU QC responded by saying that CCFC were interested in a deal which provided them with match-day revenues, not an interest in the stadium. He recited that the issue which faced the Club was access to a share of revenue generated from the match days.”
12[SUP]th[/SUP] June 2014 Mark Labovitch (statement in CET)
“The club cannot be financially viable unless it can access the match-day revenues it generates. However, the council leadership has refused categorically to sell an interest in the stadium to the club. The club is therefore building its own stadium.”
24th April 2014 Supporters’ Consultative Group minutes (CCFC official website):-
Tim Fisher – “... the real value is not just in the stadium but land enablement and what is around it.”
Nobody can pretend it’s clear. Which is it - match day revenues or the stadium?
And who are we talking about – CCFC or SISU? Perhaps the interests of the football club and its current owners are diametrically opposed. The club desperately needs to have its mountain of debt written off and to start again with a clean sheet. But maybe the owners need to keep the club on basic life support for evermore, so it can carry on paying interest to them and open the door to property deals which won’t benefit the football club at all.
This lack of clarity is the cause of division between supporters. Financial Fair Play seems to severely restrict the kind of income that can be used to fund the football. So tell us the plan in plain English Joy - how would SISU owning the Ricoh benefit COVENTRY CITY FOOTBALL CLUB? I am genuinely open to persuasion – but PLEASE don’t say “access to match day revenues”, I’m too confused already!