Myth busting discussion (1 Viewer)

[chiefdave]

I'm not wasting my nice long post I wrote while Nick was busy locking the original thread and pinning it

SBT - Fact or Fiction, Myth or Truth (Part 1) - Coventry MAD

A good start, hopefully to be expanded on. Just a shame that with the trust for every step forward they take about ten are taken backwards. If they had just come out with this and a statement all sides were to be pressured people would be happy.

Instead we've got this off the back of a secret patting each other on the back session with the council and the piece from Johnson.

Agree with Nick that it would be a good idea to make the questions consistent especially considering some of our fans aren't always the brightest with this sort of thing.

A minor point with this part

OEG/CCFC used to receive a share of food & beverage income on match days at the stadium, unknown if it still does. This amounted to 50:50 split of the net profit on such sales (or 15% of such turnover)

I think an illustration of what this actually means would be handy, ie give some example figures. IMO without that a lot of people will translate it to CCFC get 50% of everything spent rather than 50% of the share of the profit ACL is entitled to.

That's a huge difference, car parking was discussed on here recently so thats a good example. People will see this and think £5 of their £10 parking will go to the club when it worked out to actually be around 10p.

'CCFC is not involved in the court action' could probably use a clarification that whilst OEG is the named company it doesn't follow that Dave Boddy, as Chief Exec, can call a halt to the legal action. Suspect many will chose to interpret the explanation in this article as proof that the club could stop legal action tomorrow if they wished.

Loses its way a bit when it gets to the Sky Blue Trust section which seems to be asking leading questions to enable the required response to be given. Nobody has ever claimed the Trust have a legal means of applying to place the club in to administration, the claim is that they want to be involved in ownership of the club. Fine in itself and actually confirmed by the trust constitution. The concern has always been that this desire, among some on the board and its associates, overrides other preferable scenarios.

 

---

[Nick]

Cheers, I stuck that one just before it went way off topic and lost the point when it is genuinely something useful!

Useful to have a thread too!

 

[CJ_covblaze]

I'm not wasting my nice long post I wrote while Nick was busy locking the original thread and pinning it

A good start, hopefully to be expanded on. Just a shame that with the trust for every step forward they take about ten are taken backwards. If they had just come out with this and a statement all sides were to be pressured people would be happy.

Instead we've got this off the back of a secret patting each other on the back session with the council and the piece from Johnson.

Agree with Nick that it would be a good idea to make the questions consistent especially considering some of our fans aren't always the brightest with this sort of thing.

A minor point with this part

I think an illustration of what this actually means would be handy, ie give some example figures. IMO without that a lot of people will translate it to CCFC get 50% of everything spent rather than 50% of the share of the profit ACL is entitled to.

That's a huge difference, car parking was discussed on here recently so thats a good example. People will see this and think £5 of their £10 parking will go to the club when it worked out to actually be around 10p.

'CCFC is not involved in the court action' could probably use a clarification that whilst OEG is the named company it doesn't follow that Dave Boddy, as Chief Exec, can call a halt to the legal action. Suspect many will chose to interpret the explanation in this article as proof that the club could stop legal action tomorrow if they wished.

Loses its way a bit when it gets to the Sky Blue Trust section which seems to be asking leading questions to enable the required response to be given. Nobody has ever claimed the Trust have a legal means of applying to place the club in to administration, the claim is that they want to be involved in ownership of the club. Fine in itself and actually confirmed by the trust constitution. The concern has always been that this desire, among some on the board and its associates, overrides other preferable scenarios.

Thanks for the feedback. Is it not made clear enough by saying it was 50% of the net rather than 50% of the income? Genuine question btw. Not snapping back.

 

[chiefdave]

Thanks for the feedback. Is it not made clear enough by saying it was 50% of the net rather than 50% of the income? Genuine question btw. Not snapping back.

I think it is if you know what net is and think it through but I suspect not everyone will grasp that fact. Either because they don't know about net and gross or they skim read. They'll see 50% and that will be what they take away.

 

[Nick]

The bit I put was about the headers.

“CCFC is the same as or is SISU” – INCORRECT
“CCFC is separate from OEG Ltd” – INCORRECT

It's a bit confusing as people will skim over the first one and assume it's the same and then think CCFC is the same as OEG - INCORRECT.

It would read easier as:

“CCFC is the same as or is SISU” – INCORRECT
“CCFC is the same as or is OEG Ltd” – CORRECT

 

[Gazolba]

I take issue with this statment:
"Trust board members are unpaid elected volunteers who bare their own expenses."
To the best of my knowledge there are no nudists in the organisation.

 

[Liquid Gold]

It's noticeable that this statement has picked up no traction at all on social media. Either it isn't being pushed enough, people are ignoring it because they don't want to be told they're wrong or the trust has no influence at all.

 

[Nick]

It's noticeable that this statement has picked up no traction at all on social media. Either it isn't being pushed enough, people are ignoring it because they don't want to be told they're wrong or the trust has no influence at all.

It will be good to just give people the link to shut them up too!

Like you say, people might straight up deny it.

 

[fernandopartridge]

It's noticeable that this statement has picked up no traction at all on social media. Either it isn't being pushed enough, people are ignoring it because they don't want to be told they're wrong or the trust has no influence at all.

Bit of everything. The title myth busting doesn't really attract readers

 

[Nick]

Bit of everything. The title myth busting doesn't really attract readers

True, let's clickbait it up!

 

[Liquid Gold]

5 things you need to know about sisu

 

[mark82]

I think it is if you know what net is and think it through but I suspect not everyone will grasp that fact. Either because they don't know about net and gross or they skim read. They'll see 50% and that will be what they take away.

Agree, I had someone arguing with me until they were blue in the face the other day that the club was profitable because we posted a gross profit. Didn't seem to matter to them that it was before we'd even paid the players.

 

[mark82]

It's noticeable that this statement has picked up no traction at all on social media. Either it isn't being pushed enough, people are ignoring it because they don't want to be told they're wrong or the trust has no influence at all.

From experience, people on social media have absolutely no interest in what is true. See Brexit for further examples (or any other political argument for that matter). It's just too easy to just believe something that backs up your pre-conceived ideas than understand the truth.

 

[CJ_covblaze]

I think it is if you know what net is and think it through but I suspect not everyone will grasp that fact. Either because they don't know about net and gross or they skim read. They'll see 50% and that will be what they take away.

I would guess very few people do not know the difference between the two. However you’re right that some may skim read, see 50% initially and assume it means income until they look at it a bit deeper. However I’m not quite sure how it could’ve been written differently without adding too many explanations. It’d be information overload.

 

[Nick]

I would guess very few people do not know the difference between the two. However you’re right that some may skim read, see 50% initially and assume it means income until they look at it a bit deeper. However I’m not quite sure how it could’ve been written differently without adding too many explanations. It’d be information overload.

Think you are overestimating. Lots of people won't get that bit or will have to Google.

 

[CJ_covblaze]

Think you are overestimating. Lots of people won't get that bit or will have to Google.

Maybe. The thing is kids in primary schools know the difference between profit and loss, income and turnover, gross and net, etc. It surprises me that adults don’t. There’s nothing wrong with that. It may mean schools have changed.

 

[Skybluefaz]

Kids don't learn that stuff in primary school.

 

[CJ_covblaze]

Kids don't learn that stuff in primary school.

They do. It's one of the things my company goes in to teach.

 

[Nick]

My daughter is pretty advanced in Maths and hasn't done anything like that.

It was just a suggestion to make it a bit simpler for people who may not know straight off about net etc to prevent a bit of confusion about it.

 

[CJ_covblaze]

My daughter is pretty advanced in Maths and hasn't done anything like that.

It was just a suggestion to make it a bit simpler for people who may not know straight off about net etc to prevent a bit of confusion about it.

Pass over my details to her school! Probably won't cost them a penny. A lot of the time we can get funding in for it.

 

[Nick]

The thing is, you understand it because you obviously teach it. It would be like me going on about something to do with code or programming and thinking that everybody else knows it without breaking it down.

It was just a constructive suggestion that may clear things up and prevent any confusion which is what the whole article was intended to do.

 

[Skybluefaz]

They do. It's one of the things my company goes in to teach.

Fair enough, my wife is a year 6 teacher and has been for a few years and she certainly does not teach that.

It's a bit of an irrelevance though, entrepreneurs go on dragons den and get confused over those sorts of numbers.

 

[Nick]

Pass over my details to her school! Probably won't cost them a penny. A lot of the time we can get funding in for it.

They obviously don't teach it normally which is why your company does bits?

I assume she will learn it anyway at secondary school in Business Studies or whatever they call it now.

Again, it was just a simple idea to make things easier for everybody.

 

[CJ_covblaze]

Fair enough, my wife is a year 6 teacher and has been for a few years and she certainly does not teach that.

It's a bit of an irrelevance though, entrepreneurs go on dragons den and get confused over those sorts of numbers.

And that's why I struggle to watch that program. I feel like throwing things at the screen with some of the things they're saying.

 

[oldskyblue58]

All fair points above

I think if you skim read then you wont actually focus on minor bits...... the key points in each section are highlighted and that's the things that you pick up on.

To go in to detailed descriptions or calculations is going to add to the length of the piece, which is already borderline as to length. Yes that point might cause some misinterpretation but not much else will, because it isn't an opinion piece.

Maybe the wording could have been different in places.

Its a piece for and by the Trust but it is hard to put points across about how the Trust operates or intentions etc without getting in to opinion or hearsay

 

[slyblue57]

Thought it was a good article, well written and clear.
At least the thread wo nt go into page after page of 2 or 3 posters arguing.” yes they did” “ no they did nt”

 

[Nick]

Thought it was a good article, well written and clear.
At least the thread wo nt go into page after page of 2 or 3 posters arguing.” yes they did” “ no they did nt”

Think that's the whole point.

When it's just facts laid out in bullet points with no spin or slant on things there is no argument really.

 

[mark82]

Think that's the whole point.

When it's just facts laid out in bullet points with no spin or slant on things there is no argument really.

If only people actually cared about facts these days. It won't stop us seeing the same old BS arguments.

 

[ccfcway]

Bit of everything. The title myth busting doesn't really attract readers

“10 things that annoy you that Sisu can do to help Portsmouth no so obvious hot babes with when Brexit comes”

 

[Nick]

More added

Myth Busting - Facts about SISU, Ricoh, CCC etc etc

 

[slyblue57]

Another good read .
I do ,however, think the part below is nt quite written in such a balanced way as part 1.

“Wasps are kicking CCFC out of the stadium”

- Wasps are refusing to talk to OEG about a new lease whilst SBS&L, ARVO & OEG are taking legal action against CCC, with Wasps & AEHC as interested parties.

- Wasps have the right to take make that choice, but it is a choice so it could be different

Yes probably factual., the franchised rugby club do have a choice.

This part I think not
- Similarly SBS&L, ARVO & OEG under direction from the owners have a right to make the choice to take legal action, but it is a choice so it could also be different.

There is no choice for CCFC the Football Club . The football club has no choice,the choice is only for Sisu to make.
Im sure the football club, staff players would love to make a choice.. They can nt.