Phase 2: Operation SISU Out (4 Viewers)

[SkyBlueMatt]

Does that represent the 'Can't Be Arsed Brigade' or the 'If You Can't Find Me You Can't Ask Me If I Went Or Not Brigade?'

That's the beauty of that smiley it has so many levels. I couldn't comment further, otherwise it will run and run. I am nothing if not forgiving, those who could not attend the Yeovil game because you had to worm the cat or de-scale the kettle, we forgive.

 

---

[oldskyblue58]

Maybe we should wait a bit before starting another war.

It's not unlikely the ownership structure will change sooner rather than later. Moving back could be the first step.

Sisu could be moving away from the club leaving ARVO in charge and maybe a new investor (Byng?) coming in.
This could explain why sisu push on with the JR appeals and why ACL/CCC didn't let the litigation process become a show stopper.
It could also explain the management reshuffle at the club.

If there is any reality to this speculation it could also explain why the club owners will only meet in private with MP Damien Collins.

(I sincerely hope it doesn't explain why Hoffman got his executive box back at the Ricoh!).

Just a couple of comments not necessarily disagreeing

You could well be right about a change in structure - the clock is ticking down on the 2 year deal and changes may well be necessary.

Doesn't Seppala sign off loan agreements, court documents etc for ARVO so any move away from CCFC by SISU is kind of a mute point really. Nothing more than window dressing really because the real control has been directed through ARVO for over a year by the charges over assets, share agreements and Seppala.

The CCFC is over here and SISU with the JR is over there really doesn't stand up in the end does it? Seppala is the ultimate decision maker for both and without the club there would have been no JR. It is also ARVO and SBS&L, both intrinsically involved in CCFC, that are bringing the JR not SISU. In a way it suited both sides to allow a separation to be portrayed but is there one really? Window dressing

Two conditions were pay up the FL money and drop the JR ..... negotiating positions really that allowed both sides to compromise and in the end get an agreement. ACL got their money - and cashflow ....... CCC got the club back in Coventry ....... CCFC got a big boost in income and a budget next year ...... SISU can still continue to fight for its investors without the same level of negative PR focus on it. ACL/CCC are pretty much staying quiet and getting on with their business ...... CCFC/SISU are pointing attention at the team and away from other things (an old SISU tactic) ...... situation normal isn't it?

Management reshuffle is window dressing as well really. SW has been a director over a year now, was fully involved before that, he knew exactly what was going on, including the move away to Sixfields, otherwise how was he able to negotiate a deal for the owners to bring the club back? Neither SW nor TF are the final decision makers. TF was obviously closely involved. The management changes are not really changes of personnel more change of title. The change that made a difference was different negotiators face to face but that didn't need a change in title really did it - just needed the authority to do it.

Not sure any of this highlights NEW investors - what I think will happen is that the club will be placed with a n other entity at some point but that the new "owners" (like Byng ) will be sympathetic to SISU and the ARVO loans, charges etc will remain. Those ARVO charges are important because it means they have the final say so. It will look like new owners, it can be portrayed as such in order to push for ownership deal - but my question would be how "new" would that ownership be?

Think we agree Godiva having the Hoffman group back would not seem to be a step forward

 

[Godiva]

Just a couple of comments not necessarily disagreeing

You could well be right about a change in structure - the clock is ticking down on the 2 year deal and changes may well be necessary.

Doesn't Seppala sign off loan agreements, court documents etc for ARVO so any move away from CCFC by SISU is kind of a mute point really. Nothing more than window dressing really because the real control has been directed through ARVO for over a year by the charges over assets, share agreements and Seppala.

The CCFC is over here and SISU with the JR is over there really doesn't stand up in the end does it? Seppala is the ultimate decision maker for both and without the club there would have been no JR. It is also ARVO and SBS&L, both intrinsically involved in CCFC, that are bringing the JR not SISU. In a way it suited both sides to allow a separation to be portrayed but is there one really? Window dressing

Two conditions were pay up the FL money and drop the JR ..... negotiating positions really that allowed both sides to compromise and in the end get an agreement. ACL got their money - and cashflow ....... CCC got the club back in Coventry ....... CCFC got a big boost in income and a budget next year ...... SISU can still continue to fight for its investors without the same level of negative PR focus on it. ACL/CCC are pretty much staying quiet and getting on with their business ...... CCFC/SISU are pointing attention at the team and away from other things (an old SISU tactic) ...... situation normal isn't it?

Management reshuffle is window dressing as well really. SW has been a director over a year now, was fully involved before that, he knew exactly what was going on, including the move away to Sixfields, otherwise how was he able to negotiate a deal for the owners to bring the club back? Neither SW nor TF are the final decision makers. TF was obviously closely involved. The management changes are not really changes of personnel more change of title. The change that made a difference was different negotiators face to face but that didn't need a change in title really did it - just needed the authority to do it.

Not sure any of this highlights NEW investors - what I think will happen is that the club will be placed with a n other entity at some point but that the new "owners" (like Byng ) who will be sympathetic to SISU and the ARVO loans, charges etc will remain. Those ARVO charges are important because it means they have the final say so. It will look like new owners, it can be portrayed as such in order to push for ownership deal - but my question would be how "new" would that ownership be?

Think we agree Godiva having the Hoffman group back would not seem to be a step forward

I do not disagree with most of what you say, but I think our posts kind of comes from different positions.
In my post I tried to put myself in sisu's position and think of a potential strategy. I then 'test it' by see how it fit with recent events.
In your post you analyse the effect of such a strategy from a fans perspective - which is fine (and as I said I do not overall disagree) - but I don't think the fans will have an actual 'say' in sisu's planning.

You mention the loans - well the amount is staggering and it could take a long time to repay. And while the loans are in the books it may be very difficult to attract a buyer or a co-investor. You know how reluctant investors are to pay for 'spent money with no tied-in assets'. So I think the only chance of getting some (or all) back is through the JR appeal and subsequent compensations/damages. It may seem a very long shot, but it may be their only shot.
Isolating the old loans (not the ARVO debt) in SBS&L and have 'the fate' decided by the outcome of the JR is probably the only solution that will satisfy a new co-investor (beside of course a complete and immediate write-off).

The only thing where we may be disagreeing is the importance of the management re-shuffle. I think it's a lot more than window dressing. It could well be a pre-requisite from Byng for his involvement (as could the return to Ricoh). If I was Byng I would keep Waggott and let Fisher go, so the re-shuffle makes sense.

But it's all speculation - an attempt to make some sense of sisu's actions. Not an attempt to come up with a strategy that would please the fans.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Not sure it is a fans perspective. I think it is more how SISU have placed things and portrayed things yes to fans but more and most importantly to others like CCC, investors and potential new investors. To get a deal done on stadium ownership they are going to have to show a disconnect by SISU from CCFC. That is the window dressing that is going on presently but the primary focus for SISU is the deal, it never was or is the fans. The ambition in this is not CCFC nor has it ever been.

Loans. Depends which loans you are talking about and what is being sold doesn't it. They have already isolated the loans in SBS&L they did that a long time ago, but even those loans are receiving interest. If they were selling the club then they only have to sell Otium and the ARVO loans included there are (a) serviced (possibly decreasing due to player transfer fees)with interest being paid, (b) partly converted to redeemable preference shares with options to convert more (c) not now increasing even if they are of a revolving nature. The debt burden for CCFC is more manageable than the £47m + group loans that people focus on.

You yourself I think came up with the notion that the old loans had been bought out at a large discount, possibly when they were transferred to Sconset. If so then the actual cost to the current investors might be considerably less than the amount shown in the SBS&L accounts. So do they require full repayment of the figure on SBS&L to be able to do a deal? Might explain also why there is not a great amount of financial pain attached to the JR appeal for SISU - it is high risk, lengthy but with huge return potential if successful. It can now be done without pressure to fund it because ARVO and SBS&L (who have brought the case) receive interest from CCFC on their loans - the return to the Ricoh guarantees that the interest can be paid.

Characters come and go. They will remain only so long as they remain useful to the owner. SW will be no different whoever the owner is same with TF

Not about a strategy to please the fans at all, never has been. Useful distraction though and takes the heat off for a while whilst things are done elsewhere.

All speculation I know but there is a plan, the objective remains the same

 

[Godiva]

Not sure it is a fans perspective. I think it is more how SISU have placed things and portrayed things yes to fans but more and most importantly to others like CCC, investors and potential new investors. To get a deal done on stadium ownership they are going to have to show a disconnect by SISU from CCFC. That is the window dressing that is going on presently but the primary focus for SISU is the deal, it never was or is the fans. The ambition in this is not CCFC nor has it ever been.

Loans. Depends which loans you are talking about and what is being sold doesn't it. They have already isolated the loans in SBS&L they did that a long time ago, but even those loans are receiving interest. If they were selling the club then they only have to sell Otium and the ARVO loans included there are (a) serviced (possibly decreasing due to player transfer fees)with interest being paid, (b) partly converted to redeemable preference shares with options to convert more (c) not now increasing even if they are of a revolving nature. The debt burden for CCFC is more manageable than the £47m + group loans that people focus on.

You yourself I think came up with the notion that the old loans had been bought out at a large discount, possibly when they were transferred to Sconset. If so then the actual cost to the current investors might be considerably less than the amount shown in the SBS&L accounts. So do they require full repayment of the figure on SBS&L to be able to do a deal? Might explain also why there is not a great amount of financial pain attached to the JR appeal for SISU - it is high risk, lengthy but with huge return potential if successful. It can now be done without pressure to fund it because ARVO and SBS&L (who have brought the case) receive interest from CCFC on their loans - the return to the Ricoh guarantees that the interest can be paid.

Characters come and go. They will remain only so long as they remain useful to the owner. SW will be no different whoever the owner is same with TF

Not about a strategy to please the fans at all, never has been. Useful distraction though and takes the heat off for a while whilst things are done elsewhere.

All speculation I know but there is a plan, the objective remains the same

Put us in a conference room with a huge whiteboard and a pot of tea/coffee and I think we find that we agree on most parts although using different words and phrases .

New owners/Investors comes into Otium. Sisu keep SBS&L. Dissolve the group in separate entities with different owners and no inter-company financial commitments.
If sisu win the JR appeals they harvest the damages/compensations - Otium can negotiate a takeover of ACL. Otherwise sisu investors gets nothing and SBS&L is dissolved - Otium build trust and commit long term to the Ricoh (maybe buying Higgs out).

If (as I believe) sisu are involved with ARVO they can't really lose.

 

[wingy]

Put us in a conference room with a huge whiteboard and a pot of tea/coffee and I think we find that we agree on most parts although using different words and phrases .

New owners/Investors comes into Otium. Sisu keep SBS&L. Dissolve the group in separate entities with different owners and no inter-company financial commitments.
If sisu win the JR appeals they harvest the damages/compensations - Otium can negotiate a takeover of ACL. Otherwise sisu investors gets nothing and SBS&L is dissolved - Otium build trust and commit long term to the Ricoh (maybe buying Higgs out).

If (as I believe) sisu are involved with ARVO they can't really lose.

How do Arvo get their sizeable lump back
Are we sure of the connection between the two
The charges Arvo immediately put in place may suggest a different source with different terms which seems to fit
What happens If that source runs dry

 

[stupot07]

Can you two get a room???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[wingy]

Can you two get a room???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

I'm pining for the old "How we got here" Sticky threads

 

[Godiva]

How do Arvo get their sizeable lump back
Are we sure of the connection between the two
The charges Arvo immediately put in place may suggest a different source with different terms which seems to fit
What happens If that source runs dry

The ARVO loan is around £12m - give or take a few millions. I think that is sustainable now we're back at the Ricoh with higher income and a much reduced cost base. Think of it as a bank loan.
Having said that - if I was a potential investor I would probably demand that loan converted into equity.

 

[Godiva]

How do Arvo get their sizeable lump back
Are we sure of the connection between the two
The charges Arvo immediately put in place may suggest a different source with different terms which seems to fit
What happens If that source runs dry

OSB explained it better than I did in my first reply to you:

... and the ARVO loans included there are (a) serviced (possibly decreasing due to player transfer fees)with interest being paid, (b) partly converted to redeemable preference shares with options to convert more (c) not now increasing even if they are of a revolving nature. The debt burden for CCFC is more manageable than the £47m + group loans that people focus on.

 

[oldskyblue58]

How do Arvo get their sizeable lump back
Are we sure of the connection between the two
The charges Arvo immediately put in place may suggest a different source with different terms which seems to fit
What happens If that source runs dry

I think given the wording in the accounts and on the charge together with other information that repayment of ARVO at least in part revolves around player transfer fees and conversion in to shares of some of the loan
Yes there is a connection between the two. Seppala signed the loan agreement as director of ARVO. She also signed the court application for the JR on behalf of ARVO.
The charge is normal business practice for a lender, certainly looks like all the lenders to CCFC are controlled by JS - the source of funds is not clear (ie where ARVO got the money from)
They have set things up so that the club runs within its income means so further funding is probably unlikely - that is why it was important to get back to the Ricoh even on a day rent basis, ticket income alone gives some sort of budget to work with. That leads on to questions about actual "investment" in the team - wont be done if it involves much of a fee at the moment it would seem as no further loans will be forth coming I suspect. It will be done by picking up players out of contract, developing youth players and at some point cashing in on players.

Basically they have parked the old loans in SBS&L but also to some degree parked CCFC. Whilst CCFC has a reasonable L1 income and can meet its payments (including interest on loans) then the pressure is off SISU. If CCFC has some success then all the better because that brings with it more tickets sold, more subsidiary football income like kits & programs, better sponsorship, prize monies, TV monies etc all of which goes direct to the club not anyone else.

Breathing space at the moment for all concerned

 

[wingy]

Just leaves the question ,who brings the money to either buy ACL or the club then ,assuming the JR Is lost.

 

[Godiva]

Just leaves the question ,who brings the money to either buy ACL or the club then ,assuming the JR Is lost.

A very good question!
I suppose it depends on the price if a deal is at all possible. So far there's zero evidence that CCC are prepared to part with their shares.

What is a fair price for the CCC shares? I would assume the same as the price Higgs would accept for theirs, but I don't think anyone from CCC would agree.

In reality it is a political question. Should the council agree to sell ACL to the club - for the benefit of the club?

 

[oldskyblue58]

In terms of buying the club isn't it more a commitment to taking over liabilities that are being serviced out of CCFC cashflow? The price would not be that great because of the ARVO charge & redeemable shares, and the lack of a security of tenure at the ground. The only real value is in the market value of the squad but that is not huge by any stretch plus is subject to the ARVO charge. Wierdly the most saleable single commodity that the club has at the moment is probably SP - is that a reason for the 4 year contract?

Acquiring ACL - something SISU/TF have always said they didn't want to do - is not going to be easy short term. There are the politics but also the emotions involved. Would the Charity Trustees contemplate a sale to an entity connected to SISU past or present - not sure they would. Do either the CCC or Charity actually want to sell short term? From a fans point of view it makes perfect sense but neither Charity or CCC can do it for the fans and both legally need to receive proper value.

To start with I would think CCFC has to show a willingness to work in partnership and not rock the boat before any such thoughts would be considered by ACL,CCC or Charity, and for much longer than 3 or 4 weeks

anyway that's a ways off .......

disappointing result last night why is it we always manage to find a way to trip up year after year..... just football I guess.... with Rochdale knocking the goals in regularly they will be full of confidence so Saturday will not be easy!

 

[skybluetony176]

I think given the wording in the accounts and on the charge together with other information that repayment of ARVO at least in part revolves around player transfer fees and conversion in to shares of some of the loan there is a connection between the two. Seppala signed the loan agreement as director of ARVO. She also signed the court application for the JR on behalf of ARVO.
The charge is normal business practice for a lender, certainly looks like all the lenders to CCFC are controlled by JS - the source of funds is not clear (ie where ARVO got the money from)
They have set things up so that the club runs within its income means so further funding is probably unlikely - that is why it was important to get back to the Ricoh even on a day rent basis, ticket income alone gives some sort of budget to work with. That leads on to questions about actual "investment" in the team - wont be done if it involves much of a fee at the moment it would seem as no further loans will be forth coming I suspect. It will be done by picking up players out of contract, developing youth players and at some point cashing in on players.

Basically they have parked the old loans in SBS&L but also to some degree parked CCFC. Whilst CCFC has a reasonable L1 income and can meet its payments (including interest on loans) then the pressure is off SISU. If CCFC has some success then all the better because that brings with it more tickets sold, more subsidiary football income like kits & programs, better sponsorship, prize monies, TV monies etc all of which goes direct to the club not anyone else.

Breathing space at the moment for all concerned

Interesting read OSB. Reading between the lines, playing Devils advocate and using a bit of poetic licence I read that to mean that the only reason we're back home at the Ricoh is because they couldn't make the sums add up at Suxfields to keep their investment ticking over. In other words the boycott worked 100%.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Of coarse it worked even Tim admitted he was badly advised and that the attendance at shitfields shocked them.

The same old few will bleat that it was not and that sisu would have ticked over nicely.

Interesting read OSB. Reading between the lines, playing Devils advocate and using a bit of poetic licence I read that to mean that the only reason we're back home at the Ricoh is because they couldn't make the sums add up at Suxfields to keep their investment ticking over. In other words the boycott worked 100%.

 

[Grendel]

Of coarse it worked even Tim admitted he was badly advised and that the attendance at shitfields shocked them.

The same old few will bleat that it was not and that sisu would have ticked over nicely.

The ground was 35 miles away. It was an away game 23 games a week. It's fairly obvious the crowd would be circa 2,500 a week at best.

As for boycotting - most just didn't go as its an away game - and 80% don't go to away games.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

The ground was 35 miles away. It was an away game 23 games a week. It's fairly obvious the crowd would be circa 2,500 a week at best.

As for boycotting - most just didn't go as its an away game - and 80% don't go to away games.

You would acknowledge there was a boycott though? More people went to away games even though on average the games were further away, and cost twice as much to get in.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Couldn't have put it better myself.
But his advisors did say minimum of 3,000 , 6,000 if they played well.

Wonder how much they forked out for those Idiots we told him for free.

You would acknowledge there was a boycott though? More people went to away games even though on average the games were further away, and cost twice as much to get in.

 

[wingy]

Couldn't have put it better myself.
But his advisors did say minimum of 3,000 , 6,000 if they played well.

Wonder how much they forked out for those Idiots we told him for free.

Tims being disingenuous once again .

His own Data produced by Dan Walkers fan Survey suggested 25% of respondents would go to a game away from the City ,In reality It was far worse,It was never going to be 3k and most definitely not 7K.

 

[Kingokings204]

The ground was 35 miles away. It was an away game 23 games a week. It's fairly obvious the crowd would be circa 2,500 a week at best.

As for boycotting - most just didn't go as its an away game - and 80% don't go to away games.

A incorrect post in it's entirety.

As for the first paragraph TF clearly said and believed it would be around 3-7k fans. Him and/or his calculations were severely wrong with gates much less than 2k.

As for the boycott is well and truly happened. Heck I was one of them. I could afford to go and travel wasn't an issue but I still went to a dozen away games. I solely didn't go on moral grounds and principals like many others.

Long story short the boycott worked and if everyone had done it sisu would of been home by Xmas. If 7k turned up liked they predicted then we wouldn't be home now.

 

[skybluetony176]

The ground was 35 miles away. It was an away game 23 games a week. It's fairly obvious the crowd would be circa 2,500 a week at best.

As for boycotting - most just didn't go as its an away game - and 80% don't go to away games.

LOL you wind up merchant. That's up there with SISU wanted to lose the JR.

 

[Kingokings204]

LOL you wind up merchant. That's up there with SISU wanted to lose the JR.

And sisu got us deliberately relegated. That's my personal favourite.

(Not from Grendel just in general)

 

[Seaside-Skyblue]

Forgot to mention, at the Yeovil game in block 21 there was a bible left on the wall...anyone else see this? Thought it was bizarre.

 

[wingy]

Forgot to mention, at the Yeovil game in block 21 there was a bible left on the wall...anyone else see this? Thought it was bizarre.

From the religious convention held there a couple of weeks ago perhaps,or the Bishop when he Blessed the ground.

 

[Astute]

Forgot to mention, at the Yeovil game in block 21 there was a bible left on the wall...anyone else see this? Thought it was bizarre.

That is Joy's book. She is a Christian. She knows nothing about football. She needs something to do whilst attending games.

 

[Astute]

The ground was 35 miles away. It was an away game 23 games a week. It's fairly obvious the crowd would be circa 2,500 a week at best.

As for boycotting - most just didn't go as its an away game - and 80% don't go to away games.

Silly boy.

For me to go to the Ricoh it takes me 4 hours with clear roads. I normally go to Coventry to go to away games so I can get on a coach with the lads......even if I pass where we are playing on the way a lot of the time.

Ricoh.

Time 4 hours.
Ticket £22/£24 if bought before the day. £24/£26 if not.
Car park £10

Northampton

Time 4 hours 30 mins
Ticket £9
Car park free.

A home game is an away game for me. How many away games do we have that are further away if you live in Coventry? How many times did I even consider going to Northampton?

It wasn't the distance. It wasn't the cost. It was my only way of hoping to help bring our club home. It was my only way of having a voice. It was my only way of showing my displeasure of having my club taken away from where it should be.

It was a boycott.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Interesting read OSB. Reading between the lines, playing Devils advocate and using a bit of poetic licence I read that to mean that the only reason we're back home at the Ricoh is because they couldn't make the sums add up at Suxfields to keep their investment ticking over. In other words the boycott worked 100%.

It is one way of reading it yes. Not the only way though

The boycott contributed certainly majorly, but so did other things like losing court cases that they expected to win, the fact they didn't bounce back to the Championship, the fact that ACL/Charity /CCC didn't simply roll over, the bad publicity, the fact that plans can change, events make changes, pressure from fans groups, MP's and even the FL, the marches and their coverage, the fact that you maximise what you can get at the time you can get it when parts of a plan don't work, etc ..... the list goes on................. The objective for SISU remains and hasn't changed though.

We do not know if the plan was actually to go for one year with the expectation of coming back in a far better position than they are now in, just because they got allowed 3 years at Sixfields doesn't mean that they intended to stay 3 years - I suspect there were far shorter break clauses in the agreement with Mr Cardoza. Yes I know what was said but we all know things are said but somehow reality is different

In saying all that I am not belittling the effect of the fans boycott - it was important, especially to the fans and their unity. However it wasn't the only reason for coming back but it may certainly have been the straw that broke the camels back to force a return. It may also be something that SISU can use at some point in the future to point as to why a deal with them on ownership should be done.

Just a personal opinion but I am glad you referred to it as a boycott, my own take is that for most it was more about "I am not going there" which in turn affects income, rather than NOPM. There is a difference. But others will see it differently I know- that chapter is pretty much behind us now for most supporters in any case.

one way or another we are back and most are content with that. Would be a shame to let that fans unity and perceived power go to waste though wouldn't it.

 

[Grendel]

Silly boy.

For me to go to the Ricoh it takes me 4 hours with clear roads. I normally go to Coventry to go to away games so I can get on a coach with the lads......even if I pass where we are playing on the way a lot of the time.

Ricoh.

Time 4 hours.
Ticket £22/£24 if bought before the day. £24/£26 if not.
Car park £10

Northampton

Time 4 hours 30 mins
Ticket £9
Car park free.

A home game is an away game for me. How many away games do we have that are further away if you live in Coventry? How many times did I even consider going to Northampton?

It wasn't the distance. It wasn't the cost. It was my only way of hoping to help bring our club home. It was my only way of having a voice. It was my only way of showing my displeasure of having my club taken away from where it should be.

It was a boycott.

So if we played in Carlisle every game the same people would have gone?

If the was a league ground at Warwick university the same would have gone?

Yes of course they would

 

[Moff]

That is Joy's book. She is a Christian. She knows nothing about football. She needs something to do whilst attending games.

I thought she liked to amuse herself by playing 'Where's Wally' or her version 'Wheres Fisher'

Apparently though it wasn't very good at he was often found sitting on the naughty seat near her, as he couldn't be sent anywhere else in the ground apart from the safety of the Directors box, as he would most likely not come back in one piece.

 

[skybluetony176]

So if we played in Carlisle every game the same people would have gone?

If the was a league ground at Warwick university the same would have gone?

Yes of course they would

If you're going to fabricate a ridiculous would never happen in a million years scenario why stop at Carlisle. Do it with style at least. I think you should have gone for Outer Mongolia.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

It is one way of reading it yes. Not the only way though

The boycott contributed certainly majorly, but so did other things like losing court cases that they expected to win, the fact they didn't bounce back to the Championship, the fact that ACL/Charity /CCC didn't simply roll over, the bad publicity, the fact that plans can change, events make changes, pressure from fans groups, MP's and even the FL, the marches and their coverage, the fact that you maximise what you can get at the time you can get it when parts of a plan don't work, etc ..... the list goes on................. The objective for SISU remains and hasn't changed though.

We do not know if the plan was actually to go for one year with the expectation of coming back in a far better position than they are now in, just because they got allowed 3 years at Sixfields doesn't mean that they intended to stay 3 years - I suspect there were far shorter break clauses in the agreement with Mr Cardoza. Yes I know what was said but we all know things are said but somehow reality is different

In saying all that I am not belittling the effect of the fans boycott - it was important, especially to the fans and their unity. However it wasn't the only reason for coming back but it may certainly have been the straw that broke the camels back to force a return. It may also be something that SISU can use at some point in the future to point as to why a deal with them on ownership should be done.

Just a personal opinion but I am glad you referred to it as a boycott, my own take is that for most it was more about "I am not going there" which in turn affects income, rather than NOPM. There is a difference. But others will see it differently I know- that chapter is pretty much behind us now for most supporters in any case.

one way or another we are back and most are content with that. Would be a shame to let that fans unity and perceived power go to waste though wouldn't it.

It has become a distinct chapter in the club's history when everyone's support was tested to the utmost. Whilst the low crowds weren't the only reason they had to give in, it would've been made easier for them to stay had we sold out Sixfields every week and it is a warming example of fan power. Probably couldn't happen at the elite level where clubs earn huge amounts from other sources but in League 1 ticket money is a substantial part of any club's budget (I assume).

We're all glad it's over but it will last long in the memory I think.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

It has become a distinct chapter in the club's history when everyone's support was tested to the utmost. Whilst the low crowds weren't the only reason they had to give in, it would've been made easier for them to stay had we sold out Sixfields every week and it is a warming example of fan power. Probably couldn't happen at the elite level where clubs earn huge amounts from other sources but in League 1 ticket money is a substantial part of any club's budget (I assume).

We're all glad it's over but it will last long in the memory I think.

I still disagree with this fundamentally. It doesn't take into account the full and open knowledge of making a loss, the bonus of Arsenal income, the bonus of Wilson income.

In the grand scheme of things the difference between 2,000 fans at Sixfields and 3,000 or 4,000 is negligible and pointless.

However, it serves a certain rhetorical position to claim a boycott forced SISU's hand.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Yes but how much bigger would those bonuses have been if they had stayed at the Ricoh?

KCIC kicked ass no doubt about it well done all those that stayed away.

I still disagree with this fundamentally. It doesn't take into account the full and open knowledge of making a loss, the bonus of Arsenal income, the bonus of Wilson income.

In the grand scheme of things the difference between 2,000 fans at Sixfields and 3,000 or 4,000 is negligible and pointless.

However, it serves a certain rhetorical position to claim a boycott forced SISU's hand.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Yes but how much bigger would those bonuses have been if they had stayed at the Ricoh?

KCIC kicked ass no doubt about it well done all those that stayed away.

Plenty of doubt...