torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
The entire thing comes across better than the excerpt in the telegraph (no offence Simon). The trouble is it's a bit late in the day for this.
Joy, how can you equate 'at the centre of the community' with 'in the Coventry area'?
There are so many inaccuracies here, but the most glaring one to me is the '...continued to fund losses driven by the costs of occupying the Ricoh...' - Ricoh rent = £1.3m while players/staff wages = over £11m in 2008.
The Ricoh freehold was never available, only the Higgs 50% share in ACL - what makes you think you can acquire the Ricoh when nobody trusts your motives?
Also I've never understood this simple fact: if you can afford to fund losses of £7m last year (which will surely rise the longer we have gates of 2000 in Northampton), why couldn't you keep Scott Dann and Danny Fox? In other words why didn't you stick to your business model: create a young dynamic team that would get promoted from the Championship and reap the subsequent financial benefits?
Just what are you gaining from playing at Sixfields other than trying to distress ACL, Higgs, CCC and CCFC itself!!??
Truly one of most amazing times to be a Coventry City fan. I'm so excited about the future.
Does the club wrecker even know where coventry is?
Best get on your knees and pray joy? your gonna need all the help you can get for wrecking a citys football club and for tearing the heart out of our community.
I hope your god is forgiving because we ain't...
I do tend to agree with this sentiment and one shared by so many but perhaps in simple terms if you were in their shoes what would you have done differently? Just accept whatever the council/ACL required you to do? Go on paying 1.2m plus match day cost for renting the pitch 23 times? Etc etc.
They made a stance and while that stance has at times been debatable with the way they approached it the message has been made clear.
My problem is that given the same circumstances with any owner of the football club they too would have made similar choices in the end.
Whatever the council feel they must know that any future owner of the club will require the stadium?
I don't for the life of me see why a long lease could not equate as good as any freehold but have the council ever offered a route to this? Their offers have always been short term holding sway over the football club that the community they serve and represent lies.
I'm sorry folks I really despise this SISU lot as much as the next man but our council as owners of the Ricoh have shown contempt towards our club and community and for that they almost seem as bad as SISU.
"that money we must be used"?
"manacled by multiplicity of diverse interests"?
Whatever your view of the politics of the situation it's pretty pathetic that they couldn't even be bothered to copy edit the keynote end of season address.
The "unencumbered freehold" is just rhetoric. A means to an end. If they were ever given the nod to a 125 year lease of the complex then you would see their tune change. If it didn't then Sep would need to be put in the asylum. With a 125 year lease they have all they need to sell on, invest, borrow etc.
The "unencumbered freehold" is just rhetoric. A means to an end. If they were ever given the nod to a 125 year lease of the complex then you would see their tune change. If it didn't then Sep would need to be put in the asylum. With a 125 year lease they have all they need to sell on, invest, borrow etc.
The "unencumbered freehold" is just rhetoric. A means to an end. If they were ever given the nod to a 125 year lease of the complex then you would see their tune change. If it didn't then Sep would need to be put in the asylum. With a 125 year lease they have all they need to sell on, invest, borrow etc.
The "unencumbered freehold" is just rhetoric. A means to an end. If they were ever given the nod to a 125 year lease of the complex then you would see their tune change. If it didn't then Sep would need to be put in the asylum. With a 125 year lease they have all they need to sell on, invest, borrow etc.
With Seppalas "absurd to build a new stadium" quote, is she close to admitting that there will be no new stadium?
This businesswoman is so astute
If they paid the full value for the lease/stadium how would this mean they would sell on. Surely this doesn't get their investors money back?
With Seppalas "absurd to build a new stadium" quote, is she close to admitting that there will be no new stadium?
I hope not - there may only be me and possibly RFC who believe in the new stadium but we may never come back to Coventry under Sisu without it.
I do tend to agree with this sentiment and one shared by so many but perhaps in simple terms if you were in their shoes what would you have done differently? Just accept whatever the council/ACL required you to do? Go on paying 1.2m plus match day cost for renting the pitch 23 times? Etc etc.
They made a stance and while that stance has at times been debatable with the way they approached it the message has been made clear.
My problem is that given the same circumstances with any owner of the football club they too would have made similar choices in the end.
Whatever the council feel they must know that any future owner of the club will require the stadium?
I don't for the life of me see why a long lease could not equate as good as any freehold but have the council ever offered a route to this? Their offers have always been short term holding sway over the football club that the community they serve and represent lies.
I'm sorry folks I really despise this SISU lot as much as the next man but our council as owners of the Ricoh have shown contempt towards our club and community and for that they almost seem as bad as SISU.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?