sisu: 1 week till we hear the truth (1 Viewer)

[bigfatronssba]

And if they had still fed ACL the council would have done nothing to try and change them. They would have been "good" owners.

On the other hand if they were top of a league with a good policy on recruitment but stopped paying the over blown rent the council would want them out to bring in a "good" owner - one like sisu when they paid the bills.

Well that's an interesting theory. It is worth remembering however that the first significant "sisu out" protests from the fans was a good 6 months before the rent strike started. Are you saying that John Mutton at this point wasn't chanting "sisu out" along with the rest of the fans?

 

---

[Grendel]

Well that's an interesting theory. It is worth remembering however that the first significant "sisu out" protests from the fans was a good 6 months before the rent strike started. Are you saying that John Mutton at this point wasn't chanting "sisu out" along with the rest of the fans?

If he was then it would have been as a fan not a councillor it would have been a gesture akin to politicians picking up baby's and going to NHs hospitals for a week - and I never saw him do any chanting.

 

[sky blue john]

They stopped stuffing ACL with money

They have stopped giving money to Acl so what's the problem ???
Sisu have moved on maybe you haven't ??
Any chance you can justify on Sisu's behalf the 70 million debt that CCFC is in ??

 

[shmmeee]

Before Grendel jumped in with his trolling, the point made was a valid one. The majority will see nothing wrong if what Sisu claim is true as the majority want Sisu out. This might not be the PR coup they think, I think it really is beyond repair for them in terms of PR.

Before you waffle again G, remember that this is about what the majority feel/think, not what is right or wrong in your opinion.

 

[Grendel]

They have stopped giving money to Acl so what's the problem ???
Sisu have moved on maybe you haven't ??
Any chance you can justify on Sisu's behalf the 70 million debt that CCFC is in ??

Everything relates to performance on the pitch. Fans wouldn't care if the debt was £300 million if they were top of the league.

 

[torchomatic]

Here's the thing. SISU should have done due diligence we all agree that and it's mentioned on here daily. However, people tend to forget that SISU were the Council's preferred bidder, so all sides fucked up.

If the council saw an opportunity to oust sisu, bring in new owners, and unite the club and stadium ownership together, then shouldn't we be grateful to them for trying to do that?

 

[bigfatronssba]

Here's the thing. SISU should have done due diligence we all agree that and it's mentioned on here daily. However, people tend to forget that SISU were the Council's preferred bidder, so all sides fucked up.

I don't disagree with that, and my criticisms of the council are that for a long time they took the easy options for short term popularity rather than what was the long term good.

 

[Grendel]

Before Grendel jumped in with his trolling, the point made was a valid one. The majority will see nothing wrong if what Sisu claim is true as the majority want Sisu out. This might not be the PR coup they think, I think it really is beyond repair for them in terms of PR.

Before you waffle again G, remember that this is about what the majority feel/think, not what is right or wrong in your opinion.

Trolling? Hilarious given your antics on here of late.

The actual point was should the council be involved in who is a fit and proper owner of a football club. Given its own failings and incompetence on management selection in areas far more important that football that's a no from me and I suspect the majority of fans.

I would suggest you do a poll and ask what people want first

A return to Coventry

OR

New owners selected by the council.

I think you'd be disappointed with the answer.

 

[sky blue john]

Everything relates to performance on the pitch. Fans wouldn't care if the debt was £300 million if they were top of the league.

So your saying pro rata league position 70 million debt is ok ???

 

[chiefdave]

I'm not sure that it will be quite the black and white answer people are expecting. For a start we're dealing with the legal technicalities of something here so you could end up with a verdict going one way on a technicality where all the evidence presented indicates that morally, for want of a better word, it should go the other way. People will have to be careful to separate what is something that they don't think should have happened from things that have been done that breach any regulations or laws.

My hope is that everything presented at the case is made available publically. Didn't seem to happen with the recent Higgs v SISU case where only documents relating to the SISU side seemed to make their way into the public domain.

Don't think the JR will really solve anything but hopefully it will be the catalyst for everyone getting back round the table and entering into some serious negotiations.

In my opinion a council 'victory' may be the best for a quick return to the Ricoh, SISU will be out of options then so unless they are going to build a new ground they will need to either bring us back to the Ricoh or sell the club to someone who will. I feel a SISU 'victory' may prolong things as winning the case doesn't give them anything tangible so would likely lead to further action.

 

[Hobo]

Everything relates to performance on the pitch. Fans wouldn't care if the debt was £300 million if they were top of the league.

That is your opinion rather than mine.

 

[sky blue john]

Trolling? Hilarious given your antics on here of late.

The actual point was should the council be involved in who is a fit and proper owner of a football club. Given its own failings and incompetence on management selection in areas far more important that football that's a no from me and I suspect the majority of fans.

I would suggest you do a poll and ask what people want first

A return to Coventry

OR

New owners selected by the council.

I think you'd be disappointed with the answer.

Lol !!!
What's wrong with wanting both ???

 

[chiefdave]

Everything relates to performance on the pitch. Fans wouldn't care if the debt was £300 million if they were top of the league.

I think for a large section of the fanbase you are correct, although you'd hope with everything we've been through in the future we'd be wary of overspending. Most football fans don't have an interest in the finances, they want to turn up every week, pay their money and see a team that is competitive. In a way you can't blame them, we shouldn't have to be the ones checking everything adds up, the owners of the clubs and the authorities should have a handle on this but as we have seen over and over again they don't.

Portsmouth is the shining example of this, admin after admin yet a large section of their fanbase even now calls for more money, that they haven't got, to be spent to ensure promotion.

 

[duffer]

No, it won't determine whether the council acted in a conspiracy against SISU, it'll determine whether their loan to ACL followed the rules or not.

In truth a large part of SISU's argument isn't just about the state-aid, it's about it being used in a way to damage them. Of course, the Judge is only obliged to address the points he sees relevant in law, but it's surprising how wide that can go (if you use the Higgs case as an example).

Regardless - the conspiracy point is moot, to my mind. If SISU had paid the rent there was no scope for them being ousted as owners by the Council, Higgs. PH4, ACL or any combination of the above.

 

[Grendel]

That is your opinion rather than mine.

So you support a strategy of keeping in a budget even if that means selling key performing players?

 

[Hobo]

Here's the thing. SISU should have done due diligence we all agree that and it's mentioned on here daily. However, people tend to forget that SISU were the Council's preferred bidder, so all sides fucked up.

And like lots of fans, including me we thought why not give them a go. Despite some concerns, I hoped they would bring some financial sanity to the club and get things back on track. Unfortunately the concerns I had were justified.

We won't move forward until they are gone. Even then I think it is a long way back from where they have took us.

 

[Astute]

Here's the thing. SISU should have done due diligence we all agree that and it's mentioned on here daily. However, people tend to forget that SISU were the Council's preferred bidder, so all sides fucked up.

All sides fucked up I agree. But what difference did it make if CCC did prefer that SISU took over? Just the same amount of difference it makes that they don't want them at the club now. Just about the same difference it makes that nobody wants them at the club now including SISU. They are still with us as they need to get money back. They need to save face.

The biggest fuck up CCC ever did was to get the Ricoh built. It was done with a debt on the arena. The tax payer was never going to pay for it. Our football club was going to have to pay for it. But our club was already in the shit. Average players at best on big wages saw to this. Relegation out of the Prem made a bad situation a nightmare scenario. But if they never got the arena built our club could have been finished as we know it. Many millions in debt and nowhere to play as HR had been sold by then.

 

[Jack Griffin]

And like lots of fans, including me we thought why not give them a go. Despite some concerns, I hoped they would bring some financial sanity to the club and get things back on track. Unfortunately the concerns I had were justified.

We won't move forward until they are gone. Even then I think it is a long way back from where they have took us.

Yeah, complete failure on every front. They couldn't even overspend for success properly *

* Not an endorsement of a policy of overspending.

 

[Hobo]

So you support a strategy of keeping in a budget even if that means selling key performing players?

Yes, never said anything different. Every club in the world is a selling club. But that doesn't necessarily advocate selling at the first opportunity or not trying to hang on to key players. I don't advocate under selling. Also reinvestment in playing stock is key, there has to be a balance.

 

[chiefdave]

So you support a strategy of keeping in a budget even if that means selling key performing players?

Its a very fine balance. The problem you have is we can't operate in a bubble. If other clubs are overspending and we are working to break even how do we ever field a competitive team? We possibly could in L1 if we were back at the Ricoh as we'd have bigger crowds than most other teams but if and when back in the championship what do you do? I doubt the majority of the fanbase are going to be happy with hovering around mid table for years, they will want to push for a PL spot. How do you achieve that without overspending when everyone else is?

There's also a question these days of how far can you get. Look at Southampton, they've had a lot of money pumped in by an owner who has stated their aim is regular champions league football but look what's happening now. One good season and their squad is being torn apart as bigger clubs come in and pick off who they want. How likely are they to be able to perform as well next season with the players that stay?

 

[Astute]

So you support a strategy of keeping in a budget even if that means selling key performing players?

If a big enough offer comes in for a player then there is always a chance he will be sold. I don't have a problem with this. It is a fact of life. The problem I have is when these players are not properly replaced. This is what has happened for the last few years. Look where it has got us.

 

[torchomatic]

Maybe the council should have done some due diligence and found out what kind of company they were dealing with? What do you reckon?

All sides fucked up I agree. But what difference did it make if CCC did prefer that SISU took over? Just the same amount of difference it makes that they don't want them at the club now. Just about the same difference it makes that nobody wants them at the club now including SISU. They are still with us as they need to get money back. They need to save face.

The biggest fuck up CCC ever did was to get the Ricoh built. It was done with a debt on the arena. The tax payer was never going to pay for it. Our football club was going to have to pay for it. But our club was already in the shit. Average players at best on big wages saw to this. Relegation out of the Prem made a bad situation a nightmare scenario. But if they never got the arena built our club could have been finished as we know it. Many millions in debt and nowhere to play as HR had been sold by then.

 

[Houdi]

Its a very fine balance. The problem you have is we can't operate in a bubble. If other clubs are overspending and we are working to break even how do we ever field a competitive team? We possibly could in L1 if we were back at the Ricoh as we'd have bigger crowds than most other teams but if and when back in the championship what do you do? I doubt the majority of the fanbase are going to be happy with hovering around mid table for years, they will want to push for a PL spot. How do you achieve that without overspending when everyone else is?

There's also a question these days of how far can you get. Look at Southampton, they've had a lot of money pumped in by an owner who has stated their aim is regular champions league football but look what's happening now. One good season and their squad is being torn apart as bigger clubs come in and pick off who they want. How likely are they to be able to perform as well next season with the players that stay?

The pre-occupation in any sport,is not what you are spending,but what you are buying. We paid Wolves 6 times as much for Robbie Keane, as we did for Freddie Eastwood. I doubt if there is any City fan alive who doesn't think Keane wasn't better value for money even though he cost us 6 times as much. It reminds me what I was once told,re buying shares on the stock market, just remember in every transaction, either the buyer or the seller is making a mistake. The same is generally true with buying and selling football players. The great skill is finding someone who gets in right more than they get it wrong.

 

[shmmeee]

Trolling? Hilarious given your antics on here of late.

The actual point was should the council be involved in who is a fit and proper owner of a football club. Given its own failings and incompetence on management selection in areas far more important that football that's a no from me and I suspect the majority of fans.

I would suggest you do a poll and ask what people want first

A return to Coventry

OR

New owners selected by the council.

I think you'd be disappointed with the answer.

You think they'd select new owners? That would disappoint me. I thought most wanted us back in Cov (apart from the odd one that ones us in Nuneaton).

No. The discussion was about PR and whether the JR will turn the tide. The point made was that it seems that for most Sisu are seen as so bad that a conspiracy to kick them out (if that is what occurred) isn't that bad a crime.

You, as always, ignored that and went off on one of your pet topics, again. And that's trolling.

 

[Grendel]

Similar to my thoughts.

Whilst the council might yet be found guilty of breaking state aid rules, surely we should congratulate their motives?

We all agree that sisu are unsuitable owners of the club. No fans like sisu apparently.

If the council saw an opportunity to oust sisu, bring in new owners, and unite the club and stadium ownership together, then shouldn't we be grateful to them for trying to do that?

Agreed.
My thoughts also.

Buster, Ron, exactly. Hit the nail on the head.

You think they'd select new owners? That would disappoint me. I thought most wanted us back in Cov (apart from the odd one that ones us in Nuneaton).

No. The discussion was about PR and whether the JR will turn the tide. The point made was that it seems that for most Sisu are seen as so bad that a conspiracy to kick them out (if that is what occurred) isn't that bad a crime.

You, as always, ignored that and went off on one of your pet topics, again. And that's trolling.

You were saying?

 

[Astute]

Maybe the council should have done some due diligence and found out what kind of company they were dealing with? What do you reckon?

Do you mean as in CCFC?

Everyone knew that things were bad at the time. And as we all know a lot of discussions occurred. There was the escrow fund, Rent liabilities and our income was much higher at that time. The problem was our outgoings were astronomical. It would have been much better if they only got a stadium built. They wouldn't have needed a loan then although the rest of it went with the rejuvenating of the area and making jobs.

Oh for hindsight

 

[RegTheDonk]

So you support a strategy of keeping in a budget even if that means selling key performing players?

Was that not one of the reasons we got into this mess? Selling talent when they could have invested and had a real go at getting into the Prem?

Keeping in a budget is great. We are still apparently £70m in the red according to SISU's estimates and looking at League 1 survival next year.

 

[Gary.j]

RoboCCFC90, me and a couple of others are having a drink at the City Arms Fri 13 June to shoot the breeze while watching Sp v NL. If RoboCCFC90 doesn't mind, anyone else would be welcome too??

I can't make that date but, tbh, wouldn't it be best to discuss things without other distractions?

 

[No future with SISU]

Trolling? Hilarious given your antics on here of late.

The actual point was should the council be involved in who is a fit and proper owner of a football club. Given its own failings and incompetence on management selection in areas far more important that football that's a no from me and I suspect the majority of fans.

I would suggest you do a poll and ask what people want first

A return to Coventry

OR

New owners selected by the council.

I think you'd be disappointed with the answer.

If you ask the supporters it would be a return to the Ricoh, but if you asked the people it might be a different answer and as the council are answerable to the people they have to support the people.

 

[Grendel]

If you ask the supporters it would be a return to the Ricoh, but if you asked the people it might be a different answer and as the council are answerable to the people they have to support the people.

The people wouldn't care less either way. Do you seriously think the average Coventry citizen has any interest in what happens?

 

[Hobo]

The people wouldn't care less either way. Do you seriously think the average Coventry citizen has any interest in what happens?

The majority voting was for Anne Lucas not Rob S....and even across other wards nothing really changed. All councillors across the parties seem to stand together on this one.

Nikki Sinclair made a few noises then lost interest, seems like the voters have lost interest in her.

 

[sky blue john]

The people wouldn't care less either way. Do you seriously think the average Coventry citizen has any interest in what happens?

Lol !!!
It makes me laugh how all your posts assume that you know what everyone else is thinking !!!

 

[Grendel]

The majority voting was for Anne Lucas not Rob S....and even across other wards nothing really changed. All councillors across the parties seem to stand together on this one.

Nikki Sinclair made a few noises then lost interest, seems like the voters have lost interest in her.

Hold on - to suggest the election was purely about the ricoh is absurd.

However if you are then you've defeated yourself as the majority didn't vote (I.e don't care)

 

[Grendel]

Lol !!!
It makes me laugh how all your posts assume that you know what everyone else is thinking !!!

People care about council tax, local services and their day to day lives. Not a football ground.

 

[Hobo]

Hold on - to suggest the election was purely about the ricoh is absurd.

However if you are then you've defeated yourself as the majority didn't vote (I.e don't care)

I never said the election was about the Ricoh and nothing else, that is your interpretation. However a candidate did try to make it an issue of it. I was making the point nothing really changed in the voting pattern.

I haven't defeated myself at all, as the no voters in Coventry are a similar proportion to the rest of the country. So nothing abnormal there.

People don't vote for all sorts of reasons, "don't care" isn't always the reason. Some don't believe in the system, some feel no one really represents them, the list can go on.