D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
You as in the generalised you
I could have used one, but then we start risking taking part in a Freddie Starr sketch.
where have I been angry? see quote #82 and #85
They're part of the machine itself so I wouldn't really count them as you can basically just fob off anything they say right off the bat. Segregating people into little groups is what cements divides, and it happens far too frequently here.
You've omitted some slight issues here -
The club has never managed to charge more than £10 per ticket at the Ricoh
Vat national insurance and income tax
Loan interest
Rent at £400,000 including match day costs
Payments to police, stewards, St. John's etc
Payments to agents
One Player will be receiving £400,000 next season alone
The small fact the club made a collosal loss in its first season at the Ricoh despite averaging 20,000
Back to school I'm afraid
This thread probably got the response that Michael wanted to be honest.
I think people need to read the mailout again. Forget your agenda, forget your views of KCIC, Michael, sisu and Acl. Read it as a neutral.......
It may be more "anti-sisu" (people are so fucking obsessed with that) than other mailouts but ultimately sisu haven't been good owners.
ah, he's finally arrived to nit pickas I said, loose figures. if only we could have some real figures to look at?
You are right - but have any of our owners since early 90's been any good?
And given the fact as fans we can't agree on anything - I don't think we would actually do a very good job running a football club.
completely agree, but surely I can give my own opinion on why we should not be where we are? which is what I've done on this thread have I not?
You've omitted some slight issues here -
The club has never managed to charge more than £10 per ticket at the Ricoh
Vat national insurance and income tax
Loan interest
Rent at £400,000 including match day costs
Payments to police, stewards, St. John's etc
Payments to agents
One Player will be receiving £400,000 next season alone
The small fact the club made a collosal loss in its first season at the Ricoh despite averaging 20,000
Back to school I'm afraid
The figures are just wrong. You assumed 50% more match day revenue then we've ever generated at the Ricoh.
If you present a scenario at least make an effort with research rather than a lazy stab where the main figure is hopelessly out.
You've omitted some slight issues here -
The club has never managed to charge more than £10 per ticket at the Ricoh
Vat national insurance and income tax
Loan interest
Rent at £400,000 including match day costs
Payments to police, stewards, St. John's etc
Payments to agents
One Player will be receiving £400,000 next season alone
The small fact the club made a collosal loss in its first season at the Ricoh despite averaging 20,000
Back to school I'm afraid
also, maybe reading wasn't your strong point? I suggest you read my post again
I've highlighted your points I think you need to compare to my post for you
all the points you made that I haven't highlighted are still covered by my "simple calculation" as I knew you'd be along soon
So change that for Northampton and what do we get then?
less then £5.00 / person/game x average 2000 supporters :thinking about:Arrr much better I take it and as for next season well who knows....
You've omitted some slight issues here -
The club has never managed to charge more than £10 per ticket at the Ricoh
Vat national insurance and income tax
Loan interest
Rent at £400,000 including match day costs
Payments to police, stewards, St. John's etc
Payments to agents
One Player will be receiving £400,000 next season alone
The small fact the club made a collosal loss in its first season at the Ricoh despite averaging 20,000
Back to school I'm afraid
I have read it - it was lazy and wrong. To blithely claim "other" costs and revenues will balance is embarrasing. Go and study the accounts and work the revenues and costs rather than make absurd and lazy assumptions. It does you no credit.
If this is the stance from KCIC then I'm afraid they have lost all credibility as a supporters group aiming to find a solution to all this.
If this is the stance from KCIC then I'm afraid they have lost all credibility as a supporters group aiming to find a solution to all this.
Do you ever consider your own agenda? You have just basically agreed that our current owners are not very good. Now KCIC has lost all credibility because they have said the owners are not very good??
KCIC's agenda is a little something like this:
People that are entitled to a return on their investment: Higgs, ACL, CCC
People that are NOT entitled to a return on their investment: SISU
People that must give away their interest in CCFC/Ricoh for free: SISU
People who must NOT give away their interest in CCFC/Ricoh for free: Higgs, ACL, CCC
Their approach is inconsistent. Hence my comment.
KCIC's agenda is a little something like this:
People that are entitled to a return on their investment: Higgs, ACL, CCC
People that are NOT entitled to a return on their investment: SISU
People that must give away their interest in CCFC/Ricoh for free: SISU
People who must NOT give away their interest in CCFC/Ricoh for free: Higgs, ACL, CCC
Their approach is inconsistent. Hence my comment.
I don't understand the confusion. The statement simply says
Sisu are not good owners, well someone has to say it.
It's 100% true and factual for that matter. It isn't opinion. I don't think relegation, numerous managers, resorting to academy 16 year olds, huge debts, 35 miles away in Northampton and many other facts.
My only issue is it's so obvious to state that I may start a thread titled I would like a million pounds.
Obvious but keep it up as I for one appreciate the hard work.
I think the issue people have is that it says "SISU are bad owners, and that is bad" but it doesn't follow that with "and don't get me started about the damned council!" people just assume that because it doesn't say the later it means you are some pro council anti-christ! Some people can't see the wood for the trees.
To be fair, the views of many posters on here (including me!) have been stated many times - the point I was interested on seeing responses to on here was 'suggestions for a better, realistic, feasible way of building a positive future that puts the team and fans first'. thx
To be fair, the views of many posters on here (including me!) have been stated many times - the point I was interested on seeing responses to on here was 'suggestions for a better, realistic, feasible way of building a positive future that puts the team and fans first'. thx
Lost me on point one...
"priority is its own profits, not the team and fans"
Tell me ONE owner that is in it for the team or fans??? They are only in it for themselves! Human nature. We only support the club for the success factor...err or the vain hope of success...or the love of moaning about our lot...or self loathing
PUSB
with due regard, you only have to look at the list of CEO's or persons who have been running the ship,
& therefore to draw a reasoned conclusion,
Clouting, Brody, Clarke, Dulieu, Igwe, & Fisher etc.,
there are probably a few more,.............................
if you employ people not fit for the job then what will happen ?
any business that ignores & abuses it's customers is not going to be viable,
imho, of course,
i'm amazed that a supposed astute business person in JS,
has placed faith in such a bunch of persons NOT suited to football
Except Higgs and CCC - they have a divine right to get a return on their investment.
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?