sisu are not good for our club - well someone's got to say it! (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter MichaelCCFC
- Start date
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
And why not just a simple blasted slogan that it's about Coventry Homes?
Look, I can accept I'm no great fan of SISU(!) nor of the likes of them, the Glazers... even Joe Lewis at Spurs etc. rocking up at football clubs. In an ideal world then yes, SISU OUT!
NOT however a vague and woolly desire foir fan ownership, when fan ownership fails in this country because the overall setup doesn't support it.
And if SISU are indeed OUT! then I want some reasonable plan that doesn't involve the failures of the past back IN because that makes it simpler for the council. Why not also couple it and demand that the club becomes more central, not a sideshow in the slightest? Why not insist that talk of moving on wrt the Ricoh is shelved? Why not insist the club stop this ballbag nonsense of a new stadium... but also insist that the council should have no desire to move on from a football team, and should be resolving to make the football club central in its football stadium - let's get rid of this talk of urban regeneration and start talking of the social regeneration of a club in its community.
Why not also accept that it can be SISU IN! and Council IN! if all is resolved in a form that is acceptable?
'Ah, but we have Rob S for the council side!' will come the cry.
Well... maybe we do, but it seems we end up with 47 Peoples Fronts of Judea, with mixed messages coming out week by week so I have no bloody clue if I should be nodding sagely as I stroke my beard and smoke my pipe, or if I should be whipping my Mr. Shouty costume out from its dusty corner in the attic!
And to add...
The Arsenal Why When thingy worked far better than I feared it would, the petition was a good idea (if stalled now, but I still think it was a decent idea in principle), I don't even mind the sponsoring of Sphinx.
But what gets the attention and more mainstream support is when it's less RAWRRRR!
It's like, do Labour or the Socialist Workers, Tories or UKIP get more support? They may have elements in common, but the extreme factions get written off as mentalists, even if what they say is true!
Look, I can accept I'm no great fan of SISU(!) nor of the likes of them, the Glazers... even Joe Lewis at Spurs etc. rocking up at football clubs. In an ideal world then yes, SISU OUT!
NOT however a vague and woolly desire foir fan ownership, when fan ownership fails in this country because the overall setup doesn't support it.
And if SISU are indeed OUT! then I want some reasonable plan that doesn't involve the failures of the past back IN because that makes it simpler for the council. Why not also couple it and demand that the club becomes more central, not a sideshow in the slightest? Why not insist that talk of moving on wrt the Ricoh is shelved? Why not insist the club stop this ballbag nonsense of a new stadium... but also insist that the council should have no desire to move on from a football team, and should be resolving to make the football club central in its football stadium - let's get rid of this talk of urban regeneration and start talking of the social regeneration of a club in its community.
Why not also accept that it can be SISU IN! and Council IN! if all is resolved in a form that is acceptable?
'Ah, but we have Rob S for the council side!' will come the cry.
Well... maybe we do, but it seems we end up with 47 Peoples Fronts of Judea, with mixed messages coming out week by week so I have no bloody clue if I should be nodding sagely as I stroke my beard and smoke my pipe, or if I should be whipping my Mr. Shouty costume out from its dusty corner in the attic!
And to add...
The Arsenal Why When thingy worked far better than I feared it would, the petition was a good idea (if stalled now, but I still think it was a decent idea in principle), I don't even mind the sponsoring of Sphinx.
But what gets the attention and more mainstream support is when it's less RAWRRRR!
It's like, do Labour or the Socialist Workers, Tories or UKIP get more support? They may have elements in common, but the extreme factions get written off as mentalists, even if what they say is true!
Last edited by a moderator:
MichaelCCFC
New Member
You say you want sisu out (and I assume you agree sisu are bad for ccfc) but then you seem to argue in favour of them staying???
MichaelCCFC
New Member
I made a perfectly polite post with a reasonable question. Why do you reply like this?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I don't in the slightest, but it doesn't fit today's tunnel vision, does it.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I fail to see why his reply wasn't deemed polite.
Look if the national front made their manifesto headline "free beer for ever" I dare say many people would 100% agree with the headline.
99.9% will then not agree with the content below the headline. I'm struggling to see why this is difficult to grasp.
Nick
Administrator
Like what? I was only asking questions. Why would anybody support a slogan or theme? Surely it is the actual actions / content that would be supported rather than a slogan?
Sorry if you thought it was not polite. It wasn't meant in an un-polite manner.
MichaelCCFC
New Member
I really would be grateful if you would set out your vision please rather than put downs/insults.
MichaelCCFC
New Member
So what's your alternative?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I try, and then it gets reduced back to 'I assume you agree that SISU are not good for CCFC'!
So what's the point if it's just going to keep bashing that over and over?!?
For that matter, I just pumped out a lengthy tedious post about where I'd position a campaign, so what more do you want other than YES, SISU ARE BAD!'
Nick
Administrator
I can't see any put downs or insults?
People spend time replying just for people to ask the same question over and over so it can be said that everybody agrees and you are right.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
How about finding a solution where CCFC return to the Ricoh and some kind of working relationship is established between the parties, so that CCFC is on a sound financial footing.
Isn't that your mantra?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I 100% agree with "free beer for all" should I vote National Front?
Bennets Afro
Well-Known Member
Michael it looks like your new slogan is "SISU OUT" so why not run with that?
lewys33
Well-Known Member
I'm not going to read back through this thread, but from what I remember yesterday it would probably be a lot better being constructive in your criticism. Rather than saying "na, Michael's lost all credibility" etc etc.
I for one mostly agree with what Michael has put, however I don't believe it is feasible. That doesn't mean he has "lost it". Surely we would all want a fan owned club making millions? Realistically though it isn't going to happen, and it doesn't look like there are any buyers out there stepping up so for now we have to work with what we have got.
Surely the best way for this mess to be sorted is if we (the fans) club together and reason with each other first. Everyone has differing opinions but surely we all can (mostly) agree on a few things? This reminds me of the lads on the shop floor at our place. Too busy shitting on each other to realise that there are plenty of engineers ready to shit on them when they fuck up.
I for one mostly agree with what Michael has put, however I don't believe it is feasible. That doesn't mean he has "lost it". Surely we would all want a fan owned club making millions? Realistically though it isn't going to happen, and it doesn't look like there are any buyers out there stepping up so for now we have to work with what we have got.
Surely the best way for this mess to be sorted is if we (the fans) club together and reason with each other first. Everyone has differing opinions but surely we all can (mostly) agree on a few things? This reminds me of the lads on the shop floor at our place. Too busy shitting on each other to realise that there are plenty of engineers ready to shit on them when they fuck up.
Last edited:
MichaelCCFC
New Member
Forgot to say I agree 100% re PFJ. I've said many times before that I argued strongly against kcic being split off from the trust and when the ricoh group started I said that was disappointing too because what was needed was more unity not more groups. Maybe other groups could reply to the kcic mailout saying what they agree/disagree with and what their alternative (realistic, feasible) strategy is.
MichaelCCFC
New Member
What slogan would you prefer/suggest? (and fyi I haven't suggested 'sisu out' as a slogan)
MichaelCCFC
New Member
Nick
Administrator
The thing is though if certain groups won't explore all avenues then more groups will always be created to target the people.
If one group targetted all, then there would be no need for so many.
How can there be unity when you will only target SISU and the other group are targetting the council? Why not just have one group to do all?
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
How about this....
Ricoh landlord to actually charge a reasonable rent (open & transparent with none of these hidden costs etc.) & the tenant just pay the fucking bills for a change....
....both parties to agree to this for 5 years. Massive legally water-tight penalties for either side breaking the agreement.
If, at the end of that 5 year period, there is no new stadium built & City are still in 3rd tier (or worse)....Sisu agree to write off all remaining internal debt & sell the club to the SB Trust for £1.
If, at the end of the 5 years, Sisu have amassed zero arrears & City are in the 2nd tier or above, the landlord agrees to sell the remaining leasehold to the tenant for £1.
QED.
Ricoh landlord to actually charge a reasonable rent (open & transparent with none of these hidden costs etc.) & the tenant just pay the fucking bills for a change....
....both parties to agree to this for 5 years. Massive legally water-tight penalties for either side breaking the agreement.
If, at the end of that 5 year period, there is no new stadium built & City are still in 3rd tier (or worse)....Sisu agree to write off all remaining internal debt & sell the club to the SB Trust for £1.
If, at the end of the 5 years, Sisu have amassed zero arrears & City are in the 2nd tier or above, the landlord agrees to sell the remaining leasehold to the tenant for £1.
QED.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I'm not being sarcastic Michael but frankly I don't see you have a strategy at all - its just "boo sisu suck go away"
You also said you didn't have time to protest against the council and someone else should do it.
MichaelCCFC
New Member
Agree 100% - you need to ask others not me (and as I just posted, knowing what parts of the kcic mailout others agree/disagree with would be a good starting point)
SkyBlueUkeman
New Member
Well, this is the first I've heard of this!
MichaelCCFC
New Member
Thanks for this which is the kind of alternative I've been hoping people would come up with. The contradiction I'm trying to work through though is if everyone is saying sisu are not good for ccfc/can't be trusted etc then is this alternative a desirable option for people because it leaves sisu firmly in place as ccfc owners but everyone says they are not good for ccfc? Also, the evidence is that the parties can't agree anything and it's being battled out in the courts, so while this alternative would be a great solution in theory is it realistic?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Just removing SISU won't solve the intrinsic problems associated with our football club.
If a solution is campaigned for that happens to be acceptable for SISU, then that's good as well... and if it isn't acceptable to them, then that ends up SISU OUT by implication anyway.
But it should be the solution, not the parties involved that should be central.
I actually thought that was what you were moving towards in earlier mails, when you said people would blindly defend SISU/ACL/CCC regardless of what they did... well it's a short step from that to SISU OUT regardless too.
If a solution is campaigned for that happens to be acceptable for SISU, then that's good as well... and if it isn't acceptable to them, then that ends up SISU OUT by implication anyway.
But it should be the solution, not the parties involved that should be central.
I actually thought that was what you were moving towards in earlier mails, when you said people would blindly defend SISU/ACL/CCC regardless of what they did... well it's a short step from that to SISU OUT regardless too.
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
well, its sort of a clean slate isn't it?
5 years for all parties to prove themselves.....
...obviously, there can be caveats put in place such as Godiva has alluded to with certain companies (or parts of ) within the group being protected & transparent.....
...but if after 5 years, the better scenario has transpired (ie, championship club playing in front of 14-15,000 fans at the ricoh) then Sisu may well finally find a buyer with cash (as opposed to hot air & self-interest) and escape their own CCFC nightmare....
everyones a winner.
After the JR
Seppala steps down as coordinator of investment trust
Labbavitch stays for continuity of business, Fisher goes .
Olive branches flying all over the place, ccc come up with a cheap long term rent.
The new head of investment trust invites spokesman from sky blue fan base to be integral with operations
Completely new atitude from sisu to get their money back through success on the pitch
Waggot gets us some good players and we win the league next season . Simples
Or
Sisu go and we try and pick up the pieces after
Seppala steps down as coordinator of investment trust
Labbavitch stays for continuity of business, Fisher goes .
Olive branches flying all over the place, ccc come up with a cheap long term rent.
The new head of investment trust invites spokesman from sky blue fan base to be integral with operations
Completely new atitude from sisu to get their money back through success on the pitch
Waggot gets us some good players and we win the league next season . Simples
Or
Sisu go and we try and pick up the pieces after
