L
limoncello
Guest
Have you considered a career in the diplomatic services, Hill?
Have you considered a career in the diplomatic services, Hill?
Nope. I can be diplomatic when I need to be, but this mug windmilling in changing tack every week and talking bollocks 95% of the time and getting moody when people question him is the final straw.
He is a bit up and down tbh. I remember the 'we don't need any more ideas' statement but if you disagree with him it's 'well, what's your idea?'
Fans aren't unified, supporters groups aren't unified, the council, ACL and Sisu are out for themselves. I despair.
You've achieved nothing. A few shit t-shirts and a picture of your mug in the paper. You haven't got a fucking clue what you are doing.
tbf, i thought this was about SISU, until i realised that we havent sold that many t-shirts and we havent seen a picture of our owner.
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.
This - and Godiva's post - is good stuff and exactly what should have been the subject of negotiations back in 2012 and this whole mess would have been avoided. But I keeping coming back to the 2 points that are doing my head in. First, if everyone is saying sisu are not good for ccfc/can't be trusted etc then how is having them as part of any agreement desirable (people can't have it both ways - it just doesn't make sense). Second, the trust have tried since day 1 to engage with all parties and encourage agreement and they end up getting threatened with legal action and embroiled in a battle with the scg. I honestly don't see what more the trust or anyone else could have done to get the parties to talk - the reality is the battle is in the courts. A negotiated settlement is exactly what should have happened but is hoping for sense to prevail now at all realistic?
This - and Godiva's post - is good stuff and exactly what should have been the subject of negotiations back in 2012 and this whole mess would have been avoided. But I keeping coming back to the 2 points that are doing my head in. First, if everyone is saying sisu are not good for ccfc/can't be trusted etc then how is having them as part of any agreement desirable (people can't have it both ways - it just doesn't make sense). Second, the trust have tried since day 1 to engage with all parties and encourage agreement and they end up getting threatened with legal action and embroiled in a battle with the scg. I honestly don't see what more the trust or anyone else could have done to get the parties to talk - the reality is the battle is in the courts. A negotiated settlement is exactly what should have happened but is hoping for sense to prevail now at all realistic?
This - and Godiva's post - is good stuff and exactly what should have been the subject of negotiations back in 2012 and this whole mess would have been avoided. But I keeping coming back to the 2 points that are doing my head in. First, if everyone is saying sisu are not good for ccfc/can't be trusted etc then how is having them as part of any agreement desirable (people can't have it both ways - it just doesn't make sense). Second, the trust have tried since day 1 to engage with all parties and encourage agreement and they end up getting threatened with legal action and embroiled in a battle with the scg. I honestly don't see what more the trust or anyone else could have done to get the parties to talk - the reality is the battle is in the courts. A negotiated settlement is exactly what should have happened but is hoping for sense to prevail now at all realistic?
Make your mind up Michael... you either want to pursue the SISU out line or you want to actively be involved in a negotiation strategy.
Trouble is I can't tell from post to post which one it is.
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.
So please outline what that solution is when every appeal for sense to prevail has fallen on deaf ears and the 2 sides are battling it out in court
Ian, you don't seem to have replied to my previous reply to you (apologies if you have and I've missed and not sure why it's all gone bold!)
Quite right, Joy doesn't have to sell up the club is her/her investors property and she can do what she likes with it. There's no obligation to sell up on either side, they're both private companies. As I posted before:Your at it again Michael. Sisu may not be good for the club but own it and don't have to sell. Therefore they need to be worked with and if they gain the asset base will sell at some point.
By the way I'd prefer them to fan ownership any day. I can't believe you've cited Portsmouth as positive.
Michael whilst I agree that we need to be back in Coventry now (if not sooner) you have to understand that Sisu have invested £50m (Source: one of the Sisu legal team in court) and they have a right to try and recover that investment. They own almost 100% of OEG and SBSL and they can do what they like with it. Yes at the moment we don't look like a very good investment but Joy may feel that the value of the companies will improve over time. They don't have to sell up to anyone in much the same way as the Higgs don't have to sell their share in ACL.
Why do you keep asking the same question over and over whenever anybody disagrees with anything said?
Michael - you have ignored some of my questions earlier in the thread - I'm not demanding an answer am I?
The solution lies in negotiation. Now you are right, there has been little if any movement from either side in this so far. However it is kind of to be expected given the impending JR. Unfortunately this is the position we will probably be in until after it - unless they do some kind of last minute deal outside the court.
I think we are all in agreement that SISU "have been no good as owners so far". The other parties involved have been equally as poor, as well as the previous owners.
In my personal opinion - the best method is going to lie in a collaboration of your campaign and the GCBTR initiative. Constant pressure on CCC and SISU (the 2 key players in the dispute).
I don't think attacking the FL is productive... in fact it's a bit lazy. They have their hands tied by numerous factors which are not considered when people say they are spineless and have failed us.
If you pin your colours to the SISU out mast, it will probably make you popular - but won't increase the chance of a solution.
What has struck me most about the discussion on this thread is it hasn't be pro/anti acl/sisu but essentially about tactics and the divide seems to be between a belief about whether or not negotiation can still happen. To end at the beginning, I floated this kite because I was getting challenged that the 4 questions and 'make the call, Joy' themes were irrelevant to the reality of the situation where legal action, including the JR, is the way things are being actioned and more calls for negotiation (of which I've made many) is wishful thinking. cheers
Before we can call for negotiations we should agree on the purpose.
The overall disagreement is whether the club should stay as tenant or should own ACL.
I call for 100% ownership of ACL as the club need the revenue and because we need a stable environment not decided by a random councillor or public servant.
Sure we can call for new owners, but unless they are given the opportunity to buy ACL, they will fail as well.
Let's make sure we get the right solution now.
I agree the club should own 100% of ACL. But a good start would be agreeing to a short term rent deal first? Maybe even chuck in the pies as well!
No, if we agree on the solution, then why not go straight for it?
Why waste any more time?
If we went back renting, what is to stop the council from taking the piss once back there?
I believe all or nothing also (to buy ACL)
I think bridges need to be built first. I don't think it would work going straight for the jugular.
I agree Nick. A rental deal just gives ACL/ CCC more time to leech off the club.
All or nothing on a Ricoh deal for me
There is no need for bridge building.
They can go back to the terms agreed with Higgs and continue from there, only this time either in public (unrealistic) or with a mediator at the table.
The tricky part is not buying Higgs shares - it's the councils shares as well as the loan that will take some serious negotiation.
But if the fans are backing the process and agree the club and ACL must be united, then CCC will have to sell.
Of course depending on the terms of the deal
In an ideal world (won't happen) they would stop fucking about and just buy ACL.
Fuck me all we need now is Ian to pipe up and we have a full house
So would you not support a move back to the Ricoh on a rental deal as oppose to playing at Sixfields which is a rental deal as well?
There is nothing to get us back renting though and then ACL turn round and say they don't want to sell. By the time they have written contracts, done deals and terms they may as well just buy it.
It is catch 22.
I would like that, but can't see it happening.
Im not arguing that fact, but living in the real world here - I dont want to be at sixfields next year. If a rental deal can be done before the start of the season then great! I think negotiations over ACL will take a long time so can be done whilst we are playing at the Ricoh. Why on earth should we pay rent in Northampton when we pay rent in Coventry??
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?