SISU can make money on Coventry City liquidating..... (1 Viewer)

im not bothered with sisu acl/council what im am is skyblue and what they need to do is give the matchday takings to the club when we are in a better postion pay ie championship above the ffp rules will kill this club if nothing changes as we dont have a pot to piss in. 65% of club turnover is all you get to play with for players if we dont get matchday takings we will be the next milk advert 20 years down the line.council is run for coventry people not for acl

The worst thing the council ever did was help the club. They should never have got involved.

coundonskyblue said:

The worst thing the council ever did was help the club. They should never have got involved.

Click to expand...

Ok to help ACL though?

<p>

Grendel said:

Ok to help ACL though?

Click to expand...

Obviously. Why do you object to a business part owned by the council receiving help from its owner?

coundonskyblue said:

<p>

Obviously. Why do you object to a business part owned by the council receiving help from its owner?

Click to expand...

Yeah in ACL business terms that's great but we don't support them, we all support CCFC, how does it help them.. In no way whatsoever

coundonskyblue said:

<p>

Obviously. Why do you object to a business part owned by the council receiving help from its owner?

Click to expand...

Because Grenduffy has been childishly applauding Fisher's belligerence for months: and now his gamble threatens the very existence of a football in our city he needs a scapegoat to detract people from the obvious

SkyBlueDubai said:

I am not on anyone's side, I only want whats best for OUR club.

The reality is, both equally SISU AND the local Council could contribute towards the clubs downfall.

That said, since we have been relegated from the Championship, there has been a hell of a lot of effort in making amends by SISU's part, namely 20+ signings (loan or permanent), two really credible manager appointments, and upgrade of our youth academy.

Whereas the Council/ACL, what have they done for OUR club, offer to reduce the to an amount that is double the League One standard? and not forth coming on match day revenues which may I add, is money we all pay to go and see OUR football club.

Click to expand...

I fully endorse your first comment. just a couple of queries if i may

What was the biggest single factors in us getting relegated from the Championship? ......... lack of investment and the appointment of the cheapest option as manager perhaps?
Have all of our signings been successful or even actually achieved anything yet ? ....... do we have one of the biggest squads and wage bills in the division? ...... is that wage bill commensurate with available turnover/income?
Did SISU appoint all managers in the last year or just the good ones?
Has there been any upgrade in facilities or staff at the academy or is it clever use of figures to get a £500k grant?
Could the directors of CCFC taken different decisions since 2008 that acquired rights to income, that reduced reliance on SISU funding, reduced losses and left something to sell on?
who made those decisions CCFC/SISU or ACL ?


What would you describe as a L1 standard ground to go with this L1 standard rent ?
The lease CCFC have at the Ricoh carries with it 900 car parking spaces on match days, CCFC sell match day experience packages that include food and parking, CCFC sell the pitchside advertising, CCFC sell the programs, CCFC sell all matchday tickets, CCFC sell vice pres, VIP, premier club etc tickets, CCFC receive the shirt sponsorship, CCFC sold the rights to the profits from matchday hospitality for £6m or around £125k per year over the period of the licence ........ just how does the lack of F&B income on the concourse hold us back significantly?
We pay to sit in the stadium, we choose whether to have food or a drink, most choose not to ....... if CCFC didnt want to provide ACL with that income they could just say dont open the outlets on the concourse couldnt they ?
Who picks up the cost of providing the F&B's on the concourse?


Would you agree that the primary duty of any director is to act in the best interests of the company they serve?
If you agree why is it right to expect CCFC to do that but the directors of ACL to roll over and accept anything CCFC wants ?
If the primary duty of a director is to protect the company he/she serves then they are primarily responsible for the decisions they take for that company so that it operates with in the means at its disposal, the rest is secondary when it comes to apportioning blame would you not agree?
If a decision is bad for a company whose fault is it for making the decision and accepting those consequences, those charged with safeguarding the company or the third party that is the otherside of the decision?
Is five years long enough for the performance of any company to be attributable to its owners?


Not really expecting answers, more making the point that these things have not been clear cut and remain far from transparent. Above all decisions made by CCFC are the responsibility of its directors and owners. They have not got everything wrong but they have got an awful lot wrong ......... no one to blame but themselves. The same applies to ACL for that matter.

One of the things that really pisses me off about this whole dispute is the way no one accepts any responsibility

But is Leon Clarke gonna start??

skyblue1523 said:

65% of club turnover is all you get to play with for players if we dont get matchday takings we will be the next milk advert 20 years down the line.council is run for coventry people not for acl

Click to expand...

The problem is that 65% is for this season, it changes to 60% for 2013/14 season so it gets even worse.

<p>

RoboCCFC90 said:

Yeah in ACL business terms that's great but we don't support them, we all support CCFC, how does it help them.. In no way whatsoever

Click to expand...

I agree, its neither good or bad for ccfc. So why does grendal feel the need to mention it?

coundonskyblue said:

<p>

I agree, its neither good or bad for ccfc. So why does grendal feel the need to mention it?

Click to expand...

Because the Council has money to bail out ACL whenever it feels like it, but when it comes to something that is the heart of the City they are not willing to show a shred of decency.

<p>

RoboCCFC90 said:

Because the Council has money to bail out ACL whenever it feels like it, but when it comes to something that is the heart of the City they are not willing to show a shread of decentcy.

Click to expand...

Sisu own ccfc

Council/higgs trust own acl

ccfc is as much the councils responsibility as London rd tip is sisus.

I presume you mean 'shred of decency'....

....as in offering to lower the rent?

coundonskyblue said:

<p>

Sisu own ccfc

Council/higgs trust own acl

ccfc is as much the councils responsibility as London rd tip is sisus.

Click to expand...

I am not saying the council should pay off any debts that CCFC have or invest money into CCFC as you said that's SISU's job for better or for worse. What the council could have done is when the stadium was opened they could have put a reasonable rent offer on the table instead of the joke of a rent we have been paying for the last 7 years, up until last April. It's all great that ACL and the council offer the lower rent now, but it's like torturing someone and then after 7 weeks you take them to the hospital to be patched up..

It don't make sense it something that should have been done from day one before we moved into the Ricoh..

400k to rent a stadium to a league one club and no matchday income isn't really much of a help

sky blue john said:

What you forget to state in your totally unbiased oppinion !!!
liquidation makes the most saleable asset which is the league registration worthless !!!
Anyway TF needs to get of his arse get back to the negotiating table rather than whining in the press its everyone elses fault !!!

Click to expand...

Er...read the piece again. He is spot on. There is no logic to SISU putting the club in administration as they own the substantive debt and they seek to realise bugger all. SISU will liquidate the club - throw there toys out the pram, write off the fiasco as a bad dream and move on leaving only the ashes of what was CCFC. Liquidation means NO FOOTBALL CLUB - THE END.

You can post snide remarks and pretend every post is a SISU plant or you can face up to what might just be the unavoidable truth - and one which I fear as a lifelong CCFC fans. I do not want to see us start over like Wimbledon as it will take us years to get back to the Football League.

Get back around the table and sort this out for gods sake !!!!!

coundonskyblue said:

<p>

Sisu own ccfc

Council/higgs trust own acl

ccfc is as much the councils responsibility as London rd tip is sisus.

Click to expand...

Other councils have supported the clubs far better though. Was in Doncaster this morning and showed some people the type of stuff written.

They could not get their heads round it. They said the club would always come first and no one there would be remotely interested in the council or the management company which in the end handed over all control to the club.

<p>

Grendel said:

Other councils have supported the clubs far better though. Was in Doncaster this morning and showed some people the type of stuff written.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>They could not get their heads round it. They said the club would always come first and no one there would be remotely interested in the council or the management company which in the end handed over all control to the club.

Click to expand...

I cannot compromise my ideas of right and wrong on this issue im afraid.

Would you support anything (including violence?) if it was to the benefit of ccfc?

coundonskyblue said:

<p>

I cannot compromise my ideas of right and wrong on this issue im afraid.

Would you support anything (including violence?) if it was to the benefit of ccfc?

Click to expand...

Ludricous comparison especially as most supported an individual convicted of violence.

You say principals yet have already said on a previous thread that you were less bothered about non payments of bills by a prior regime as they could not afford it.

This club as a stand alone entity cannot afford it either but more pertinently the prior regime couldn't because they had a colossal wage bill and over 36 paid professionals. However this was to you of less concern.