Sisu make official complaint over Coventry councillors' conduct (3 Viewers)

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
The BBC claimed so

Proof of it I suppose one could argue would have resulted in a different outcome with efl and potentially kings sale
What seems to not be in doubt there though is that there were talks
 

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
The people who bought it were greedy as at the time the returns were massive compared to bank interest and probably thought if anything goes wrong we have the arena to sell, but probably hadn’t thought who would want it.
Their biggest mistake was to lend to a separate company that had no assets. WASPS Finance only had a guarantee from within the Group and no access or rights to the Stadium Lease. Their only recourse was to enforce the guarantees but that still did not mean they controlled the primary asset
 

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
Proof of it I suppose one could argue would have resulted in a different outcome with efl and potentially kings sale
What seems to not be in doubt there though is that there were talks
There were only limited discussions because Hoffman backed Storey who in turn had people supporting him.Whether that prompted DK to act quickly - I have no idea
 

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
Well he hasn’t in reality. He provided it seems some short term funding in January to cover operating losses. I guess from his perspective whatever fund he’s got that from it’s not a huge sum - around £7m? - there are player assets to sell now and a shot at promotion when he can then walk away with a big profit.
DK did not fund the Club before he bought it.
 

robbiethemole

Well-Known Member
who was the smug twat who thought they were on safe ground and wouldn't listen to our warnings?? I can't remember his name but I'm glad they've fucked off into oblivion
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
Well he hasn’t in reality. He provided it seems some short term funding in January to cover operating losses. I guess from his perspective whatever fund he’s got that from it’s not a huge sum - around £7m? - there are player assets to sell now and a shot at promotion when he can then walk away with a big profit.

That was the point I was making. Going back a few posts someone questioned why SISU hadn't cashed in on players before selling? Because they could not sell an asset stripped shell.

I agree with you, yes he has had to put some money in, but there is still potential for him to get decent returns.

SISU didn't have a lot to sell other than players? As we know the value of players can rise and fall dramatically in a very short space of time. It is not like valuing real estate.
 

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
SISU didn't have a lot to sell other than players? As we know the value of players can rise and fall dramatically in a very short space of time. It is not like valuing real estate.
DK is in same position - as regards assets

We don't know what the paid for Club or where he got the money

We do know he has taken on a very short lease period problem he will have to resolve soon. Something he tried to avoid by buying the stadium
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
DK is in same position - as regards assets

We don't know what the paid for Club or where he got the money

We do know he has taken on a very short lease period problem he will have to resolve soon. Something he tried to avoid by buying the stadium

That is an interesting problem. Initially both sides were new feet under the table with a lot to sort out and both probably playing hardball

I think the five year deal probably suited both sides in the short term.

How it pans out will be interesting as both sides need each other. Hopefully they will work together.

No scenario is perfect as Oxford found out when their owner bought their stadium. Assets can be split up if it suits. Also see Wasps and their training ground. Wasps obtaining a long term lease on the Ricoh meant nothing. Chelsea are selling assets (hotels) to meet financial rules (how long can that go on?).

Us little fans are vulnerable to the whim of any owner, whether that is club, stadium or both.
 

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
That is an interesting problem. Initially both sides were new feet under the table with a lot to sort out and both probably playing hardball

I think the five year deal probably suited both sides in the short term.

How it pans out will be interesting as both sides need each other. Hopefully they will work together.

No scenario is perfect as Oxford found out when their owner bought their stadium. Assets can be split up if it suits. Also see Wasps and their training ground. Wasps obtaining a long term lease on the Ricoh meant nothing. Chelsea are selling assets (hotels) to meet financial rules (how long can that go on?).

Us little fans are vulnerable to the whim of any owner, whether that is club, stadium or both.
As Gateshead found out the EFL regulations require a 10 year security of tenure agreement. So unless DK pleaded a special case there is a problem looming
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
As Gateshead found out the EFL regulations require a 10 year security of tenure agreement. So unless DK pleaded a special case there is a problem looming

That surely was permission to enter the EFL - it’s one year if in the league
 

Skybluemichael

Well-Known Member
Talking about dug if you look at covcityco the company dug owns and lent the football club £6m from (due to be repaid 16th fed 2026) of have a value of £33.7m is that what he paid for the football club?? IMG_1883.png
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top