covcity4life
Well-Known Member
i get it otis,dont be so condescending....this is a RISK,im wella war eof that
its just a risk i dont mind taking,we need to try something
Think some people just don't get it.
You look at Roman Abramovitch, he is passionate about his club. Sisu are not passionate about our club. They can't even be arsed to attend games. Their remit is to make money for their investors and that's it.
Why would anyone think they are going to invest in the club when they can make money anyway from all the other things the Ricoh will bring in terms of revenue?
Hoffman's investors would want returns to!
But where do you think any profits are going to go? To the club or to the investors pockets? :facepalm:
If Sisu owned all the arena and could make money from concerts and hotels and catering and all the other stuff, why the hell would they give two hoots about investing in the team?
EXACTLY
yes sisu are muppets but i cannot tell a lie,this is exciting news and what the club needs to move forward
from all accounts SISU are starting to see sense and hopefully if they do own 50/100% of the arena we will get more money in which can be passed on to the squad
not sure who sorts out concerts but we need more as take that brought in 4m or close...imagine we had 50% or even all of that(after costs of course)!
im well aware sisu could betray us (again!) and deystory this club once and for all but at same time im happy to see the labndscape changing cos the old one does us no favours either
p.s if hoffman was for real he would be sticking his oar in right now for sure
I don't have a problem with our owners making money out of us, but there's 2 ways of doing it.Hoffman's investors would want returns to!
So SISU threaten to liquidate the club. is this the bit where you think they are now starting to see sense.
So far SISU after admitting weakening the squad too much last season
Have not got a transfer embargo lifted
Have refused to pay rent
Are releasing more players from this squad that they themselves say is too small
We can make no signings we are going to lose Clingan, Keogh, Cranie, McPake, ROD
All of this going on they somehow can afford to buy half a stadium. Yet they say cant afford to even offer Cranie a contract (not he wants too much etc). Cant afford to offer him one what ever the amount.
I appreciate you want this to be good news, damn we need and deserve them. But lets see what this is all about first.
If it is true I just hope someone else is ploughing the money in who knows what they are doing, who does not want to remain hidden and can exert some influence on SISU if they are staying.
So I for one will not be dancing in the streets just yet.
The profits have to go to paying the mortgage used to build it Otis-nobody can take a profit till it's paid off.
Course they would. But with Hoffman at the helm he would surely want what was best for his club too.
He is a passionate City fan. He attends games. He supports the club. Sisu don't even seem to comprehend football.
<p><p>&lt;p&gt;I don't have a problem with our owners making money out of us, but there's 2 ways of doing it.
The right way is the owner must be patient and accept they won't see a return for a few years, build the club up then sell it on for a profit.
The wrong way is to sell assets every time an offer comes along. This is what sisu have done with the club over the last 5 years. Its short sighted, and I fear any money the Ricoh makes will just go straight to the directors.
Where as at the moment we are a thriving success??really cant help thinking if they get the stadium, our club will die VERY slow death !
I guess it was a 50% purchase it might have to be, whereas if it was 100% of it they could just transfer the stadium from ACL and put it on the clubs balance sheet.isnt it they are buying 50% of ACL not the stadium ? because that is ll that the charity has to sell
I guess it was a 50% purchase it might have to be, whereas if it was 100% of it they could just transfer the stadium from ACL and put it on the clubs balance sheet.
I don't suppose you know how many years? I'm assuming its a long term lease. Who owns the freehold?ACL own a lease on the stadium they dont own the freehold.
I don't suppose you know how many years? I'm assuming its a long term lease. Who owns the freehold?
Prove they are going to stop bullshitting?
Where as at the moment we are a thriving success??
The club has to own its stadium, our position currently is madness. If they get 100% of the stadium I don't see it ever getting worse. It might not drastically improve, but it shouldn't get worse. If the club tries to go on like this then it will end in liquidation.
Note I say the club owning the stadium, if they sell to SISU it is something entirely different. They need to sell to CCFC ( which of course SISU owns, but makes the club more stable, not the parent company ).
People seem paranoid that SISU are asset strippers. Like they are going to get their hands on the stadium and take it down brick by brick, melting down all the metal to sell to scrap merchants, rolling up the turf to sell to Garden centres.
If they are buying to sell, let them! It will get rid of them, but they will be selling the stadium and club as one to an investor. It will be a much more attractive position for an invester to come in and buy a club with the Ricoh behind it too. Someone mentioned £30m to buy it, I don't know any better figures so I'll go with that. If they spend £30m to get the stadium and sell the whole thing and CCFC to some investors for £40 to £45m then isn't that good news??
We'd be rid of them, they've have cut their losses and a new investor would have the whole package.
Just wonder if in these circumstances the due diligence is a two way thing. It is usually the buyer verifying what they are buying. However in these circumstances surely you would want to know the buyer is properly funded especially if payment was over say a couple of years. Perhaps a bi-product of the process is to force SISU's hand to get the club properly run and funded and to prove it?
I can't see how the council can veto a purchase of ACL shares from the charity. Mutton had an election on. He was showboating he still is.
It isnt a golden share such...... its the same for any private company any new shareholders have to be approved by the remaining shareholders (that would include a shareholder selling his stake on the new owner would need approval from remaining shareholders)
It seems quite clear the charity want to sell and utilise the proceeds to other activities in the city. That makes it very difficult politically for the council to say no providing the funding is in place. Community benefit versus commercial success for a football team? What choice is there?
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?