Six fields v St Andrews. (1 Viewer)

Voice_of_Reason · Jun 9, 2019

There is a huge difference between the two and they should not be compared as being the same.
1. Going to Sixfields was a choice SISU made when they could have stayed at the Ricoh.
2. Moving out of Coventry ( to St Andrews) was a decision SISU had no option to undertake. They quite rightly refused to indemnify Wasps for any costs incurred if the Council breached State Aid rules according the European Commission.
3. Sixfields was 30 plus miles from Coventry with limited or no public transport.
4. St Andrews is not much further from the Ricoh for many supporters, has excellent public transport links and far better facilities.
I will certainly be going to St. Andrews because I support MR and the team and want them promoted coupled with the fact I do not hold SISU responsible for having to groundshare this time.

higgs · Jun 9, 2019

Voice_of_Reason said:
There is a huge difference between the two and they should not be compared as being the same.
1. Going to Sixfields was a choice SISU made when they could have stayed at the Ricoh.
2. Moving out of Coventry ( to St Andrews) was a decision SISU had no option to undertake. They quite rightly refused to indemnify Wasps for any costs incurred if the Council breached State Aid rules according the European Commission.
3. Sixfields was 30 plus miles from Coventry with limited or no public transport.
4. St Andrews is not much further from the Ricoh for many supporters, has excellent public transport links and far better facilities.
I will certainly be going to St. Andrews because I support MR and the team and want them promoted coupled with the fact I do not hold SISU responsible for having to groundshare this time.

Top class facilities on a par with the Ricoh but with a better playing surface

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

higgs · Jun 9, 2019

Nice pitch

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

SkyBlueScottie · Jun 9, 2019

I will go, on the odd occasion, no season ticket. Agree with the reasoning above, with the added caveat that we are still suffering from the fall out of Sisu's actions in moving us to St Andrews, compounded now by the fact Wasps want the club to cover any costs etc and probably eliminate their competition. If anyone wants to claim they are the good guys, by all means go ahead, but don't forget they tried to leverage us out of the Higgs centre, in return for a Ricoh deal... Before the demand to cease legal action.

Alan Dugdales Moustache · Jun 9, 2019

Let's all try and kid ourselves that going to st Andrews is the best thing to happen since we left Highfield road.
How about a statute of Joy as well to make up for for the years of misguided hatred we felt for her when all along she had the club's interests at heart. . Or has that idea been discussed already.

Nick · Jun 9, 2019

SkyBlueScottie said:
I will go, on the odd occasion, no season ticket. Agree with the reasoning above, with the added caveat that we are still suffering from the fall out of Sisu's actions in moving us to St Andrews, compounded now by the fact Wasps want the club to cover any costs etc and probably eliminate their competition. If anyone wants to claim they are the good guys, by all means go ahead, but don't forget they tried to leverage us out of the Higgs centre, in return for a Ricoh deal... Before the demand to cease legal action.

Not many people seem to be mentioning or realise that, it's a bit strange.

Cov kid 55 · Jun 9, 2019

I live near Newcastle, and mostly attend away games, with the occasional home game. I will definately attend more home games this season, in solidarity with the team, and the supporters that continue to support our team.

pastythegreat · Jun 9, 2019

Alan Dugdales Moustache said:
Let's all try and kid ourselves that going to st Andrews is the best thing to happen since we left Highfield road.
How about a statute of Joy as well to make up for for the years of misguided hatred we felt for her when all along she had the club's interests at heart. . Or has that idea been discussed already.

What a great idea! I'll start a crowd fund. If we make enough maybe a statue of Fisher too!

Covkid1968# · Jun 9, 2019

It’s shit but this time the club have no control over it. Do I want to play outside Cov... no way.... I’m the proudest Cov kid I know. But I do realise that this manager this team are building us a future and I for one am not prepared to derail the Robbins championship train. This season more than ever before we need to get behind them. The club will return... we can all have a say on what that club looks like when it does.

Adge · Jun 9, 2019

Because of this I really can’t see us challenging now this season and would be happy to finish mid table.
I do fear for the season after and can see the struggles returning (something that will be pointed out to the people who will go to away games only) and the slide to L2 May commence.

ccfcway · Jun 9, 2019

Covkid1968# said:
The club will return... we can all have a say on what that club looks like when it does.

when and how ?, I cant see a light at the end of the tunnel this time, I could last time

chiefdave · Jun 9, 2019

ccfcway said:
when and how ?, I cant see a light at the end of the tunnel this time, I could last time

Last time was very different. There was a stadium sat empty and people, wrongly it turned out, assumed moving clubs around the country wasn't an option.

ccfcway · Jun 9, 2019

chiefdave said:
Last time was very different. There was a stadium sat empty and people, wrongly it turned out, assumed moving clubs around the country wasn't an option.

exactly. This time I cant see an easy way back

Alan Dugdales Moustache · Jun 9, 2019

The council should "encourage" wasps to relocate to a smaller 20,000 seater stadium as part of a long term process to return ccfc to the Ricoh. As part of that deal SISU should be told to relinquish ownership of CCFC. I'd rather wasps fall into a fiery hell than be in cov but if they left the Ricoh and it meant we returned without SISU and we're able to at least share in ownership of the stadium then I'd put up with them elsewhere.

Nick · Jun 9, 2019

Alan Dugdales Moustache said:
The council should "encourage" wasps to relocate to a smaller 20,000 seater stadium as part of a long term process to return ccfc to the Ricoh. As part of that deal SISU should be told to relinquish ownership of CCFC. I'd rather wasps fall into a fiery hell than be in cov but if they left the Ricoh and it meant we returned without SISU and we're able to at least share in ownership of the stadium then I'd put up with them elsewhere.

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 9, 2019

Voice_of_Reason said:
There is a huge difference between the two and they should not be compared as being the same.
1. Going to Sixfields was a choice SISU made when they could have stayed at the Ricoh.
2. Moving out of Coventry ( to St Andrews) was a decision SISU had no option to undertake. They quite rightly refused to indemnify Wasps for any costs incurred if the Council breached State Aid rules according the European Commission.
3. Sixfields was 30 plus miles from Coventry with limited or no public transport.
4. St Andrews is not much further from the Ricoh for many supporters, has excellent public transport links and far better facilities.
I will certainly be going to St. Andrews because I support MR and the team and want them promoted coupled with the fact I do not hold SISU responsible for having to groundshare this time.

1. The owners of the stadium announced that negotiations were at an end. The owners of the football club protested the deal was unsustainable, and put at risk the very future of the club. Staying at the Ricoh was Plan A, but proved to be undeliverable. Therefore a temporary move out of the city was arranged, with the promise that a new stadium was now Plan A.
2. It's SISU's actiuons which required any indemnity to be requested. If legal action for JR1 and JR2 was inappropriate, and condemned by many/most on here, why is it appropriate this time?
3. Direct train to Northampton, followed by bus.
4. Sixfields was closer than the Ricoh for many supporters. The retail 'area' around Sixfields better than St Andrews.
5. Neither Sixfields nor St Andrews are in the right city.

It was damned complicated then, and it's complicated now. The portrayal of SISU as helpless victims is not entirely appropriate, as much as it was all the evil SISU last time out. Swinging from side to side is unnerving.

It's all in the perspective. We don't even know if CCFC and SISU's statements about talks are any more accurate than last time.

pusbccfc · Jun 9, 2019

It will be the worst match day experience in the country, worse than Sixfields.

At best we'll have 7k. Like the Ricoh, but worse.

Calista · Jun 9, 2019

Leaving aside the endless arguments about who is in the right or wrong, a significant difference between Sixfields and St. Andrews is the tone adopted by the club.

On this occasion, CCFC’s statement feels like genuine regret about the move, and a respectful plea for support from the fans, whilst recognising that many won’t feel able to support the club in Birmingham. Contrast that with the sheer pig-headed arrogance of Fisher when he carted us off to Northampton and expected everyone to do his bidding.

ccfcway · Jun 9, 2019

Calista said:
Leaving aside the endless arguments about who is in the right or wrong, a significant difference between Sixfields and St. Andrews is the tone adopted by the club.

On this occasion, CCFC’s statement feels like genuine regret about the move, and a respectful plea for support from the fans, whilst recognising that many won’t feel able to support the club in Birmingham. Contrast that with the sheer pig-headed arrogance of Fisher when he carted us off to Northampton and expected everyone to do his bidding.

Both are just words. Actioned speak louder. Let’s see how the my go with coaches, transport , plans to get us back etc,

Calista · Jun 9, 2019

ccfcway said:
Both are just words. Actioned speak louder. Let’s see how the my go with coaches, transport , plans to get us back etc,

I agree, soft words butter no parsnips! But actions are irrelevant too - how can they compensate for what is happening? Coventry City Football Club won't be putting football matches on in Coventry next season, which defeats the purpose of the club, even if some see it only as an inconvenience or even a bit of an adventure.

Mucca Mad Boys · Jun 10, 2019

Calista said:
I agree, soft words butter no parsnips! But actions are irrelevant too - how can they compensate for what is happening? Coventry City Football Club won't be putting football matches on in Coventry next season, which defeats the purpose of the club, even if some see it only as an inconvenience or even a bit of an adventure.

In the same vain, playing at the RICOH shouldn’t come with the risk of bankrupting us down the line.

Since Wasps purchased the RICOH, the most viable long-term strategic goal is to build our own stadium.

I’m upset we’ve left Coventry, but we need to confirm to the EFL where we’re playing this season. I’m hoping that we can arrange some sort of deal to get us playing back at the Ricoh at some point this season. However, this can’t jeopardise the club.

I’d take playing in Bham for 2-3 seasons if we actually started to build our own stadium.

ohitsaidwalker king power · Jun 10, 2019

Voice_of_Reason said:
There is a huge difference between the two and they should not be compared as being the same.
1. Going to Sixfields was a choice SISU made when they could have stayed at the Ricoh.
2. Moving out of Coventry ( to St Andrews) was a decision SISU had no option to undertake. They quite rightly refused to indemnify Wasps for any costs incurred if the Council breached State Aid rules according the European Commission.
3. Sixfields was 30 plus miles from Coventry with limited or no public transport.
4. St Andrews is not much further from the Ricoh for many supporters, has excellent public transport links and far better facilities.
I will certainly be going to St. Andrews because I support MR and the team and want them promoted coupled with the fact I do not hold SISU responsible for having to groundshare this time.

Did this not set the tone, is this not the root cause...SISU are a hedge fund, it is their modus operandi?

Judge Hickinbottom concluded at JR1 that:

"iii) SISU distressed the financial position of ACL by refusing to pay ACL any rent or licence fee. That made ACL commercially vulnerable, because it could not service its Bank loan. It also had the effect of reducing the value of the share in ACL that SISU coveted. SISU imposed more commercial pressure on ACL by indicating that they were prepared to see CCFC put into administration or liquidation, which (SISU believed) would have a cataclysmic effect on ACL because of ACL’s inability to service its loan without revenue from the Football Club. SISU’s strategy of distressing ACL’s financial position in these ways was quite deliberate. They considered this strategy was necessary if they were to recover their investment in the Football Club" ?

Isn't all that has followed an effect, a function of....?
No glory in the action of the Council or Wasps, I accept, but I personally cannot get past the matter of fact that SISU's strategy is very central to the whole sorry affair.

Mucca Mad Boys · Jun 10, 2019

ohitsaidwalker king power said:
Did this not set the tone, is this not the root cause...SISU are a hedge fund, it is their modus operandi?

Judge Hickinbottom concluded at JR1 that:

"iii) SISU distressed the financial position of ACL by refusing to pay ACL any rent or licence fee. That made ACL commercially vulnerable, because it could not service its Bank loan. It also had the effect of reducing the value of the share in ACL that SISU coveted. SISU imposed more commercial pressure on ACL by indicating that they were prepared to see CCFC put into administration or liquidation, which (SISU believed) would have a cataclysmic effect on ACL because of ACL’s inability to service its loan without revenue from the Football Club. SISU’s strategy of distressing ACL’s financial position in these ways was quite deliberate. They considered this strategy was necessary if they were to recover their investment in the Football Club" ?

Isn't all that has followed an effect, a function of....?
No glory in the action of the Council or Wasps, I accept, but I personally cannot get past the matter of fact that SISU's strategy is very central to the whole sorry affair.

Wasps are also owned by a hedge fund...

Fletch · Jun 10, 2019

Started the season at Sixfields on -10 points, always struggling. Team we are putting together should be challenging for promotion, that will impact crowds.

Danceswithhorses · Jun 10, 2019

Mucca Mad Boys said:
Wasps are also owned by a hedge fund...

obviously true, but not relevant to that court judgment

hill83 · Jun 10, 2019

Calmed down a bit now and I'll probably swing by for a few games.

OffenhamSkyBlue · Jun 10, 2019

Is this forum the only place where you can find a balanced viewpoint, or any condemnation of Wasps or CCC?
How come BBC CW only EVER promote the anti-SISU mantra espoused by the "Trust", JHWay and the like?
This morning, "Some groups are calling from a boycott of the groundshare".
WHO? Precisely, Trish, WHO are these "groups"? The Trust don't, unless you have misinterpreted Moz's words!

They just get the "Every pound you give will go straight in SISU's pocket" frothers!
So presume they don't go to any home matches if they have that (deluded) attitude, so being in Birmingham won't make any difference to them.

If there are others who espouse any of the positivity and support for MR and the team you get on here, Giblet's employers are not sharing their views!

Time to boycott BBC CW???

HuckerbyDublinWhelan · Jun 10, 2019

ohitsaidwalker king power said:
Did this not set the tone, is this not the root cause...SISU are a hedge fund, it is their modus operandi?

Judge Hickinbottom concluded at JR1 that:

"iii) SISU distressed the financial position of ACL by refusing to pay ACL any rent or licence fee. That made ACL commercially vulnerable, because it could not service its Bank loan. It also had the effect of reducing the value of the share in ACL that SISU coveted. SISU imposed more commercial pressure on ACL by indicating that they were prepared to see CCFC put into administration or liquidation, which (SISU believed) would have a cataclysmic effect on ACL because of ACL’s inability to service its loan without revenue from the Football Club.

This in itself shows the onerous nature of the rental deal. Why should we be milked and coerced because ACL couldn’t obtain other revenue?

We shouldn’t have been paying 1.3 million in the first place, and if so we should have been offered a significant portion of the income and sponsorship money

Ricketts · Jun 10, 2019

Ive been boycotting it for years.

Well, I dont actually listen to the drivel. I boycott it in the way most of the plebs will boycott St Andrews. Dont go anyway.

Badger · Jun 10, 2019

ohitsaidwalker king power said:
Did this not set the tone, is this not the root cause...SISU are a hedge fund, it is their modus operandi?

Judge Hickinbottom concluded at JR1 that:

"iii) SISU distressed the financial position of ACL by refusing to pay ACL any rent or licence fee. That made ACL commercially vulnerable, because it could not service its Bank loan. It also had the effect of reducing the value of the share in ACL that SISU coveted. SISU imposed more commercial pressure on ACL by indicating that they were prepared to see CCFC put into administration or liquidation, which (SISU believed) would have a cataclysmic effect on ACL because of ACL’s inability to service its loan without revenue from the Football Club. SISU’s strategy of distressing ACL’s financial position in these ways was quite deliberate. They considered this strategy was necessary if they were to recover their investment in the Football Club" ?

Isn't all that has followed an effect, a function of....?
No glory in the action of the Council or Wasps, I accept, but I personally cannot get past the matter of fact that SISU's strategy is very central to the whole sorry affair.

I found this detailed by theferret - I know it is not acceptable to believe what Fisher has said but it seems more realistic now that the Council agreed that SISU should distress ACL knowing all along they were talking to WASPS. I don't know what to think.

Below are quotes from TF. Obviously, the fact he said it doesn't make it true, but he has repeated this many times and has been very specific. If it didn't happen like this, why have ACL and CCC never issued a denial? This what he said:

"We made an incredibly generous offer. ACL’s bankers were willing to support the offer which would have stopped them from foreclosing on ACL and which would have left ACL debt free, while the council’s deal has not. For reasons which are beyond us, the council then spent £14m of public money to take over as ACL’s bankers and, hence, terminated discussions."

"A deal was on the table in December last year – reached without expensive advisers – which would have provided a viable commercial solution for ACL and the club, but ACL declined it and went on to launch a series of legal measures using two law firms."

"In an attempt to put both the club and ACL on a sound financial footing we had a series of meetings in 2012 aimed at resolving the financial difficulties facing both parties.

"As part of this, we reached agreement with the council to buy out the ACL debt in return for a half share in the stadium business and extension of ACL’s lease to 125 years, which means it remain 100 per cent council-owned – we would just access the revenues, which is crucial. This deal was documented, signed by all parties and then reneged on by the council. The council made the problem even worse by then using public funds, something that is now subject to the judicial review proceedings."

"We need to be very clear that this is not about ownership of the freehold in the stadium which would have continued to be held by the council, with the club taking back the 50 per cent interest in head-leaseholder ACL which it was always intended to have."

twistandshout · Jun 10, 2019

Deleted member 5849 said:
1. The owners of the stadium announced that negotiations were at an end. The owners of the football club protested the deal was unsustainable, and put at risk the very future of the club. Staying at the Ricoh was Plan A, but proved to be undeliverable. Therefore a temporary move out of the city was arranged, with the promise that a new stadium was now Plan A.
2. It's SISU's actiuons which required any indemnity to be requested. If legal action for JR1 and JR2 was inappropriate, and condemned by many/most on here, why is it appropriate this time?
3. Direct train to Northampton, followed by bus.
4. Sixfields was closer than the Ricoh for many supporters. The retail 'area' around Sixfields better than St Andrews.
5. Neither Sixfields nor St Andrews are in the right city.

It was damned complicated then, and it's complicated now. The portrayal of SISU as helpless victims is not entirely appropriate, as much as it was all the evil SISU last time out. Swinging from side to side is unnerving.

It's all in the perspective. We don't even know if CCFC and SISU's statements about talks are any more accurate than last time.

1 CCFC negotiated the stadium, Sisu have left us self funded any money CCFC can save helps get a better team.
2.SISU have no on going legal actions, they have reported the Council to its governing body. If the council have broken rules both the Council and Wasps would be liable and then Sisu could start new legal action. Once they reported the Council they cannot stop the EU Commission investigating.
3.I do not know public transport as I drive to every game.
4. I am a Season ticket holder, St Andrews is 19 miles away, the Ricoh 16 miles. I will be renewing.
5.CCFC should be in Coventry, but if Sisu has upset everyone enough that they don't want to deal with CCFC while Sisu are around we have no choice.
When CCFC went to Northampton it was solely Sisu fault , this time there simply was no other option.

Sisu are not the victims CCFC and us fans are and we are at serious risk of losing all the good achieved over the past 2 seasons due to lack of funds.
I cannot see Sisu funding us at Birmingham, so less fans can only result in player sales.

OffenhamSkyBlue · Jun 10, 2019

twistandshout said:
1 CCFC negotiated the stadium, Sisu have left us self funded any money CCFC can save helps get a better team.
2.SISU have no on going legal actions, they have reported the Council to its governing body. If the council have broken rules both the Council and Wasps would be liable and then Sisu could start new legal action. Once they reported the Council they cannot stop the EU Commission investigating.
3.I do not know public transport as I drive to every game.
4. I am a Season ticket holder, St Andrews is 19 miles away, the Ricoh 16 miles. I will be renewing.
5.CCFC should be in Coventry, but if Sisu has upset everyone enough that they don't want to deal with CCFC while Sisu are around we have no choice.
When CCFC went to Northampton it was solely Sisu fault , this time there simply was no other option.

Sisu are not the victims CCFC and us fans are and we are at serious risk of losing all the good achieved over the past 2 seasons due to lack of funds.
I cannot see Sisu funding us at Birmingham, so less fans can only result in player sales.

Re: your point 2, i don't think it's a case of SISU taking new legal action. I THINK it becomes a criminal action against the Council by the UK courts (upon instruction by the European Commission). BUT you're right that it may also allow SISU to go after whoever they see as having caused a loss to them directly.

Nick · Jun 10, 2019

Am I missing something?

chiefdave · Jun 10, 2019

What route does he take to Birmingham?

OffenhamSkyBlue · Jun 10, 2019

Maybe he works for the Ovo Women's Tour cycle race : they think it is 158km from Warwick to Burton Dassett, when the shortest route is 11.9 miles

Six fields v St Andrews. (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency