torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Im not denying the club is on a mess. Ive simply answered other posts about our fanbase. Get over it.
Burton 5000
Preston 12000
Crewe 30000
A fine example.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Congratulations Fernandopartridge and Toorch who have managed to steer the conversation away from the utter and disastrous mess our accounts show us to be in to criticise our long suffering fans
Didn't Ticketus have some issues with rangers? Who are they?
Were the accounts filed on time?
Yes.
How were the accounts signed off if the club is still losing money?
Accounts are regularly signed off when companies are losing money. There simply need to be assurances that future costs are expected to be met.
Does that mean it is just ‘saddling the club with debt’?
No. When a business is funded it must be through either equity or debt. You can’t just write cheque after cheque without there being some record of the money. The recent funding from SISU has been as equity, with earlier funding as debt. This is a Football League requirement. But it’s not debt in the way that most people think of as a standard loan or mortgage. Again, SISU have stated that while there is money owed, they have no intention of requiring the debt to be repaid upon demand. So while people talk about the club being saddled with debt, that’s simply not the case but is, instead, money that has been ploughed into the club to keep it afloat. Despite lots of rumour and speculation, no other party has ever shown the wherewithal to do that.
Why do SISU continue to fund the club – especially now the club is playing home games at Sixfields in front of 2,000 supporters?
Playing at Sixfields was not a step the club took lightly. The club were being told that they could not play at the Ricoh Arena in the run up to this season starting and that the owners of the Ricoh Arena would only ever deal with the administrator. Had the club not agreed a groundshare, the club’s place in the Football League was in serious jeopardy. Sixfields is a temporary solution and while extremely painful from an emotional and financial point of view, it is where the club will be until we build and own our very own stadium. The future for Coventry City and, indeed, every football club is to own its own stadium and the revenues it generates. With those revenues, coupled with strong management of the club’s costs, there is the opportunity to make this is a self-sustaining club. That is the only way forward for the football club and Financial Fair Play rules make that even more the case.
Surely the money being lost by playing at Sixfields is hurting the club financially?
Most of the supporters have taken the decision not to attend Sixfields and we understand the heartache it has caused. In terms of finances, it is abundantly clear that revenues from ticket sales have been hit. But we will have to continue to take the short-term hit on revenues because, ultimately, building our own stadium moving forward is the only way the club can survive in the long-term. The club needs to be in a position where there is no reliance on other parties but is a complete master of its own destiny. By owning its own ground, the revenues that come with it and getting close to a break-even point that will be the case.
The accounts appear to cast doubt over the club’s ability to continue as a going concern – what does that mean?
Most clubs – certainly at League One level – will have that wording in their accounts. The point here is that most football clubs are losing, not making, money and, therefore, this phrase in the accounts reflects that. That has been the case at Coventry City for many, many years and that is what we want to change through stadium ownership, tighter control on costs and maximum investment in the team and Academy in accordance with Financial Fair Play to give us the best possible chance of success. Until such a point that we build and own our own stadium, the club will rely on a commitment from SISU to cover those losses which they have shown, once again, they are willing to do.
Given Financial Fair Play only goes down to the Championship (i.e. clubs in League One and Two are under no requirement to break even), isn't it clear that Fisher et al are happy for us to stay where we are given the huge problems getting promoted would create. This explains the chronic lack of investment in the team.
But 'fairweather' suggests the club has had periods or years of success, the reality is we have endured years of consistent failure, with just the odd decent run during a season followed by the normal collapse of form. For sustained failure I'm struggling to think of a team in any sport never mind football that comes close to rivalling us. As my friend from Bristol constantly reminds me Bristol fu...ing Rovers have been to Wembley/Millennium 4 times since we won the Cup.Classic SBT. Did I not post a few pages back that CCFC's fans are fickle and fairweather but it plays only a small part in the club's situation today?
,and gary newbonI know, lets blame Richardson
But 'fairweather' suggests the club has had periods or years of success, the reality is we have endured years of consistent of failure, with just the odd decent run during a season followed by the normal collapse of form. For sustained failure I'm struggling to think of a team in any sport never mind football that comes close to rivalling us. As my friend from Bristol constantly reminds me Bristol fu...ing Rovers have been to Wembley/Millennium 4 times since we won the Cup.
Q&A With The Club.
No other league club has gone without a top 6 finish for over 40 years.
But 'fairweather' suggests the club has had periods or years of success, the reality is we have endured years of consistent of failure, with just the odd decent run during a season followed by the normal collapse of form. For sustained failure I'm struggling to think of a team in any sport never mind football that comes close to rivalling us. As my friend from Bristol constantly reminds me Bristol fu...ing Rovers have been to Wembley/Millennium 4 times since we won the Cup.
It should have been put to them that they could quite easily go about building a new stadium whilst still playing at the Ricoh on an interim basis, incurring much less financial distress in the process. The premise of owning our own ground is something most of us would agree with but the way this idea has been executed is horrendous.
Im not denying the club is on a mess. Ive simply answered other posts about our fanbase. Get over it.
Burton 5000
Preston 12000
Crewe 30000
A fine example.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
An example of what??? That the more success the club has, the more fans/people attend, well yeah, thats how it works and may explain only @ 10k for league 1 games at the Ricoh.
It is the owners responsibility to make this club attractive again and it is their complete inability to run a football club that has left us where we are today not fickle fans
Classic SBT. Did I not post a few pages back that CCFC's fans are fickle and fairweather but it plays only a small part in the club's situation today?
You trying to be funny?
You say the last bit flippantly like its a side issue. I support the team as it is representative of the city I was born in, to have that affiliation taken away is a massive deal. My love for the club is not unconditional. You may be happy to be treated with utter contempt by the owners but I think I have a bit more respect for myself to be a nodding dog at the owners disposal.
And that's the ideal solution, isn't it? If they want a new stadium then fair enough but do a deal to play at the Ricoh in the meantime.
The club earns 5-10 times as much in ticketing revenue alone, ACL get the stadium filled every other week and can plan for the club's departure for a new stadium they fully own. Everybody wins, so why aren't we doing it? Ah, because our esteemed owner has a personal agenda against the council.
Congratulations Fernandopartridge and Toorch who have managed to steer the conversation away from the utter and disastrous mess our accounts show us to be in to criticise our long suffering fans
We've had years of nothing, although most people now seem to judge teams who sustain themselves in the Premier League as successful (see references to Southampton) - we did that for 34 years so were successful in that respect.
The club earns 5-10 times as much in ticketing revenue alone, ACL get the stadium filled every other week and can plan for the club's departure for a new stadium they fully own. Everybody wins, so why aren't we doing it? Ah, because our esteemed owner has a personal agenda against the council.
The club earns 5-10 times as much in ticketing revenue alone, ACL get the stadium filled every other week and can plan for the club's departure for a new stadium they fully own. Everybody wins, so why aren't we doing it? Ah, because our esteemed owner has a personal agenda against the council.
So what? I don't support another league club. Presumably no one else who attended the Ricoh or HR over the years does either.
We all criticise sisu, and what they have done is abysmal, but even when sisu were liked, attendances were dropping. Bot giving them much of a chance to build is it?
Didn't ACL reject a temporary thing?
Yes, I believe the offer was for 10 years with no break clauses.
Its called ambition something this football club has always lacked and thats the point.
I presume this this comment means you are happy with just mediocrity.
When were Sisu liked?
Coleman played probably the worst football in recent years and performed terribly (17th and 19th place finishes), Boothroyd slightly better but again finished nowhere, Thorn, well enough said.
It's not about how much the fans like the owner, it's about the success of the team on the pitch. And nothing else.
Its called ambition something this football club has always lacked and thats the point.
I presume this this comment means you are happy with just mediocrity.
That was the offer at admin (not heard the no break clause thing though, source?) and was made as stated repeatedly because those are the FL rules on tenancy of a ground.
They've since offered several temporary deals that have been rejected. Not sure you can pin this one on them.
So if the money put in isn't really debt just "a couple" of questions
1) why do they or ARVO require security?
2) why is interest charged?
3) why is at least part of the loan repayable in December 2014?
4) why is it described as loans and borrowings?
5) is there formal loan agreements?
6) whose money is being lent to SBS&L or Otium
7) why are these loans now shown as repayable within one year of the balance sheet date (ie by May 2014)
8) how does the loans now being repayable within1 year of the balance Sheet (May 2014) date tally with the intention to not call the loans in before Feb 2015?
9) is the debt owed to a third party?
10) is ARVO part of the same overall group as SBS&L
11) Do SISU simply manage the loans from other people?
etc etc etc
Didn't ACL reject a temporary thing?
That was the offer at admin (not heard the no break clause thing though, source?) and was made as stated repeatedly because those are the FL rules on tenancy of a ground.
They've since offered several temporary deals that have been rejected. Not sure you can pin this one on them.
Yes, absolutely agree. This is what makes us as a group fickle. Other teams haven't seen that drop in attendances.
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?