They still said no though when CCFC said "we will build our own stadium, can we play here while we do it".
They had the issue of planning etc though? If they could have just built a stadium without ACL knowing and then dropping the bomb at the end of the season they could have, could ACL have readied for it if they had waited that long?
its all about getting CCFC in a position to move forward.
rent/freehold its all same thing, change is needed to help the club.
this was always gonna happen at some point. be it these owners or some new ones down the line.
Of course they did. Firstly no-one believes they will actually build it, they think it's brinkmanship. Secondly, they don't want the club to leave and believe(d) that there was no way out of the relationship.
Why should the club be able to back out of legal contracts? Especially ones that entire regeneration projects for whole swathes of the city were built around?
There's always been a symbiotic relationship between club and city, until Joy arrived.
ACL must believe they have the upper hand hence why they have left the door open to the Club, my guess would be that ACL believe it will be nigh-on-impossible for the Club to build a new Stadium.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The same could then be said about why should ACL be able to hold the club to ransom because they have no other option? I know that originally the lease deal was agreed to and it was signed before that happens. Originally if the club were asking for lower rent, asking to talk about it but being told to piss off then what could they do?
I don't believe in the stadium, but on the other hand I never thought we would leave the Ricoh so trying to second guess them isn't that easy. God knows how long they planned the "get out of the lease" thing so they may have plenty of tricks up their sleeve.
Firstly the last thing CCFC have been in this is "honest". First it was about rent. Then lower rent. Then revenues. Then freehold. Then matchday costs. They intentionally kept their plans for CCFC Ltd hidden until the last minute. They deliberately timed it so the FL had to act.
I'd have had just as many issues with their methodology. I'm a person with strong morals in certain areas and I don't like the club I associate with going against them.
However, I'd probably have a season ticket there and be a fan, if a slightly unhappy one. As I expect would many others. More to the point, in our first two seasons in League 1 we wouldn't have lost 20 points and we wouldn't have lost 9000 fans and we wouldn't have lost a significant chunk of our wage budget.
We could realistically been in the Championship, and far more fans would be supportive of the owners after a promotion.
It was badly handled all around, even if you agree with the tactics they used (which I don't) and the overall aims (which I don't).
Or (and this is a bit out there I know) maybe, just maybe, an organisation owned by two groups of people dedicated to the wellbeing of the city (legally), and staffed by a large portion of CCFC fans, wants the club back because they want the club in Coventry. For no reason other than they think it's a good idea.
I really don't understand the logic that suggests that a group of bankers has the club's interests at heart over a group of people from Coventry. Why is it always ACL that must have some other reason, yet Sisu genuinely want what's best for the club? How do you even begin to arrive at that conclusion?
It's not just a recent "SISU thing" though is it? The club has been in decline for decades.
My point is other teams have still maintained a good level of support regardless of how well they are doing.
I am not discussing about the past I am discussing about this issue with the new Stadium or the possibility of.
You asked whether it would be appropriate for the Club in essence to stick two fingers up to everyone build Legoland and not reveal this to anyone until the point they moved us in? Yet it would not be better to inform the fans that the Club are planning to do this, it would not be better for the fans to have input on any new Stadium that could be the Clubs potential home?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So what? I don't support another league club. Presumably no one else who attended the Ricoh or HR over the years does either
Sorry, I think we're at crossed purposes. I mean announce the new stadium, get fans input, etc. But don't announce how you're getting out of the lease until you have to. Why would you?
Surely if they really had the club's interest at heart they would have lowered the rent when the club was asking for help? (going back before SISU if it is true we asked then). Surely if they can now offer all of these amazing things like "free" rent, they could have helped the club out?
Surely the theory that for SISU to make any money, they need some sort of success / football ground.
How could they have done this new stadium in secret when they need CCC for planning? Would CCC have ever given any planning?
Not a bad guess I would think Robbo but what is in the best interests of the club ? Keep being told people (including TF & ML) are only interested in what is best for the club. Keeping the loans is to SISU's benefit not the Clubs and that is a separate interest to CCFC. There is always the words "No its not for sale" quite simple, clear and to the point. Also wouldn't expect their "Bank" Arvo to convert much more than they have so that's a barrier to any potential purchaser that wont go away
The wise Northern Wisdom said that the council should have bent over bacwards to help the club with a new ground, offerering suitable sites, stating would be no objections from them with regards to planning permission etc.
Would have flushed out Sisu's real intentions a bit sooner than refusal to deal with them and put Sisu on the spot regarding a new ground.
Surely if they really had the club's interest at heart they would have lowered the rent when the club was asking for help? (going back before SISU if it is true we asked then). Surely if they can now offer all of these amazing things like "free" rent, they could have helped the club out?
Surely the theory that for SISU to make any money, they need some sort of success / football ground.
How could they have done this new stadium in secret when they need CCC for planning? Would CCC have ever given any planning?
Wouldn't that give people time to prepare / block holes? How could they have done that without CCC anyway for planning?
So you're saying that CCFC did something illegal when breaking the lease?
(GTG, parents evening)
Quite honestly FP, I have no idea.
Normally you try to predict the future by assuming that people will act rationally - which would suggest one of my two alternative scenarios - but we are playing at Sixfields....
The wise Northern Wisdom said that the council should have bent over bacwards to help the club with a new ground, offerering suitable sites, stating would be no objections from them with regards to planning permission etc.
Would have flushed out Sisu's real intentions a bit sooner than refusal to deal with them and put Sisu on the spot regarding a new ground.
I agree completely. But neither you nor I know how true that was, or what efforts were made and no-one (other than PWKH) is willing to tell us. The counter argument (and just as flimsy) is why didn't the club accept the rumoured sliding scale? The thing is that both parties will make plans based on the deal that's agreed. That's why you sign a contract. The club can be blamed for poor judgement, but I'm not sure the council or ACL or Higgs can for accepting it. But again, we know so little about this period, it's all really speculation.
Surely if they really had the club's interest at heart they would have lowered the rent when the club was asking for help? (going back before SISU if it is true we asked then). Surely if they can now offer all of these amazing things like "free" rent, they could have helped the club out?
Surely the theory that for SISU to make any money, they need some sort of success / football ground.
How could they have done this new stadium in secret when they need CCC for planning? Would CCC have ever given any planning?
Rational would be winding it all up...
The root of one of our oldest disagreements NW - I can't see any way in which it's more rational to wind a business up for nothing, than sell it for something.
Surely if they really had the club's interest at heart they would have lowered the rent when the club was asking for help? (going back before SISU if it is true we asked then). Surely if they can now offer all of these amazing things like "free" rent, they could have helped the club out?
Rational would be winding it all up...
So you're saying that CCFC did something illegal when breaking the lease?
(GTG, parents evening)
Sorry, I think we're at crossed purposes. I mean announce the new stadium, get fans input, etc. But don't announce how you're getting out of the lease until you have to. Why would you?
I'm sure your Mum and Dad will be very proud of how you've done so far this term
First of all - it's naïve to think sisu have any altruistic motive. They're doing what is best for them. In most cases that would also mean doing what is best for the club.
But your sentence in bold may hold the key to most confusion ... sisu have build that barrier on purpose, they are not inviting any potential takeover. We saw that clearly during the administration.
Oh I know they have no altruistic motive here, no naivete on my part just pointing out a contradiction in many fans thinking...... The club is a means to an end, a tool to be used in their scheme. Then we agree that the purpose of this is first and foremost their investors and that the club just happens to get a supposed benefit only if it coincides with their aim? Just saying no was possible if it was primarily about the club - it isn't.
Oh I know they have no altruistic motive here, no naivete on my part just pointing out a contradiction in many fans thinking...... The club is a means to an end, a tool to be used in their scheme. Then we agree that the purpose of this is first and foremost their investors and that the club just happens to get a supposed benefit only if it coincides with their aim? Just saying no was possible if it was primarily about the club - it isn't.
And that's because nobody wants to listen to the context.
Because it's not what they'd do.
So we sleepwalk to oblivion because nobody wants to listen and front up to the possibility.
I always preferred Stadium of Joy or the Fishbowl myself, but this seems to have stuck.
I really like Legoland (the actual one).
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?