Some Feedback from Les on SBT Leagal Action (1 Viewer)

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Dec 10, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
SISU were never going to make the club sustainable, as the whole plan was 300% return over 3 years and then get out... apparently.

The only reason SISU are here, is because the club was never going to be sustainable, *any* owner would have seen the same decline, and the only reason SISU were able to buy us was because we were only appealing to such a form of investment... because we weren't and aren't sustainable.

So ignore that, and the same circles will repeat.

Repeatedly.

And nobody wants that, do they?

I'm sorry - I profoundly disagree with you. Yes the rent was too high. Yes, access was needsd to revenues. Those issues needed to be adreessed and renegotiated with a sensible business plan at the time of purchase. Or the purchaser walk away.

But think on; even with rents at £1.2m, with 18K gates at the time of their arrival, and assuming a nominal £15 ticket - which is pretty generous across all areas - the rent only came to c.10% of the ticket revenues. Again, too high: but it did leave 90%, plus shirt sponsorship (the highest the club ever had), cup games, TV revenues, merchandising, etc to build a business plan within. Business plans start with known incomes, then expenditure is budgeted based on that, and allowing for catastrophic business failures such as relegation.

People build and run businesses based on the above all over the world. I won't accept our football club couldn't, as it's a lame excuse for failure

RoboCCFC90 · Dec 10, 2013

shmmeee said:
You, like many others, mistake being impartial with accrediting equal blame to both sides.

It's not impartial to say "the Nazis and the Jews were both to blame for the holocaust" because the facts don't support that.

Les Reid's job is to find and report on facts. Not his opinion, not what he feels, facts. After all Comment is free, but facts are sacred.

To imply that the vast majority of CCFC fans are misguided and unable to find their own way through this maze of crap is not just insulting to us, it shows what a poor job he has done of informing us.

There is an ever decreasing minority on here (and GMK) who think that it's an untouchable position to blame both sides, as if this is the pinnacle of reason. Whereas in fact, it just shows an inability to make up your mind or make judgements based on the facts available.

As for why wouldn't he back a protest against the Council, perhaps we should ask why he hasn't backed the many other protests against Sisu or the FL?

What a sack of S***

If you feel there are enough reasons to justify that both sets of warring parties are to blame then you are able to come to that opinion based on your reading of the facts.

Deleted member 5849 · Dec 10, 2013

The Gentleman said:
Do you honestly believe in what you have just wrote ?

Yes, because it's a valid argument.

The counter argument isn;t that it's an invalid argument, the counter argument would be that the very validity of it as an argument is why SISU have put it up as their negotiating position.

Nick · Dec 10, 2013

shmmeee said:
There is an ever decreasing minority on here (and GMK) who think that it's an untouchable position to blame both sides, as if this is the pinnacle of reason. Whereas in fact, it just shows an inability to make up your mind or make judgements based on the facts available.

It is even more annoying when you must be able to calculate a percentage of blame to please some people.

Nonleagueherewecome · Dec 10, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Nope, staying where we were was horrendously unsustainable, always has been.

Not at all. It wouldn't have been if we had got promoted to the top flight (which SISU said initially they were going to ensure). Or bought the stadium (which SISU initially said they were going to do). Or re-purchased the F & B revenues. You are showing your true colours by arguing that leaving The Ricoh was the correct move.

Deleted member 5849 · Dec 10, 2013

Noggin said:
No way, the costs involved in borrowing the money would be far in excess of the unsustainable rent, the loss of fans over the 5 years+ would hurt more than any food and beverage. We have not seen any indication whatsoever that there is any financial benefit to building our own stadium.

Personally I'd like to see the owners of the club planning for more than 5 years in the future.

Unfortunately it's where the argument falls down in this context - that we don't have owners who are in the business of planning more than 5 years in the future!

But a new stadium would probably be hugely better for the club than the previous status quo.

The Gentleman · Dec 10, 2013

RoboCCFC90 said:
What a sack of S***

If you feel there are enough reasons to justify that both sets of warring parties are to blame then you are able to come to that opinion based on your reading of the facts.

Why is it ?

Deleted member 5849 · Dec 10, 2013

Nonleagueherewecome said:
Not at all. It wouldn't have been if we had got promoted to the top flight (which SISU said initially they were going to do ensure). Or bought the stadium (which SISU initially said they were going to do). Or re-purchased the F & B revenues. You are showing your true colours by arguing that leaving The Ricoh was the correct move.

"Showing your true colours." Have a wordointlaugh:

RoboCCFC90 · Dec 10, 2013

The Gentleman said:
Why is it ?

If you feel there are enough reasons to justify that both sets of warring parties are to blame then you are able to come to that opinion based on your reading and interpretation of the facts.

Deleted member 5849 · Dec 10, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I'm sorry - I profoundly disagree with you. Yes the rent was too high. Yes, access was needsd to revenues. Those issues needed to be adreessed and renegotiated with a sensible business plan at the time of purchase. Or the purchaser walk away.

But think on; even with rents at £1.2m, with 18K gates at the time of their arrival, and assuming a nominal £15 ticket - which is pretty generous across all areas - the rent only came to c.10% of the ticket revenues. Again, too high: but it did leave 90%, plus shirt sponsorship (the highest the club ever had), cup games, TV revenues, merchandising, etc to build a business plan within. Business plans start with known incomes, then expenditure is budgeted based on that, and allowing for catastrophic business failures such as relegation.

People build and run businesses based on the above all over the world. I won't accept our football club couldn't, as it's a lame excuse for failure

I have thunk on, and our club is a basket case, only accessible to dubious investment portfolios who are prepared for high risk short term punts for a high reward, caring little for what they leave behind.

Ignore that, and the chances of inappropriate chancers owning our club *next* time increase - look at the welcoming with open arms of a Texan property developer being sold a property portfolio, for example.

Nonleagueherewecome · Dec 10, 2013

_brian_ said:
When Les Reid starts to write exactly what I'm thinking, then - and only then - will I take his journalism seriously!!! Until that point, I'm afraid he serves no purpose as I can not use his articles to back up my arguments!

Obviously you're Brian and not serious, but....David Conn managed it whilst remaining objective! Les could learn a hell of a lot from an infinitely superior journalist.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Dec 10, 2013

cochese said:
If it were facts that were reported, why was there a threat to sue? If it's a bigger picture you're after, what made the Guardian article so great when there was little or no mention of the other parties involved in this "war"? Les seems vilified for not writing enough about SISU, and the Guardian is let off despite barely mentioning the role that ACL and the council have played in all of this.

Because threats are often enough. I wonder if they will sue the Guardian? The Guardian wouldn't be as easily scared off as a few fans with modest means stirring up 'trouble' in a semi in Wyken, would they?

The Guardian article majored on the decline since SISU arrived. I think ACL/CCC may have played a part in one element of that. But even the 'horrendous' rent (if we ignore the almost division-best facilities that went with it) was only the same as the wages SISU gifted to the combined might of Bell and Wood for the season.

If you think the rent (c.10% of the totalist of declared losses at time of administration) is equal in 'blame' as everything else, then again, I profoundly disagree with you. A did the Guardian journalist; hence the article

The Gentleman · Dec 10, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Personally I'd like to see the owners of the club planning for more than 5 years in the future.

Unfortunately it's where the argument falls down in this context - that we don't have owners who are in the business of planning more than 5 years in the future!

But a new stadium would probably be hugely better for the club than the previous status quo.

But that would only be true if there all clubs owned their grounds. Are there not teams out there who do rent a stadium and make it work, why do we feel the need to lump even more debt on our club and make our position even more perilous ? In our current position, is it not sensible to for Sisu to take up the latest offer, when we have returned, carry out sensible and adult talks, make a simple and sensible offer for the Ricoh, buy the Ricoh, make us more sustainable and then sell us and fuck off into the sunset. No need for planning for the future because if they do that, does that not secure us ?

Deleted member 5849 · Dec 10, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Because threats are often enough. I wonder if they will sue the Guardian? The Guardian wouldn't be as easily scared off as a few fans with modest means stirring up 'trouble' in a semi in Wyken, would they?

If they did sue the Guardian, it would be a very good thing...

_brian_ · Dec 10, 2013

The Gentleman said:
Why don't you grow up man, what is the point of continually going back over old ground FFS, how far do you want to go to look where our troubles started 5, 10, 20 years, whats the fucking point ? if you are always looking back how are you ever going to move forward. QUOTE]

I agree!!! Which is why I think they shouldn't teach history in school!* What purpose does it serve to learn about past mistakes in order to prevent them happening again?!?!

(*Just my opinon, before anyone jumps down my throat!!!**)

(**Or on my fingers, as technically I'm typing not talking!!! LOL!)

The Gentleman · Dec 10, 2013

RoboCCFC90 said:
If you feel there are enough reasons to justify that both sets of warring parties are to blame then you are able to come to that opinion based on your reading and interpretation of the facts.

Well as long as you are happy with the current situation and your balanced view and feel that it is helping the club to go in the right direction, good for you

bigfatronssba · Dec 10, 2013

I'm still confused as to what is balanced about Les Reids view anyway.

We all want CCFC back in Coventry, that we agree on. Surely a balanced view would be showing equal pressure to both the council to sell, and Sisu to accept the rent deal?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Dec 10, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
If they did sue the Guardian, it would be a very good thing...

I'm not so sure. Don't underestimate the power of the freedom of the press. If they pushed for right to reply - then that's great. Freedom of information again.

But if they were pushing only to scare people into gagged silence; well, that's all a bit reminiscent of the modus operandi of an organisation which oversaw orange-jacketed thugs strong-arming folk out of the Ricoh, isn't it?

Deleted member 5849 · Dec 10, 2013

The Gentleman said:
But that would only be true if there all clubs owned their grounds. Are there not teams out there who do rent a stadium and make it work, why do we feel the need to lump even more debt on our club and make our position even more perilous ? In our current position, is it not sensible to for Sisu to take up the latest offer, when we have returned, carry out sensible and adult talks, make a simple and sensible offer for the Ricoh, buy the Ricoh, make us more sustainable and then sell us and fuck off into the sunset. No need for planning for the future because if they do that, does that not secure us ?

There are very few clubs who do make it work renting their grounds. Those that do, it works because there's a partnership that doesn't butt heads - Northampton being a good example lately, in fact(!) On the plus side, our current council leader has made vast efforts to repair that, something that should be recognised.

Probably the best deal IMHO for everybody is CCC keep the freehold, enabling them to control what happens to the stadium long term in terms of development of the ground, the stadium itself is leased to the club for 125 year peppercorn rent, and the land around is handed to CCC to do with as they please.

But that ain't the previous status quo. The fact all avenues are now on the table for discussion is a good thing, as opposed to blindly accepting a business required to run efficiently for itself (as in ACL) makes decisions based on what's good for anything other than ACL.

That in no way devalues the essence of SISU. the obvious question, after all, is why such a deal as the above would no longer be acceptable, where previously it would have been...

Deleted member 5849 · Dec 10, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I'm not so sure. Don't underestimate the power of the freedom of the press. If they pushed for right to reply - then that's great. Freedom of information again.

But if they were pushing only to scare people into gagged silence; well, that's all a bit reminiscent of the modus operandi of an organisation which oversaw orange-jacketed thugs strong-arming folk out of the Ricoh, isn't it?

As both LS and myself pointed out the other day, the Guardian of all papers are more likely to welcome such action than most, they're also rather good at defending it.

And if people are willing to put up a fight, the actual court cases tend to see the truth come out one way or another... it's the threat of the costs involved that acts as the deterrent after all, and if somebody wants to respond to such threats, said court cases can often shine lights that otherwise wouldn't be shone.

As it is, probably a good thing that something directly related to the Guardian gets pushed, no, even if not directed explicitly at the Guardian (as of yet?) We need national attention, and what better way to get it.

Nonleagueherewecome · Dec 10, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
"Showing your true colours." Have a wordointlaugh:

You love to make out that you're objective-that's your best defence for your bias, which shines through in an opinion that you fail to defend when it's scrutinised, instead quipping like you're Danny Dyer :jerkit:

The Gentleman · Dec 10, 2013

I just wanted to re read the email from Les and for the life of me see how it can be viewed as balanced. He say's he knows Sisu are popular (no shit Sherlock), he has forced admissions from Fisher and the FL (arm up the back, I doubt it) it all came out anyway, he then tells us about him and we get a small look at what his CV would look like and then some thinly veiled digs at ACL/CCC. In the words of Jim Royle "BALANCED MY ARSE".

Deleted member 5849 · Dec 10, 2013

Nonleagueherewecome said:
You love to make out that you're objective-that's your best defence for your bias, which shines through in an opinion that you fail to defend when it's scrutinised, instead quipping like you're Danny Dyer :jerkit:

Putting words in my mouth I never said makes you look a bit of a twat tbh.

Nonleagueherewecome · Dec 10, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Putting words in my mouth I never said makes you look a bit of a twat tbh.

You said The Ricoh was unsustainable and always was going to be. I refuted that, you didn't reply. Twat.

lewys33 · Dec 10, 2013

I didnt even get half way down that reply before I got bored of his bullshit.

Noggin · Dec 10, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Personally I'd like to see the owners of the club planning for more than 5 years in the future.

Unfortunately it's where the argument falls down in this context - that we don't have owners who are in the business of planning more than 5 years in the future!

But a new stadium would probably be hugely better for the club than the previous status quo.

It's not just 5 years though for there to be any arguement made for a new stadium to make us better off, it's not going to be in the next 25 years. after the 25 years once the loans have been paid off perhaps we would be better off, assuming the stadium was big enough, in the correct location, and the damage to the club while it was being built wasn't completely terminal and that somehow we've survived 25 years in an even less sustainable situation than the one you just called horrendously unsustainable

I completely agree as I'm sure everyone does that owning your own stadium with access to all the revenues is important, it provides significant benefits however if the costs to obtain this are significantly greater than the benefits (and they are) then its a terrible idea.

We seem to be discussing something that were were months ago when at least there was the tiniest chance that sisu were actually planning to build a stadium, 6 months after we were going to get much greater detail in 2 weeks does anyone really think there is any chance of this really being a plan?

RoboCCFC90 · Dec 10, 2013

The Gentleman said:
Well as long as you are happy with the current situation and your balanced view and feel that it is helping the club to go in the right direction, good for you

I am not happy with the current situation in the slightest, however the club needs to own it's full stadium now whether that is the Ricoh, Highfield Road or Lego Land it needs to be owned by the club to maximise revenues. If this sham of a situation helps us to return to the Ricoh as owners of the Freehold as painful as it says to say it should be done.

The Gentleman · Dec 10, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
There are very few clubs who do make it work renting their grounds. Those that do, it works because there's a partnership that doesn't butt heads - Northampton being a good example lately, in fact(!) On the plus side, our current council leader has made vast efforts to repair that, something that should be recognised.

Probably the best deal IMHO for everybody is CCC keep the freehold, enabling them to control what happens to the stadium long term in terms of development of the ground, the stadium itself is leased to the club for 125 year peppercorn rent, and the land around is handed to CCC to do with as they please.

But that ain't the previous status quo. The fact all avenues are now on the table for discussion is a good thing, as opposed to blindly accepting a business required to run efficiently for itself (as in ACL) makes decisions based on what's good for anything other than ACL.

That in no way devalues the essence of SISU. the obvious question, after all, is why such a deal as the above would no longer be acceptable, where previously it would have been...

So the fact that some do make it work is surely the reason for Sisu to accept the latest offer and take it from there. As you mentioned in a previous post, the CCC's stance seems to have changed and the fact they want to at least have a discussion is progress. Sisu on the hand are playing like children (not business people) and despite all avenues on the table will not make a blind bit of difference to the situation because we know what Sisu want and it is only one thing at peanuts and not a single other avenue will even be looked at by them.

Deleted member 5849 · Dec 10, 2013

Nonleagueherewecome said:
You said The Ricoh was unsustainable and always was going to be. I refuted that, you didn't reply. Twat.

Nonleagueherewecome said:
You are showing your true colours by arguing that leaving The Ricoh was the correct move.

THAT is why you're a twat.

The attempts to hold any kind of discussion on this board ends up with idiots like you trying to read into things what you want to see.

The Gentleman · Dec 10, 2013

RoboCCFC90 said:
I am not happy with the current situation in the slightest, however the club needs to own it's full stadium now whether that is the Ricoh, Highfield Road or Lego Land it needs to be owned by the club to maximise revenues. If this sham of a situation helps us to return to the Ricoh as owners of the Freehold as painful as it says to say it should be done.

Do you live in Coventry ? I'm sure that from reading some of your other posts you don't because you talk about a lot of travel.

RoboCCFC90 · Dec 10, 2013

The Gentleman said:
Do you live in Coventry ? I'm sure that from reading some of your other posts you don't because you talk about a lot of travel.

No not at present, but I don't see what that has to do with anything really.

Deleted member 5849 · Dec 10, 2013

The Gentleman said:
So the fact that some do make it work is surely the reason for Sisu to accept the latest offer and take it from there. As you mentioned in a previous post, the CCC's stance seems to have changed and the fact they want to at least have a discussion is progress. Sisu on the hand are playing like children (not business people) and despite all avenues on the table will not make a blind bit of difference to the situation because we know what Sisu want and it is only one thing at peanuts and not a single other avenue will even be looked at by them.

I've said repeatedly if a 3 year deal is on offer, they should take it and get on with building their own stadium if that's what they say they'll do. I've said repeatedly their bluff should be called.

We're not actually arguing here, are we? it's just a desire from some to split other perspectives and make them different, when they're not.

As I said, condemning one action doesn't automatically mean I think other actions are right, and this is downright wrong!

Nonleagueherewecome · Dec 10, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
THAT is why you're a twat.

The attempts to hold any kind of discussion on this board ends up with idiots like you trying to read into things what you want to see.

You won't fucking reply to my point and decided to call me a twat instead! Fucking moron.

The Gentleman · Dec 10, 2013

RoboCCFC90 said:
No not at present, but I don't see what that has to do with anything really.

Because not everybody in Coventry is a fan of CCFC and if this sham of a situation ends in Sisu getting the Ricoh and all around it for far less than it is worth and it in some way is detrimental to the people of Coventry, why should it be done ? should it be done just to make fans like you happy ?

Deleted member 5849 · Dec 10, 2013

I have replied to your point, your lazy good-for-nothing point of putting words in my mouth I never said.

You'll be calling me a SISU rent boy soon enough.

Not that I have to justify myself to you, but if you knew me you would know it would be entirely the opposite. Unfortunately debates often get polarised by such lazy pigeon-holing and attempts to create friction.

Some Feedback from Les on SBT Leagal Action (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency