SOMETHING ABOUT JR D (5 Viewers)

fernandopartridge · Dec 1, 2016

Only a clown like oucho "I vote for who looks most likely to win" would celebrate this completely hollow council 'victory'.

The outcome regardless of SISU is of significant detriment to CCFC. The ACL bail out, in the current council leader's words was "....to ensure an asset for the council and the people of Coventry was secured" those words are misleading and inaccurate. ACL was only a council asset for a further 20 months or so, I suspect the loan was really just a means of buying time until Wasps could buy the stadium, hence the secrecy around it. Why this is a cause for celebration is beyond my comprehension.

fernandopartridge · Dec 1, 2016

skybluebeduff said:
Where you reading that? they contributed £15mill towards it and will now pay £2.5mill per year rent.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/west-hams-olympic-stadium-rent-7753635

The stadium cost £323m to convert. Even if it has a useful life of 100 years, it would still be a huge loss to the taxpayer investment in it. That's completely disregarding the £429m it cost to build it in the first place.

italiahorse · Dec 1, 2016

fernandopartridge said:
Only a clown like oucho "I vote for who looks most likely to win" would celebrate this completely hollow council 'victory'.

The outcome regardless of SISU is of significant detriment to CCFC. The ACL bail out, in the current council leader's words was "....to ensure an asset for the council and the people of Coventry was secured" those words are misleading and inaccurate. ACL was only a council asset for a further 20 months or so, I suspect the loan was really just a means of buying time until Wasps could buy the stadium, hence the secrecy around it. Why this is a cause for celebration is beyond my comprehension.

The Freehold still belongs to CCC.
Would it not still be on the books as an asset ?

RegTheDonk · Dec 1, 2016

oldskyblue58 said:
......they would have to prove they had a right to be offered a deal, that they had a connection to the stadium that gave that right, that it was this decision to sell to Wasps that damaged the club at the time (2014) and since, that they had made their intentions clear etc.....

Do you think they had an idea that WASPs were coming in for the Ricoh, and that was the reason they decided to move back, even though they'd started the season in Northampton? They could then say they were back in good faith and were looking forward to buying into ACL etc...?

Edit, scratch that - Tim repeatedly said they were still going to build they own stadium. The plank shot himself in the foot there.

skybluebeduff · Dec 1, 2016

fernandopartridge said:
The stadium cost £323m to convert. Even if it has a useful life of 100 years, it would still be a huge loss to the taxpayer investment in it. That's completely disregarding the £429m it cost to build it in the first place.

The discussion was about rent which Reverend mentioned, not even mentioned costs.

Sky Blue Kid · Dec 1, 2016

covmark said:
No answer to the question then? Then again you're on some sort of heroic boycott, so football results aren't particularly important.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

What I think has got nothing to do with you. but to humour you, I think if this pushes SISU out of the City without being detrimental to the football club, then I'm all for it.

italiahorse · Dec 1, 2016

fernandopartridge said:
The stadium cost £323m to convert. Even if it has a useful life of 100 years, it would still be a huge loss to the taxpayer investment in it. That's completely disregarding the £429m it cost to build it in the first place.

Don't West Ham rent it on match days and the stadium is used for other things like athletics and concerts that they don't get incomes from?

Grendel · Dec 1, 2016

skybluebeduff said:
Where you reading that? they contributed £15mill towards it and will now pay £2.5mill per year rent.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/west-hams-olympic-stadium-rent-7753635

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36043808

It actually says it in the article. The build cost was 90% funded by the taxpayer the rent includes all match day and maintenance costs and crucially the arrangement on sponsorship deals means it's a cash benefit to be there.

Bit different to our arrangement.

skybluetony176 · Dec 1, 2016

Grendel said:
I didn't it's just if its not written in crayons it's above your pay grade level of comprehension.

Oh dear. The irony of someone telling someone else that they won't understand something as it's not written in crayon indicating that they're a child after accusing a group of people having mutual masturbations session. And then to go on and give it the bigun over pay grades. You seriously need to grow up.

You're obviously taking this news badly. Which is ironic as I've already said in my first post on this thread I to don't take any joy from this decision. The difference being where that comes from. I suspect you don't welcome this decision for no other reason than you 've missed the opportunity to say I told you so.

Sky Blue Kid · Dec 1, 2016

clint van damme said:
would gladly to be wrong on this one SBK.

I don't know what it is, but it's a gut feeling that CCC. would be more than helpful to our Club when SISU leave.

italiahorse · Dec 1, 2016

Grendel said:
Bit different to our arrangement.

I would suggest that if we negotiate a deal in good faith we could get access to similar incomes.
If we are really clever we could negotiate a deal with incremental increases towards the PL.
Or we can FIGHT !!

covmark · Dec 1, 2016

Sky Blue Kid said:
What I think has got nothing to do with you. but to humour you, I think if this pushes SISU out of the City without being detrimental to the football club, then I'm all for it.

Wrt your first sentence, why are you on a forum if you don't want to share your thoughts with others?
If Sisu left then it'd be worth it for sure, but to celebrate a court win and claim it to be the best result of the season is a joke.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

Grendel · Dec 1, 2016

skybluebeduff said:
The discussion was about rent which Reverend mentioned, not even mentioned costs.

The rent is a red herring as all costs are met by the management company.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp..../apr/14/west-ham-deal-century-olympic-stadium

skybluebeduff · Dec 1, 2016

Grendel said:
It actually says it in the article. The build cost was 90% funded by the taxpayer the rent includes all match day and maintenance costs and crucially the arrangement on sponsorship deals means it's a cash benefit to be there.

Bit different to our arrangement.

Yes the agreement that dies in 2018, oh the joys.

skybluebeduff · Dec 1, 2016

Grendel said:
The rent is a red herring as all costs are met by the management company.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp..../apr/14/west-ham-deal-century-olympic-stadium

Thank you, jackpot for West Ham.

Sky Blue Kid · Dec 1, 2016

covmark said:
Wrt your first sentence, why are you on a forum if you don't want to share your thoughts with others?
If Sisu left then it'd be worth it for sure, but to celebrate a court win and claim it to be the best result of the season is a joke.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

Why are you on a forum and never make any worthwhile posts? You only come on here and leave comments, Twat!, Fucking idiot, nobhead,.... Need I go on?
Like I said before on numerous occasions Nomark. You've never got owt to say that's worthwhile .... And where have I stated that I'm celebrating a court win to be best result of the season?

covmark · Dec 1, 2016

Sky Blue Kid said:
Why are you on a forum and never make any worthwhile posts? You only come on here and leave comments, Twat!, Fucking idiot, nobhead,.... Need I go on?
Like I said before on numerous occasions Nomark. You've never got owt to say that's worthwhile

Tbh, I don't often come on anymore mainly bored of cunts like you and oucho.
Don't think I've ever said nobhead or fucking idiot, but those two terms describe you perfectly.
Have a nice evening.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

Sky Blue Kid · Dec 1, 2016

covmark said:
Tbh, I don't often come on anymore mainly bored of cunts like you and oucho.
Don't think I've ever said nobhead or fucking idiot, but those two terms describe you perfectly.
Have a nice evening.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

See what I mean hahahaha.

The Reverend Skyblue · Dec 1, 2016

italiahorse said:
... and in the PL it would be insignificant.

but we are in bloody League One, so what's that got to do with it

Ashdown · Dec 1, 2016

Captain Dart said:
Download the accounts free at companies house
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/

So in those last posted accounts once again 'Admin charges of over £2 million to create an overall loss of £2.5 million ?! How does that work then ?

Sky Blue Kid · Dec 1, 2016

covmark said:
Tbh, I don't often come on anymore mainly bored of cunts like you and oucho.
Don't think I've ever said nobhead or fucking idiot, but those two terms describe you perfectly.
Have a nice evening.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

Really? but you've said that quite often haven't you? mouthy bastard!

RegTheDonk · Dec 1, 2016

Grendel said:
And those who no longer attend cannot bitch about budget cuts when that is down to them

Thats a very valid point G and I agree. Likewise, those who do come surely have every right to criticise the owners - and demand answers if. The stay aways, I'd venture its not so much them taking a NOPM stance, our shocking last 12 months on the pitch has been the main factor for people staying away.

Only thing that I would raise budet cut wise is, when things were going well last year, crowds were above the break even target SISU were touting. Then suddenly, oh we got the figures wrong.
It's amateurish, smacks of deceipt, and does nothing to encourage fans to the cause.

italiahorse · Dec 1, 2016

The Reverend Skyblue said:
but we are in bloody League One, so what's that got to do with it

But when it was negotiated the club thought return was imminent. I suspect Sisu thought the same when they took over.

Grendel · Dec 1, 2016

italiahorse said:
But when it was negotiated the club thought return was imminent. I suspect Sisu thought the same when they took over.

The deal was struck to cover the cost of the £21 million loan to acl so as ever you are bullshitting.

ccfcway · Dec 1, 2016

no word from the club on this yet ?

Como · Dec 1, 2016

Makes me wonder if SISU will bail, what point is there to stay?

Malaka · Dec 1, 2016

torchomatic said:
Yes, I can. But at the end of the day if we can't pay our bills because we aren't getting the revenue we need then that is what we'll have to do. Sell our best players.

I couldn't put a like on it, because I don't like what you wrote. But it is true

Grendel · Dec 1, 2016

Como said:
Makes me wonder if SISU will bail, what point is there to stay?

JR 2 already been announced.

skybluebeduff · Dec 1, 2016

ccfcway said:
no word from the club on this yet ?

Took J.K Rowling years to write her fairy tales...

oldfiver · Dec 1, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
So SISU have fucked up but it's everyone else's fault. Priceless. You can't even bring yourself to say that they've fucked up choosing instead to say "I think the current position has not been handled properly by the current owners" whatever that's supposed to mean. Talk about ambiguous. In stark contrast to your opinion everyone else.

Talk about ambiguous. In stark contrast to your opinion everyone else

As usual with you you start a point and never really finish it?

oldfiver · Dec 1, 2016

skybluebeduff said:
Am I on the same level as everyone else, I don't care about anything but SISU leaving, that is all I want. I could roll off at least 30 people from the top of my head who will come back if they left. That is potentially £8970 to the club not including what we would spend on merchandise and food e.c.t.

So many on here are too political, with agendas. Mine is simple, this club needs to be built up again from scratch without SISU, or we're screwed.

You have forgotten the £5k in the SBT petty cash box

skybluetony176 · Dec 1, 2016

Grendel said:
JR 2 already been announced.

The JR 2 will deal with a specific point of law that centers around a specific action that happened at a specific point in time. Do they still need to be around to continue with JR 2. They owned the club at the time of those specific points what difference does it make if they no longer own the club? If they sold the club for a quid and wrote of the debt "real" or otherwise wouldn't that aid their claim for losses should they win? I would suggest by hanging around it's actually a good indicator of what they believe the chances of JR 2 succeeding is. Stay = low. Go and cut their loses in the process = high.

Personally I think it has even less chance of success than JR 1 so I won't be championing it. How about you? Do you think that they should persue it? Do you think that they should persue JR 1 through the European courts if that is a possibility?

oldfiver · Dec 1, 2016

italiahorse said:
It's all on record.
It looks like you backed the wrong horse.

If JR2 is launched I would watch any investment in WASPs bonds!
( This does not constitute any form of financial advice purely a personal observation )

skybluetony176 · Dec 1, 2016

oldfiver said:
Talk about ambiguous. In stark contrast to your opinion everyone else

As usual with you you start a point and never really finish it?

Is that all you've got? One missed word!

Strange.

italiahorse · Dec 1, 2016

Grendel said:
The deal was struck to cover the cost of the £21 million loan to acl so as ever you are bullshitting.

Didn't say it wasn't.
I repeat
'But when it was negotiated the club thought return was imminent. I suspect Sisu thought the same when they took over.'
Your a bit of a loose cannon as ever ....

SOMETHING ABOUT JR D (5 Viewers)

Well-Known 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

Well-Known 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

Well-Known 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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency