Statement Issued By Sky Blue Trust (3 Viewers)

[chiefdave]

Wonder why there is a 50% increase in match day costs from one season to the next?

Didn't ACL offer to subsidise the remainder of this season as SISU would have to pay compensation to Northampton if they left part way through a season?

 

---

[stupot07]

It's an odd arguement that the Ricoh should be the same cost as Sixfields. I'm sure if you wanted to hire a ground and Sphinx and the Ricoh both quoted you the same rate you'd think it was a bit odd given that one is obviously a much better facility than the other.

It is, but at the end of the day you only want a bit of grass, some seats, toilets and changing room. At the end of the day the cost is only what ACL are willing to rent it out for and what the club are willing to pay. They are charging other tenants considerably less than us. yes we would have first call but at the end of the day we will only use it 23-25 days per year, I can't see them renting office space or the shop if we go back as tenants next season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Jack Griffin]

Wonder why there is a 50% increase in match day costs from one season to the next?

I asked that question in this very forum, the best answer I can come up with is that if you do the sums the total for the first year is the about same as the Sixfields deal is said to be, ~200K. I guess one can only put down as a commercial decision, again I think it is a mistake, better to keep it simple and spread the butter evenly IMHO.

 

[Nick]

It is, but at the end of the day you only want a bit of grass, some seats, toilets and changing room. At the end of the day the cost is only what ACL are willing to rent it out for and what the club are willing to pay. They are charging other tenants considerably less than us. yes we would have first call but at the end of the day we will only use it 23-25 days per year, I can't see them renting office space or the shop if we go back as tenants next season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Exactly! It would just be the football facilities needed.

Do we get pie money at Sixfields too? If I remember they said they get a % too (not that many sell)

 

[Jack Griffin]

Exactly! It would just be the football facilities needed.

Do we get pie money at Sixfields too? If I remember they said they get a % too (not that many sell)

Whoopee doo! I guess a cut off 100-200 pies will save SISU's bacon then, could be as much as £100 pure profit that!

 

[lewys33]

It's AAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLL about the pies!

 

[Nick]

Whoopee doo! I guess a cut off 100-200 pies will save SISU's bacon then, could be as much as £100 pure profit that!

I am talking about the deal they are getting in both places

 

[blueflint]

great, but that was months ago. We need a ACL response to what is on the table for the 2014/15 season. CT / Trust need to publish this offer and use it to ask "WHY", if there is no reason at all why we are in Northampton. Clearly SISU are not going to accept a 10 year deal, so has that been revised ?

as i remember it the football league say it must be ten years they won't accept less

 

[chiefdave]

as i remember it the football league say it must be ten years they won't accept less

There is a FL rule saying you must have at least 10 years on your lease but I think ACL also offered a deal for the remainder of this year and the next two seasons taking us up to when our new ground is ready!

 

[Nick]

There is a FL rule saying you must have at least 10 years on your lease but I think ACL also offered a deal for the remainder of this year and the next two seasons taking us up to when our new ground is ready!

What do we have at Sixfields?

 

[blueflint]

agreed, but I am tryinmg to understand how much difference there is. I cant get my head around why the match days costs would be so different. Only thing that would make sense is that more people = more costs, but in that case, it would also = more income !

hey i think you got it

 

[chiefdave]

What do we have at Sixfields?

3 years with a possible extension to 5, under one of the FL's exemptions to their own rules.

 

[lewys33]

as i remember it the football league say it must be ten years they won't accept less

I think thats what the rules say, and of course the FL are very good at following those. We must have a 10 year lease at sixfields!

 

[Astute]

What do we have at Sixfields?

A massive boycott.

 

[shmmeee]

What do we have at Sixfields?

Rumour has it, a 3-5 year deal with break clauses every couple of months.

 

[Nick]

So IF the FL can allow that, pretty sure that could allow a short term agreement at the Ricoh?

 

[James Smith]

great, but that was months ago. We need a ACL response to what is on the table for the 2014/15 season. CT / Trust need to publish this offer and use it to ask "WHY", if there is no reason at all why we are in Northampton. Clearly SISU are not going to accept a 10 year deal, so has that been revised ?

I would guess that the offer is still on the table but Mr Labovitch has said that they won't go back to renting from the council. Can't remember which offer he was declining, but I think he said it on CWR on the breakfast show with Shane and it may be available to listen on YouTube.

 

[James Smith]

So IF the FL can allow that, pretty sure that could allow a short term agreement at the Ricoh?

You'd like to think that they would but have the club/Sisu even asked them before rejecting the ACL offers? They could have gone back to ACL at that stage and said we're not having 10 years but we've got permission for 3-5 is the same deal possible for that length of time? If ACL had said no then we could have lumped the blame on them.

 

[chiefdave]

You'd like to think that they would but have the club/Sisu even asked them before rejecting the ACL offers? They could have gone back to ACL at that stage and said we're not having 10 years but we've got permission for 3-5 is the same deal possible for that length of time? If ACL had said no then we could have lumped the blame on them.

ACL have already offered a 3 year deal, the rest of this season (offered before Xmas) and then the next two seasons.

 

[James Smith]

ACL have already offered a 3 year deal, the rest of this season (offered before Xmas) and then the next two seasons.

Yeah I know and I just thought - as that one went through the FL, that maybe ACL took the initiative on reducing the minimum term so that they could make the offer.

 

[The Gentleman]

as i remember it the football league say it must be ten years they won't accept less

10 years would be perfect. That's how long it will take to get Legoland up and running.

 

[ccfcway]

You'd like to think that they would but have the club/Sisu even asked them before rejecting the ACL offers? They could have gone back to ACL at that stage and said we're not having 10 years but we've got permission for 3-5 is the same deal possible for that length of time? If ACL had said no then we could have lumped the blame on them.

so it which case the FL should get involved and broker the rent. SISU pay FL, FL pay ACL.

If said Ricoh rental all in is £400k a year on a rolling 1 season contract, I fail to see how there is any excuse from FL or SISU as to why we are not back at the Ricoh next season.

If we are still at Sixfields next season, the protest campaign should be "DO THE MATHS"

 

[ccfcway]

10 years would be perfect. That's how long it will take to get Legoland up and running.

thats plenty of time, it only takes 3 weeks to announce where the stadium is going to be

 

[chiefdave]

I fail to see how there is any excuse from FL or SISU as to why we are not back at the Ricoh next season.

Once it got to the point that the offers from ACL couldn't be reasonably rejected Fisher and Labovich started saying there's no way they could go back renting as they couldn't work with ACL. Don't really see why not, if the deal is on the table and you take it until the new stadium is ready there's no need to work with them really, you just pay the rent and that's it. Would only be an issue if there isn't actually a new stadium.

 

[sky blue john]

All sounds lovely but people are forgetting its not what Sisu want !!
They are out to break ACL and there is a little matter of the JR which is not for their benefit. So obviously they won't be claiming damages if they win !!!

 

[ccfcway]

Once it got to the point that the offers from ACL couldn't be reasonably rejected Fisher and Labovich started saying there's no way they could go back renting as they couldn't work with ACL. Don't really see why not, if the deal is on the table and you take it until the new stadium is ready there's no need to work with them really, you just pay the rent and that's it. Would only be an issue if there isn't actually a new stadium.

100% agree. Yet is seems only us fans are asking that question. What pressure have CCC put on FL to bring SISU to the table ? What pressure have CT put on FL, show them the offer and ask them to broker the deal. SISU are getting off with the spin and no-one is taking them to task.

 

[James Smith]

so it which case the FL should get involved and broker the rent. SISU pay FL, FL pay ACL.

If said Ricoh rental all in is £400k a year on a rolling 1 season contract, I fail to see how there is any excuse from FL or SISU as to why we are not back at the Ricoh next season.

If we are still at Sixfields next season, the protest campaign should be "DO THE MATHS"

Part of the problem is the NOPM campaign that Sisu have going against ACL and I suspect that is a large part of the refusal to return.

 

[wingy]

Once it got to the point that the offers from ACL couldn't be reasonably rejected Fisher and Labovich started saying there's no way they could go back renting as they couldn't work with ACL. Don't really see why not, if the deal is on the table and you take it until the new stadium is ready there's no need to work with them really, you just pay the rent and that's it. Would only be an issue if there isn't actually a new stadium.

To accept would be to make a mockery of the legal argument that they were forced out ,involve the FL in an area they say they have no sway over.

There Is no more ACL can do other than go out of existence .

 

[ccfcway]

Part of the problem is the NOPM campaign that Sisu have going against ACL and I suspect that is a large part of the refusal to return.

It can be the ONLY reason, surely ?

I dont like paying road tax, but if want to drive my car on the road, I have to pay the tax. SISU might not like ACL, but if they WANT to play in Coventry and reap the comparable financial benefits of over 10,000 coventry fans each game, they would pay ACL.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

But if you read his latest comedy piece he has now said SBT Members, so "not everyone agrees with Sisu" in their ranks his Quote but all SBT members are in agreement with what they stand for?

So yes some of us can be abusive but would that change whether we were in the trust or not!!!!

Do we not have our own thoughts are we not allowed to vent our anger at who we see as at fault whether that be Sisu CCC ACL or all jointly.


Sorry but shows them for what they are.

Weren't SISU going on about it months ago before the accounts even came out when they were calling them Lions led by Donkeys?

 

[Jack Griffin]

as i remember it the football league say it must be ten years they won't accept less

Unless it is a temporary relocation :thinking about:

 

[Jack Griffin]

Rumour has it, a 3-5 year deal with break clauses every couple of months.

Interestingly the line Fisher took early doors in the move was..

The Telegraph understands there is a get-out clause in the deal with the Cobblers but a defiant Fisher insists: “In order to break that it would be very expensive. The deal has been done.”

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sp...try-city-groundshare-northampton-town-4922123

 

[Covcraig@bury]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was at the Tranmere game and over heard some lads saying the Trust was trying to get on the committee for the new stadium with Sandra Garlic. So if true and the ground goes ahead (lala land)the Trust would want to be part of this Outside Coventry!!! In which case they to me will do anything to get on the Board. Can anyone confirm this rumour ?

 

[chiefdave]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was at the Tranmere game and over heard some lads saying the Trust was trying to get on the committee for the new stadium with Sandra Garlic. So if true and the ground goes ahead (lala land)the Trust would want to be part of this Outside Coventry!!! In which case they to me will do anything to get on the Board. Can anyone confirm this rumour ?

The trust asked it's members to vote on if they should request to be involved, making it clear that being involved would not mean the trust was endorsing the club being located outside of the city and the members voted in favour so they requested a place on the committee and were rejected by Garlick. Speaking of the committee it all seems to have gone very quiet.

 

[Covcraig@bury]

The trust asked it's members to vote on if they should request to be involved, making it clear that being involved would not mean the trust was endorsing the club being located outside of the city and the members voted in favour so they requested a place on the committee and were rejected by Garlick. Speaking of the committee it all seems to have gone very quiet.

I smell a rat within the Trust leadership. And I dont think I could Trust them . Is there a Trust member on to confirm this ? and why jump into bed with Garlic ?