Stuart Linnell should be sacked (13 Viewers)

[torchomatic]

Yeah, about sums it up. SISU could go tomorrow for all I care. However, someone needs to be there to step up to the plate. And, more importantly, that someone needs to stand up to ACL.

The comments yesterday from the Councillor make me despair and worry for my club's future even more.

Well the only thing I can offer in defence for Torch here is that as the fans were chanting 'We want Sisu out, we want Sisu out' yesterday, I felt like chanting 'We need someone in, we need someone in.'

Think that is his general stance. Kick them out to be replaced by who exactly? Been interest, but anyone could show interest.

Isn't that what Jo Dhinsa did?

 

---

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Oh, I don't know. There's a few.

I'm not cheering him, he's usually wrong, but he's right about Linnell. It's the same as when I agree with a Tory policy, which also happens once in a blue moon, but to pretend someone is wrong when you actually agree with them-as I do this time-would be blinkered. And we'll leave that sort of perspective to Mr. Linnell.

 

[CCFCDan87]

Well firstly, I don't believe they are worse than previous regimes as SISU haven't sold our home. Secondly, I tolerate SISU as to all intents and purposes they are the football club. I would say I'm Anti-ACL rather than Pro-SISU as in my opinion ACL have inflicted more damage to Coventry City than SISU ever will with their anti-competitive business model.

It's SISU who have cause this situation by not paying the rent! What bit of that can't you get your head round? ACL offered us a new deal and they rejected it! That's it in a nutshell

 

[jas365]

I have never been in any anti Sisu brigade or anti ACL brigade, so don't think I am speaking from a biased perspective, but do have to say that Linnell has been guilty of a lack of balance.

I don't mind him having his own opinion, that's fine, but as an employee and commentator working for the BBC it is his duty to show balance and that he has simply not done. He has shouted down many a fan who has failed to agree personally with him.

He did the same thing with the Andy Thorn situation. That became very, very embarrassing.

It is not acceptable. The BBC are supposed to show impartiality. Linnell is failing to do that.

Clive Eakin is so much better and I think it is time for Mr. Linnell to take a back seat, otherwise there will be complaints and the Beeb will have to act upon them and he will end up being removed from his seat forcibly I feel.

The programme has become so BBC-like.

I'm pretty sure the post-match phone in is for fans to air their views isn't it? Clive Eakin always allows this to happen with much interruption. Linnell has shot callers down and talked over them. No devil's advocate here, just him keeping banging out the same rhetoric week after week.

Sacked? No. But him taking a back seat would be a very wise move in my opinion.

Excellent post Otis

 

[torchomatic]

Yes, after EIGHT FUCKING YEARS! If SISU hadn't taken a stand then ACL would continue quite happily to bleed our club dry. What bit of that can't you get your head around?

It's SISU who have cause this situation by not paying the rent! What bit of that can't you get your head round? ACL offered us a new deal and they rejected it! That's it in a nutshell

 

[Maupet]

Stuart linell is dead right about what he said about some people on this forum and is doing a good job on his radio program and is just trying to provoke debate which he obviously has done

 

[LoyalSupporters]

Linell has always has his head up his own arse, SISU must pay his wages.

 

[torchomatic]

Yeah, that must be it. I chip in too.

Linell has always has his head up his own arse, SISU must pay his wages.

 

[CJparker]

Well firstly, I don't believe they are worse than previous regimes as SISU haven't sold our home. Secondly, I tolerate SISU as to all intents and purposes they are the football club. I would say I'm Anti-ACL rather than Pro-SISU as in my opinion ACL have inflicted more damage to Coventry City than SISU ever will with their anti-competitive business model.

OK I think I am starting to understand, thanks.

Problem is, most fans do make a distinction between CCFC and SISU - I certainly do. And presumably, you did when you campaigning to get BR out, so what has changed?

It's a bit like loving your country whilst not necessarily liking the monarchy or the government of the day. In your logic, Blackburn fans would all loyally defend and support Venky's. Clearly, there is a distinction to be made.

I know that too many of the exchanges on here have been heated - in fairness, that all shows how passionately we are about this. Personally, all my views are based on the assumption that our best interest is served by SISU leaving ASAP - others make the assumption that we are dead without SISU's backing. Both are valid in that they are based on assumptions - none of us know the true facts.

Believe it or not, I do not care at all about ACL as such. But they do have my sympathy as it looks like SISU are riding roughshot over them to get what they want. I work in a private busienss with many debtors, and we would react with far less patience and generosity if any of our debtors behave the way SISU have - I really don't know what you expect ACL to do, they hadve had no choice to take the legal route after being continually messed around by SISU. I don't defend them, I just defend the idea that we should be acting reasonably as a responsible organisation, not trying to wangle a ground for free and blaming the landlord who baled us out for our current predicament. IMO, ACL have been ridiculously lenient with SISU.

 

[CJparker]

Yes, after EIGHT FUCKING YEARS! If SISU hadn't taken a stand then ACL would continue quite happily to bleed our club dry. What bit of that can't you get your head around?

Bleed our club dry ....after SISU's financial mismanagement left the club in League One and unable to afford a rent that was never an issue higher up the league. CCFC also rejected the idea of a variable rent when this was suggested by ACL - presumably because they expected to get promoted, not relegated, and didn't see the benefit of signing such terms at the time.
Even the old rent was commercially reasonalble, unless, of course, you think that CCFC is entitled to council funding for a ground for free - it is you who has to get your head around this Torch

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Well firstly, I don't believe they are worse than previous regimes as SISU haven't sold our home. Secondly, I tolerate SISU as to all intents and purposes they are the football club. I would say I'm Anti-ACL rather than Pro-SISU as in my opinion ACL have inflicted more damage to Coventry City than SISU ever will with their anti-competitive business model.

On your first point, to sell something, you first have to own it!
Secondly, you're right to a point, they are CCFC on paper.
Thirdly, lack of investment will eventually see CCFC plummet down the leagues.
If (As I said yesterday) SISU sell a player on £6k per week, and bring in three players on £5k per week between them, looks good on paper, but the quality will let us down.
People actually fall for this and say like you did earlier in the season, "SISU have brought in "X" amount of players" not realising they firstly had to get rid of fairly decent quality, to bring in average players for this league at best.

 

[CJparker]

I defend the club I support who happen to be owned by SISU. I'm against ACL who in my opinion have hamstrung CCFC. That's the crux of it for me.

Genuine question with no agenda Torchy...realistically, what else would SISU have to do for you to start actively campaigning for their removal?

 

[CJparker]

On your first point, to sell something, you first have to own it!
Secondly, you're right to a point, they are CCFC on paper.
Thirdly, lack of investment will eventually see CCFC plummet down the leagues.
If (As I said yesterday) SISU sell a player on £6k per week, and bring in three players on £5k per week between them, looks good on paper, but the quality will let us down.
People actually fall for this and say like you did earlier in the season, "SISU have brought in "X" amount of players" not realising they firstly had to get rid of fairly decent quality, to bring in average players for this league at best.

This post presumes that SISU are putting their own money in (or their investors' money) - in fact, as we saw with the court ruling this week, all this money is not being "given" to CCFC, it is just being added to the pile of debt and will have to be accounted for at some point.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

This post presumes that SISU are putting their own money in (or their investors' money) - in fact, as we saw with the court ruling this week, all this money is not being "given" to CCFC, it is just being added to the pile of debt and will have to be accounted for at some point.

I think you're misreading the post mate. What I'm saying is, If SISU sell a player on £6k per week, and bring in 3 players on a combined wage of £5k per week, they are saving £1k per week without having to spend any money.

 

[hill83]

I think you're misreading the post mate. What I'm saying is, If SISU sell a player on £6k per week, and bring in 3 players on a combined wage of £5k per week, they are saving £1k per week without having to spend any money.

You are right, but unfortunately that's the way the club has to be run at the moment. We lose a staggering amount of money. The vast majority of that is on player wages. I'm struggling to see another way to cut costs.

 

[Ashdown1]

Its quite simple, its okay Linnell saying SISU aren't going anywhere with some element of triumph but if they don't I'm pretty sure thousands of people will join my stance and withdraw their support and money. It would be with great reluctance but after these 2 games are done on my ST until these shits have gone then I won't put in another penny and I reckon with tickets for the wife and 3 kids and merchandise etc I've spent £1,000 on CCFC 2012/2013. The only way of removing them really is to deny them revenue, its the only thing they understand !

 

[ajsccfc]

Maybe psgm1 needs to adjust his way of putting points across but i think it is a bit out of order taking the piss out of someone who has served in our forces.

Nobody should be off-limits, especially if it's because of something completely unrelated.

 

[LoyalSupporters]

Imagine if BBC CWR where our
new kit sponsorer

 

[ajsccfc]

Wouldn't it just be so meaningless?

 

[torchomatic]

It might make you feel better, but ultimately it just denies the club money, not SISU. Less income, poorer players, poorer attendances. It's a vicious circle. Good on you for making a stand, no problem there.

Its quite simple, its okay Linnell saying SISU aren't going anywhere with some element of triumph but if they don't I'm pretty sure thousands of people will join my stance and withdraw their support and money. It would be with great reluctance but after these 2 games are done on my ST until these shits have gone then I won't put in another penny and I reckon with tickets for the wife and 3 kids and merchandise etc I've spent £1,000 on CCFC 2012/2013. The only way of removing them really is to deny them revenue, its the only thing they understand !

 

[torchomatic]

Never. And that won't change with the next lot either. Why? Because this club does not play on a level playing field financially compared to other clubs and while ACL exist we never will. If we wholly owned the Ricoh, kept all the revenue, but were still in the mess we find ourselves in then I'd be standing shoulder to shoulder with you wearing my SISU OUT t-shirt.

While ACL are taking their sizeable slice then I will always side with the football club.

Genuine question with no agenda Torchy...realistically, what else would SISU have to do for you to start actively campaigning for their removal?

 

[Jack Griffin]

Yes, after EIGHT FUCKING YEARS! If SISU hadn't taken a stand then ACL would continue quite happily to bleed our club dry. What bit of that can't you get your head around?

• Virtually no one agrees the rent was pitched correctly, I sure didn't.
• What no one can get their head round is why SISU did not try to renegotiate the rent agreement much earlier, in fact why didn't they make the takeover conditional on a suitable agreement?
• Is there any evidence they approached ACL and were totally rebuffed before going on rent strike, if that happened I'd have some sympathy for the move.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

You are right, but unfortunately that's the way the club has to be run at the moment. We lose a staggering amount of money. The vast majority of that is on player wages. I'm struggling to see another way to cut costs.

According to SISU players wages have been slashed by up to 2 thirds since they took charge...Approx £11-12m, now around £3.5-4m. Unfortunately the quality of players have also been heavily slashed. The only other way to cut costs is to buy ACL's share in the Stadium. ACL/CCC will never sell to them. 3 seperate ocassions they had the opportunity to buy, and said they had the money to buy, the share, and 3 times they reneged on it. Sorry mate, but only themselves to blame.

 

[CCFC_GT]

OK I think I am starting to understand, thanks.

Problem is, most fans do make a distinction between CCFC and SISU - I certainly do. And presumably, you did when you campaigning to get BR out, so what has changed?

It's a bit like loving your country whilst not necessarily liking the monarchy or the government of the day. In your logic, Blackburn fans would all loyally defend and support Venky's. Clearly, there is a distinction to be made.

I know that too many of the exchanges on here have been heated - in fairness, that all shows how passionately we are about this. Personally, all my views are based on the assumption that our best interest is served by SISU leaving ASAP - others make the assumption that we are dead without SISU's backing. Both are valid in that they are based on assumptions - none of us know the true facts.

Believe it or not, I do not care at all about ACL as such. But they do have my sympathy as it looks like SISU are riding roughshot over them to get what they want. I work in a private busienss with many debtors, and we would react with far less patience and generosity if any of our debtors behave the way SISU have - I really don't know what you expect ACL to do, they hadve had no choice to take the legal route after being continually messed around by SISU. I don't defend them, I just defend the idea that we should be acting reasonably as a responsible organisation, not trying to wangle a ground for free and blaming the landlord who baled us out for our current predicament. IMO, ACL have been ridiculously lenient with SISU.

I agree with your attitude towards SISU to a point, as it has mismanaged the club, has contributed in large part to the sorry state we are now in, its dealings with ACL have been poor, and its communication with the fans is abysmal. However I don't understand why your predominant attitude towards ACL is one of sympathy when the Council's insistence on clinging to its 50% stake in the Ricoh (or selling only at massive profit) is holding back the football club, and may well have shaped SISU's attitude towards dealing with ACL. To me both sides have played a big part in this sorry mess.

 

[hill83]

According to SISU players wages have been slashed by up to 2 thirds since they took charge...Approx £11-12m, now around £3.5-4m. Unfortunately the quality of players have also been heavily slashed. The only other way to cut costs is to buy ACL's share in the Stadium. ACL/CCC will never sell to them. 3 seperate ocassions they had the opportunity to buy, and said they had the money to buy, the share, and 3 times they reneged on it. Sorry mate, but only themselves to blame.

Can't argue with any of that. Although regardless of them having the opportunity to buy the share before, the fact the Council/ACL say they will never sell to them either forces SISU out, or kills the club. I don't like that risk. That's where my problem lies.

 

[Ashdown1]

• Virtually no one agrees the rent was pitched correctly, I sure didn't.
• What no one can get their head round is why SISU did not try to renegotiate the rent agreement much earlier, in fact why didn't they make the takeover conditional on a suitable agreement?
• Is there any evidence they approached ACL and were totally rebuffed before going on rent strike, if that happened I'd have some sympathy for the move.

I'm in sympathy for the efforts to reduce the rent and gain more F & B revenue but that wasn't really the end game they wanted was it, they wanted to cripple the stadium management/owners and do it illegally and then with their myriad of holding companies who knows if it would have benefitted the football club anyway. They just have to go, no-one despite their loyalty to the team can surely support their devious and unethical methods again. It was plainly clear from the numbers chanting yesterday where feelings lie !!

 

[Steve.B50]

We need to sit down with Sapalla and find out what's real, not Fisher, needs to be the top gun

 

[James Smith]

• Virtually no one agrees the rent was pitched correctly, I sure didn't.
• What no one can get their head round is why SISU did not try to renegotiate the rent agreement much earlier, in fact why didn't they make the takeover conditional on a suitable agreement?
• Is there any evidence they approached ACL and were totally rebuffed before going on rent strike, if that happened I'd have some sympathy for the move.

As far as I can see from the statements made by PWKH and others who are involved in this, SISU made the first move by boycotting the rent. Does anyone know anything different?

 

[CCFC_GT]

Not defending SISU but on a point of clarity SISU wanted access to revenues beyond just F&B, to include also such things as parking, advertising, and stadium sponsorship, all of which the football club arguably adds value to.

 

[James Smith]

Not defending SISU but on a point of clarity SISU wanted access to revenues beyond just F&B, to include also such things as parking, advertising, and stadium sponsorship, all of which the football club arguably adds value to.

Well we were talking about this on the Q&A thread and saying for matchdays only apart from parking what other revenue streams are there? The stadium naming isn't going to be included as it isn't just for matchdays and advertising is already included*. That leaves as we said Parking and anything else anyone can think of - any ideas anyone?

*In fact ACL already pay CCFC/SISU to have advertising for their partners around the ground.

 

[Otis]

Yeah, about sums it up. SISU could go tomorrow for all I care. However, someone needs to be there to step up to the plate. And, more importantly, that someone needs to stand up to ACL.

The comments yesterday from the Councillor make me despair and worry for my club's future even more.

Yep agree with that. Just how thick must he be to realise the club will just die a slow death unless it owns the stadium?

 

[James Smith]

Yep agree with that. Just how thick must he be to realise the club will just die a slow death unless it owns the stadium?

Don't agree with the councillor that the club shouldn't own the Ricoh, but SISU have ruined their chances of buying it. As PWKH said SISU stopped negotiating for the charity share and just buggered off, then they stopped paying the rent which is a clever way of showing your commitment to the people you'd have to deal with. What I do think is a good idea is the stadium being financially able to support the club with non footballing revenue. So the club isn't just dependent on what they can generate now, which as we all know isn't a lot.

What PWKH said on this issue makes a lot of sense.

 

[shropshirecov]

Yep agree with that. Just how thick must he be to realise the club will just die a slow death unless it owns the stadium?

Most people can see that. ashbyjan doesn't though. Next time he gets inteviewed on midlands today or CWR he'll put forward his pro council stance and everyone will think coventry fans don't want or need the club to own the stadium.
Not havin a go, he's entitled to his opinion. Is that the stance of the trust?

 

[Johnnythespider]

I don't think he should be sacked, as he would no doubt set his lawyers onto the beeb for unfair dismissal and win, much better to put him onto the late night slot, i'm thinking it could be called " Linnel's late night love in ". It should be on between the hours of 2-6 am, and consist of cheesy love songs and letters of woe from the scorned ex's of coventry and warwickshire.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Phoned CWR at 5.30 told there was only one person in front of me asked me what I wanted to talk about said they would phone me back in 10 minutes didn't. I tried to phone at 5.59 nobody answered. This is now the third time seems to me CWR are being selective in who they have on By the way Stuart thats an OPINION not a fact. Why dont you prove my OPINION is wrong