TF explains how ........ (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter oldskyblue58
- Start date
Sky Blue Dal
Well-Known Member
No its not the same ... ACL is our asset (The tax and rate payers) . Attempting to shaft ACL was trying to shaft majority of there fans who live and pay taxes in the city and also the charity who work for the city's community. If they had succeeded it would have been a major financial blow for The City of Coventry.
So please remember that.
Was it not SISU who put CCFC Ltd into admin due to the game they were playing by refusing to pay any rent and then it backfiring on them.
All I see is Haskell playing the same game against a business who are masters at it.
At least Haskell has done his homework and seen what he may be taking on (Good business sense I say), unlike SISU when they bought us for £1.
Still remember couple of months ago that some here including SISU thought no one would be interested in the club and share of Arena ... guess what SISU ... they all queuing outside.
Sub
Well-Known Member
They weren't trying to shaft ACL - they were trying to shaft Yorkshire Bank.
And 'they' were sisu and ccc in joint harmony.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Shouldn't you edit to include the word 'allegedly'?
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Perhaps when Fisher says 'we' are not in debt he means Sisu and it is just some filing cabinet in an office somewhere that owes the 70 plus million, which isn't a trading filing cabinet it just holds some tatty piece of paper from the Football League and some unpaid bills from ACL. The other filing cabinet with players contract and home telephone numbers owes nothing. 
Number 5 sums up a lot of the 'scabs' on here.
The current owners are not as sharp as Tim (who hasn't been able to find another job in the City since being fired nearly 10 years ago).
That was not in Dal's post, why should it be in mine?
Anyway - it's what sisu are saying in the case they present to the courts.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
That's easy. grendel is lending them the lot, and when they don't pay him back, he won't mind as it's all for the good of CCFC*
(Not sure if that's accurate, they might decide instead to just charge increased "management fees" to CCFC, but that's also OK, as grendel doesn't seem to pay to much attention to those vast sums)
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I am sure if he could afford it and if he thought it was worth the price SISU would ask he would do business with them. Like the last people tried to.
Doing it that way would guarantee you success as oppose to going against 8 others in this messy scenario.
So either he can only afford to do it this way. Or he thinks SISU may falsely create 70 million pounds worth if debt to over inflate the price. (Wonder where he gets that idea from)
He is nothing to do with why SISU are where they are that is their own doings. He is sensibly waiting to buy a product in a sale that could cost him 20 times the price if he did not wait.
Your point smacks of desperation
When will the review be complete ,when they don't need to shackle the response.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
And if the documentation is deemed by court to be flawed, or worthless? Up to you dear chap; your legal bill, not mine
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Warwick Council are notorious for blocking planning permission. They would do well to get permission to buid the football stadium. If they achieved that they would have a nightmare developing the surrounding land.
Last edited:
When will the review be complete ,when they don't need to shackle the response.
I don't know - but maybe that argument could go both ways.
Will the ccc actions and motives be judged by the court before the club agree ground share for the coming three seasons when it's too late to negotiate terms of using the Ricoh?
And if it's not flawed?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
We agree then.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Then your commentary wouldn't be libellous. Not a risk I would take though. Personally
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Desperation for what?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Of trying to make a point in a debate where most seem to see your point as poppycock
James Smith
Well-Known Member
I certainly would, better to be safe than sorry.
Seyeclops666
New Member
My mind alternates from agreeing with you one minute to fearing there is no chance they are going the next.
I really hope you are right.
I really hope you are right.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
My point is correct, you've said so yourself.
Lets summarise Fishers comments and hypothesize a little:
Buy land.... appoint/employ a developer to build the new ground and the flats/houses/commercial units.... sell off said flats/houses/commercial units or utilise them as rental units.... reap the magnificent rewards of the development.
Now I may be wrong in some of the above summary but did we not try this already Timmy? Before your time I know, but let me remind you of how it turned out.
We sold our previous ground to a developer, NOT an option today.... bought land to develop.... appointed/created development company to build stadium and commercial units.... RAN OUT OF MONEY AND HAD TO BAILED OUT !!!!!!
Buy land.... appoint/employ a developer to build the new ground and the flats/houses/commercial units.... sell off said flats/houses/commercial units or utilise them as rental units.... reap the magnificent rewards of the development.
Now I may be wrong in some of the above summary but did we not try this already Timmy? Before your time I know, but let me remind you of how it turned out.
We sold our previous ground to a developer, NOT an option today.... bought land to develop.... appointed/created development company to build stadium and commercial units.... RAN OUT OF MONEY AND HAD TO BAILED OUT !!!!!!
James Smith
Well-Known Member
But surely lightning couldn't strike twice and if it did who the flying fudge is going to bail us out this time whilst allowing SISU to keep control? I mean it's not like we've burned bridges with our previous.......oh no wait a minute.....:facepalm:Lets summarise Fishers comments and hypothesize a little:
Buy land.... appoint/employ a developer to build the new ground and the flats/houses/commercial units.... sell off said flats/houses/commercial units or utilise them as rental units.... reap the magnificent rewards of the development.
Now I may be wrong in some of the above summary but did we not try this already Timmy? Before your time I know, but let me remind you of how it turned out.
We sold our previous ground to a developer, NOT an option today.... bought land to develop.... appointed/created development company to build stadium and commercial units.... RAN OUT OF MONEY AND HAD TO BAILED OUT !!!!!!
The Reverend Skyblue
Well-Known Member
All this crap Timmy boy keeps coming out with is laughable. The one and only point that he overlooks time and time again is that he has lost the majority of his future custom, if he goes through with these scandalous plans. He thinks they will return, I beg to differ. he thinks we will forget about the damage and destruction they have caused and will return and forgive them once this pathetic stadium gets built. Its gone far to far Fisher, to far to ever repair its self
Build a new ground, you will get at most 1000 people, its not about the stadium, whether we need one or not, its not why you will fail. You will fail because 90% of your custom base want you and your paymasters SISU out, nothing more nothing less. We simply have had enough of your lies and deceit ,and you have absolutely no future at all at Coventry City Football club.
Build a new ground, you will get at most 1000 people, its not about the stadium, whether we need one or not, its not why you will fail. You will fail because 90% of your custom base want you and your paymasters SISU out, nothing more nothing less. We simply have had enough of your lies and deceit ,and you have absolutely no future at all at Coventry City Football club.
Last edited:
Well, I don't think I am in any danger of being sued, but that is anyway beside the point.
What if the documentation sisu have handed over to the court is not flawless? What would it do to your opinion of this whole mess?
If it turns out sisu acted in good faith, jointly with the ccc leadership, to the benefit of the club AND the tax/rate payers (increasing the value of ccc shares in acl) - but that it all fell apart when Hoffman/Elliott turned up with Haskel?
What would you think of that?
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
I'll leave you and your advisers to ponder the former. I wouldn't make a statement as bold as you have, and refuse to back away from it unless I had - or thought I had - a level of insight that the balance of us don't possess. It wouldn't be the first time you were accused of SISUesque leanings, and your stubbornness over this issue looks a triumph of conviction of opinion over a stance you've adopted after a bit of forum perusal.
Onto your second point; I would, of course wish to see and hear both sides of the story. The CCC/ACL side are doing right by means of sub judice rulings and not wishing to be in contempt. When they're not so, well a different story may, or may not be there for us to judge upon.
If it is as you assert and without mitigating context; I would agree, it would reflect very, very poorly on CCC/ACL overall
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
TF could go quite far down the line with this without being too much out of pocket couldn't he? Could buy the land with no intention of ever building a stadium, so long as he doesn't pay over the odds can be sold on later and get that money back. sure you can buy plans for a stadium 'off the shelf' fairly cheaply and how much would it cost to put in for planning permission? Until any actually building work starts in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't be much at all would it?
That way he looks like he's following through with his plan to quit the Ricoh, keeps the FL happy but doesn't actually have to do anything. Even better if it all gets tied up at the planning stage, could put off actually doing anything for years.
Not sure what the end game of that would be, but then that's the same story for most things SISU do with CCFC.
That way he looks like he's following through with his plan to quit the Ricoh, keeps the FL happy but doesn't actually have to do anything. Even better if it all gets tied up at the planning stage, could put off actually doing anything for years.
Not sure what the end game of that would be, but then that's the same story for most things SISU do with CCFC.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure Dave that the FL will only permit a club to move outside of it's geographically-located area if there's another venue to use, and - perhaps more importantly - a definitive, firm plan and timescale associated to returning back 'home'.
I'm not too sure buying a bit of land, and occasionally ambling to the Rugby Town Hall with an Etch-A-Sketch would represent such a plan
I'm not too sure buying a bit of land, and occasionally ambling to the Rugby Town Hall with an Etch-A-Sketch would represent such a plan
johnniericoh
Member
I was at the Tuesday Corporate Fans Forum and according to TF his is the only viable plan and I asked him about the buyers in the wings and he just said "the club is not for sale".
Also his own estimate of gates at the ground share club on a bad day for CCFC (poor season) would be 3,000 and a good day (successful season) about 6,000 - a more than tad optimistic I say and completes the destruction of our core fan base once and for all.
The consnsus of advice from the floor was for TF to get back into the negotiating ring and at least keep us at the Ricoh temporarily but he said "they won't talk to me" and that was that.
He convinced me that much with his vision I told him I'm jacking my ST after 49 years on the strength of it - his reply "I respect your decision"