Why do fans think CCFC should not be profitable? (1 Viewer)

torchomatic · Jan 4, 2017

Astute said:
But you know that it wasn't spite. CCC were forced into a corner. SISU wouldn't take on the loan. They wouldn't even discuss the matter. And they couldn't just wipe the loan out.

We've been here before. CCC weren't forced to do anything. If they'd offered SISU a 250 lease at less than we'd already paid rent on the place then maybe they would have taken the loan on. Anyway, a bit of patience from CCC and we might even have been rid of SISU now. But nope, the club - not just SISU - were shafted and 130 years of history ignored for a London franchise. Keep on defending them - which you are - but I will never agree with you and you'll never agree with me, so all a bit pointless.

torchomatic · Jan 4, 2017

Brylowes said:
But SISU weren't going anywhere, the council obviously needed a sustainable future
For the Ricoh, what should they have done.

Waited. 130 years of history ignored and wiped out at a stroke. As I say SISU will not be here forever. Wasps will be.

chiefdave · Jan 4, 2017

Nick said:
It would be setup in a trust or something separate so it would only benefit CCFC. I'm no lawyer, but I'd make sure it was only possible for it to benefit CCFC and no owners.

Isn't there a club, Chelsea spring to mind but might be, where the trust were given ownership of the pitch but the club, or whatever prop co they have, own the rest of the ground?

pastythegreat · Jan 4, 2017

SBAndy said:
Because no investment = worse on-pitch performance = no hope or reason to continue going.

The club is being strangled due to a lack of product on the pitch. As much as I'd like to think we could find a model whereby we can put a competitive team together on a shoestring, all studies show that it just doesn't happen.

I'm pretty sure that 99% of people on this forum missed the new FA rules memo, whereby a team can only spend 65% of all incoming cash! Everyone is banging on about investment but NEWS FLASH! We have no ground, no fans, no money coming in! What money exactly would you like them to "invest"

Queen Standard response:

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

pastythegreat · Jan 4, 2017

pastythegreat said:
I'm pretty sure that 99% of people on this forum missed the new FA rules memo, whereby a team can only spend 65% of all incoming cash! Everyone is banging on about investment but NEWS FLASH! We have no ground, no fans, no money coming in! What money exactly would you like them to "invest"

Queen Standard response:

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

Que, bloody predictive text

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

Brylowes · Jan 4, 2017

SISU gained ownership of this club for a song, really pisses me off when people
Go on about the losses they've made here.
They had a decent championship club with a distinguished history and a vibrant
Future, a very loyal fanbase that were just itching to get on board and enjoy the
Dawn that was upon us. They had a brand new purpose built stadium ( available
For them to purchase) that had every conceivable associated revenue stream
Attached to it, Hotel, casino, conference facility's, indoor arena, car parking,
Prime land for development etc.

Only one reason we are not the lease holder at the Ricoh and that's SISU, but
Some on here would rather blame anyone else, even the people who have no
Choice but to stand by and watch the whole calamitous mess unfold, US

Gazolba · Jan 4, 2017

Rich said:
I'm really suprised at the amount of fans that get peeved with the club having an academy that churns out cash cows. Comments like I'm getting fed up that the money from players isn't re-invested it's used to stop the club losing money.

Forgive for thinking that any business at some point needs to start paying it's own way. The owners have somehow created a sustainable business. If they could get a little more success on the pitch, slightly larger crowds, then this additional money I'm sure would be re-invested in the squad.
<snip>

All fans need to take a step back and say could I own this football club, the answer is no because not many have the funds to support the business. Most BUSINESSES (in general) support the owner with a salary, not the other way round.

The Premier League teams (and to a lesser extent Championship clubs) are sustained by TV money. League One gets little to none. You cannot sustain a club by player sales because you will eventually run out of players. In any case, it costs money to run an academy and develop players. The income from a player sale first has to go towards their development cost. Not only that but what about all the players we invest money in to develop that turn out to be duds. We usually release two or three such failures every season. The income from player sales also has to go to cover losses due to players that are released.

torchomatic · Jan 4, 2017

Brylowes said:
Only one reason we are not the lease holder at the Ricoh and that's SISU, but
Some on here would rather blame anyone else, even the people who have no
Choice but to stand by and watch the whole calamitous mess unfold, US

You will find that the "some on here" blame SISU just as much as you do. The only real difference is the "some on here" can also see the part CCC, ACL and Higgs played in this sorry mess. I know you and others like to think it is a black and white situation, but it really isn't.

Brylowes · Jan 4, 2017

torchomatic said:
You will find that the "some on here" blame SISU just as much as you do. The only real difference is the "some on here" can also see the part CCC, ACL and Higgs played in this sorry mess. I know you and others like to think it is a black and white situation, but it really isn't.

But Torch it is down to SISU, their thought processes, policy's and ultimately the decisions
They make on behalf of the Football Club are down to them.
The others on the other hand, by which I mean the council, have had to act and react to a
Toxic organisation "hell bent" on destroying all relationships and in due course the very
Club it owns,
In the end the council just cut us loose to prevent us taking everything else down with us.

cloughie · Jan 4, 2017

Rich said:
That's it, we don't have bad owners. In my mind we have owners who've invested a staggering sum and no longer want to put anything else in. If we were to drop into league 2, become sustainable and build from there would it be a big problem?

If we keep this academy churning out a few decent players each year we could become a very big fish in that league.

Now where have I heard this before..............we could be a big fish in this league ( The Championship) ............we could be a big fish in this league (league1) now its big fish in league 2??? Our owners model is working wonders so far.

FFS you couldn't make it up, ..............or are you just taking the piss?

Grendel · Jan 4, 2017

Astute said:
But you know that it wasn't spite. CCC were forced into a corner. SISU wouldn't take on the loan. They wouldn't even discuss the matter. And they couldn't just wipe the loan out.

The loan is irrelevant. The council took the loan themselves - their decision.

Nick · Jan 4, 2017

Astute said:
I would tell my daughter to get rid of him and find someone who isn't a bullshitter and only cares about money.

So you wouldn't move another one in on cheaper rent?

torchomatic · Jan 4, 2017

Brylowes said:
But Torch it is down to SISU, their thought processes, policy's and ultimately the decisions
They make on behalf of the Football Club are down to them.
The others on the other hand, by which I mean the council, have had to act and react to a
Toxic organisation "hell bent" on destroying all relationships and in due course the very
Club it owns,
In the end the council just cut us loose to prevent us taking everything else down with us.

"But Torch, it is just them, no one else. Just them."

Let's agree to disagree, shall we? I'll always be one of the "some on here".

Brylowes · Jan 4, 2017

Nick said:
So you wouldn't move another one in on cheaper rent?

Nick if Wasps moved in on cheaper rent, it's because SISU successfully distressed ACL,
Trouble is in doing so they broke down all relationships and rendered themselves Toxic.

Like a gambler, their problem is they never know when to stop, they just keep pushing
Until it all falls over.

Brylowes · Jan 4, 2017

torchomatic said:
"But Torch, it is just them, no one else. Just them."

Let's agree to disagree, shall we? I'll always be one of the "some on here".

If we all thought the same way it would be very odd, the only thing we can say for sure
Is we all have Coventry City FC at the forefront of our thoughts.

torchomatic · Jan 4, 2017

Brylowes said:
If we all thought the same way it would be very odd, the only thing we can say for sure
Is we all have Coventry City FC at the forefront of our thoughts.

Exactly. I respect your PoV, just don't agree with it.

trevelfarandwide · Jan 4, 2017

Otis said:
I think the key is to sell players at the right time (not too early) and to reinvest some of the money into decent replacements.

I don't mind us selling a player for £1.5m if say £300,000 of that is used to buy a replacement.

I do think Stevenson's star is on the rise though and maybe by the summer he could be worth a good deal more.

Be much better for us, obviously, if we could be selling players for £4m - £5m rather than £1.5m-£2m.

As I have said before, I think Stevenson looks a better player than Maddison.

From what I've seen and heard, he's definitely shaping up to be Maddison's superior in every department. Madder's started buying into his own hype as well, methinks.

The Reverend Skyblue · Jan 4, 2017

I got a new skyblue mug filled with chocolate footballs for Xmas which I'm finishing off as I write

Otis · Jan 4, 2017

The Reverend Skyblue said:
I got a new skyblue mug filled with chocolate footballs for Xmas which I'm finishing off as I write

Ooh, pray do tell more.

dongonzalos · Jan 4, 2017

Rich said:
I'm really suprised at the amount of fans that get peeved with the club having an academy that churns out cash cows. Comments like I'm getting fed up that the money from players isn't re-invested it's used to stop the club losing money.

Forgive for thinking that any business at some point needs to start paying it's own way. The owners have somehow created a sustainable business. If they could get a little more success on the pitch, slightly larger crowds, then this additional money I'm sure would be re-invested in the squad.

It appears that they would like the business to support itself instead of them having to keep putting their own money in.

There's a huge problem in the game in my opinion. Should wealthy owners make a club more successful? Marginally, but a club should be sustainable without the need for any investment from additional sources constantly. Arsenal are the only club I can think of that have a real sustainable top flight business model (part of that's through sky high ticket prices).

All fans need to take a step back and say could I own this football club, the answer is no because not many have the funds to support the business. Most BUSINESSES (in general) support the owner with a salary, not the other way round.

So us and Arsenal then?
One in the top 6 of the premier league and likely to stay there.
The other.....

I understand us selling players for profit that's the nature of the beast.

I just want an owner whose only priority is CCFC. That makes decisions solely in the best interests of CCFC.

Not ones whose main priority is another business who makes decisions based on how CCFC affects that business.

Liquid Gold · Jan 4, 2017

I'll never forgive sisu for putting us into the position where we are minor players and can be taken advantage of.
I'll never forgive the council for selling the only viable stadium in Coventry denying the club of a home for 250 years.

Sisu will be gone one day but that 250 year lease will always hamper our potential.

The Reverend Skyblue · Jan 4, 2017

Otis said:
Ooh, pray do tell more.

My sister in law got me it plus the gilbert book, I was overjoyed with one and hated the other.
She always buys me Cov stuff, PJ's and all sorts.
I thought id tell everyone and near enough on topic

Astute · Jan 4, 2017

Grendel said:
The loan is irrelevant. The council took the loan themselves - their decision.

SISU refused to negotiate on taking over the Ricoh - their decision.

Paxman II · Jan 4, 2017

So we are reliving all this again? There is clear evidence that the 'blame' for all this is with all sides in the argument, always has been. The fact that SISU could have put a stop to it and knuckled down to working out a way forward but failed to do so is detrimental to them and ultimately our football club and city.
The council, Higgs and ACL all played a part in our current plight not withstanding SISU taking the biggest part of the blame game percentage.

I think at the time the Council acted atrociously to the 129 year old football clubs interest, whereas they should have removed their line of thinking from SISU to CCFC in consideration of their actions.
CCFC is a historical community asset, a football club established in the cities name way back in 1878 (or whenever the exact date was) for the people of Coventry with membership of the football league and various governing bodies. So those that just express it simply as a business are incorrect. An established football club is much more than that.
While its accepted there are big carrots and bounty to chase down in the modern game most don't actually achieve that often, and certainly not without considerable investment first.
SISU's tenure has been a disaster from the beginning,with short term idealism backfiring spectacularly. They have attempted to hold onto their potential 'celebrity' investment in the hope of a big return when we gain promotion back to the big time. Unfortunately from Ranson's terrible chairmanship to today, they have managed to blow it big time and now sit in hope and expectation we fluke a promotion or two. But logically all we can do is to try and form a sustainable model with what's left, keep the club afloat and hope a new investor will appear out of the murky waters. The chance of that diminishes each time we fail to get promoted, have a decent season or even a decent cup run to peak the interest of those investors. Having lost the stadium ownership just adds to the difficulties.

Astute · Jan 4, 2017

Paxman II said:
So we are reliving all this again? There is clear evidence that the 'blame' for all this is with all sides in the argument, always has been. The fact that SISU could have put a stop to it and knuckled down to working out a way forward but failed to do so is detrimental to them and ultimately our football club and city.
The council, Higgs and ACL all played a part in our current plight not withstanding SISU taking the biggest part of the blame game percentage.

I think at the time the Council acted atrociously to the 129 year old football clubs interest, whereas they should have removed their line of thinking from SISU to CCFC in consideration of their actions.
CCFC is a historical community asset, a football club established in the cities name way back in 1878 (or whenever the exact date was) for the people of Coventry with membership of the football league and various governing bodies. So those that just express it simply as a business are incorrect. An established football club is much more than that.
While its accepted there are big carrots and bounty to chase down in the modern game most don't actually achieve that often, and certainly not without considerable investment first.
SISU's tenure has been a disaster from the beginning,with short term idealism backfiring spectacularly. They have attempted to hold onto their potential 'celebrity' investment in the hope of a big return when we gain promotion back to the big time. Unfortunately from Ranson's terrible chairmanship to today, they have managed to blow it big time and now sit in hope and expectation we fluke a promotion or two. But logically all we can do is to try and form a sustainable model with what's left, keep the club afloat and hope a new investor will appear out of the murky waters. The chance of that diminishes each time we fail to get promoted, have a decent season or even a decent cup run to peak the interest of those investors. Having lost the stadium ownership just adds to the difficulties.

Yes. Because some keep doing very long posts when someone says something against SISU.

CCC shouldn't have sold out to Wasps. But it wouldn't have happened if SISU acted properly.

Liquid Gold · Jan 4, 2017

Astute said:
Yes. Because some keep doing very long posts when someone says something against SISU.

CCC shouldn't have sold out to Wasps. But it wouldn't have happened if SISU acted properly.

CCFC wouldn't have been in a position where we were vulnerable to a takeover by vultures like sisu if CCC had acted properly when completing finance and subsequent ownership of the stadium.

We can keep going back, blaming and having the same arguments forever.

Nick · Jan 4, 2017

Liquid Gold said:
CCFC wouldn't have been in a position where we were vulnerable to a takeover by vultures like sisu if CCC had acted properly when completing finance and subsequent ownership of the stadium.

We can keep going back, blaming and having the same arguments forever.

Exactly, how far does it go back?

Last owners? Council for refusing to sell to people like shapiro and putting buyers off?

None of the "If they", they were all and still are massive twats. Different parties can be blamed for different things that play a part, it's not black or white.

Astute · Jan 4, 2017

Liquid Gold said:
CCFC wouldn't have been in a position where we were vulnerable to a takeover by vultures like sisu if CCC had acted properly when completing finance and subsequent ownership of the stadium.

We can keep going back, blaming and having the same arguments forever.

Why do some expect CCC to have paid even more money towards getting our club a home?

The rent covered the mortgage and other expenses. CCC put money towards the build. Yes CCC have some blame in all this mess. But Richardson and SISU have the most. And trying to blame CCC for the majority of what has happened doesn't work with most. And calling SISU vultures or saying that it is the way hedge funds work doesn't put the blame on someone else.

Paxman II · Jan 4, 2017

Astute said:
Yes. Because some keep doing very long posts when someone says something against SISU.

CCC shouldn't have sold out to Wasps. But it wouldn't have happened if SISU acted properly.

Astute I think if you bother to read my post fully I apportion blame to all sides with the majority of blame on SISU?
You realise I point out that SISU are the biggest offender here and the council are also complicit in what ultimately happened as this saga reaches way back before SISU if truth be told.

Astute · Jan 4, 2017

Paxman II said:
Astute I think if you bother to read my post fully I apportion blame to all sides with the majority of blame on SISU?
You realise I point out that SISU are the biggest offender here and the council are also complicit in what ultimately happened as this saga reaches way back before SISU if truth be told.

You said that CCC acted atrociously. I, like most say that they were backed into a corner.

CCC acting atrociously would have been refusing to talk to SISU and giving it away to anyone who would never let us play there again whatever.

Paxman II · Jan 5, 2017

Astute said:
You said that CCC acted atrociously. I, like most say that they were backed into a corner.

CCC acting atrociously would have been refusing to talk to SISU and giving it away to anyone who would never let us play there again whatever.

Backed into this 'corner' or not they certainly acted atrociously, in particular a certain Councillor, has to be said. Not withstanding the fact SISU were the instigators in their own downfall. Just keeping my opinion to facts not assumptions.
If your criteria for atrocious is "giving it away to anyone who would never let us play there again whatever" then you are dismissing the rest of their actions at the time somewhat irrelevant?. And if WASP refuse and kick us out of our Ricoh deal that hangs by a thread, I think your assumption is may prove true? But alas its just assumption.

Brylowes · Jan 5, 2017

Paxman II said:
Backed into this 'corner' or not they certainly acted atrociously, in particular a certain Councillor, .

Think people often forget, all the councils dealings concerning the football club
Were subject too full cross party support.

Astute · Jan 5, 2017

Paxman II said:
Backed into this 'corner' or not they certainly acted atrociously, in particular a certain Councillor, has to be said. Not withstanding the fact SISU were the instigators in their own downfall. Just keeping my opinion to facts not assumptions.
If your criteria for atrocious is "giving it away to anyone who would never let us play there again whatever" then you are dismissing the rest of their actions at the time somewhat irrelevant?. And if WASP refuse and kick us out of our Ricoh deal that hangs by a thread, I think your assumption is may prove true? But alas its just assumption.

What have I said that is a guess and not fact?

Nobody owes CCFC a living.

The local taxpayer is not there to bail us out.

We were financially in the shit years before SISU.

SISU do not have what is best for CCFC as an aim. It is all about money.

Saying that SISU are bad owners or vultures does not mean that you can blame others for our predicament. All sides have been a piece of the puzzle. But those that have tried to help have not been the cause.

Astute · Jan 5, 2017

Liquid Gold said:
CCFC wouldn't have been in a position where we were vulnerable to a takeover by vultures like sisu if CCC had acted properly when completing finance and subsequent ownership of the stadium.

We can keep going back, blaming and having the same arguments forever.

What were the losses our club was making and what was the cost of renting the Ricoh? How much were we paying to rent HR back?

Seems like your point goes back to Richardson and not CCC.

sky blue john · Jan 5, 2017

Grendel said:
The loan is irrelevant. The council took the loan themselves - their decision.

Lol.
without that loan CCFC probably wouldn't exist now. As there would have been no stadium to squable over, ultimately leaving CCFC knowhere to play.
Hey ho Grendel believes CCFC's survival to be irrelevant !!!

Why do fans think CCFC should not be profitable? (1 Viewer)

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

Administrator

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

Administrator

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