We are fans of the year! (5 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

You're just being your usual obtuse self

The club might well have demonstrated that they can fund losses for a specified period time based on average gates of 4000 (neither of us know the basis of this so-called 'promise', but it would be absurd to suggest that this notional agreement would have involved some sort of self-imposed embargo on the sale of players), but given that gates have actually fallen below most people's expectations then I don't believe that offloading a play or two in January would be seen as 'reprehensible' for all but the most entrenched.

So far of course they have demonstrated that they are willing to continue to subsidise our football club so that we can sustain a squad way beyond our current means. Will that be the case in January? Who knows, although I fully expect one player to go, probably Christie.

They had all the information about potential crowds available to them, it's their job as owners to set a budget IMO. Admittedly selling in January if not in a certain position may have been part of that budget.

Christie will go in January, and would've whatever our gates or home ground.

 

---

[Grendel]

Simple. In order for the Football League to sanction the Sixfieds move; Greg Clarke claimed he'd seen evidence that Otium had sufficient to cover all losses and 'run the club for years'. If that is not the case, and the club needs to sell it's own players to balance the books barely 6 months after the move was sanctioned, then the basis for the move could surely be questioned; if not challenged. So, I'm not being 'silly', if you don't mind; I'm expecting SISU to honour the promises it appears it made to the game's regulatory authorities.

As far as I see it, if players are sold, the legal basis for the move could be questioned

That's a lame argument even by your mediocre standards of debating.

Sufficient funds to cover a shortfall will include many things. The club have signed 3 loan players which also may not have been in their plan.

The much heralded survey said we'd struggle to get 8,000 at the Ricoh so they may have budgeted for 10,000 there. Then would they be reprehensible for selling players?

Give up ehe your behind. Is Santa buying you an I love ACL t shirt for Christmas?

 

[RoboCCFC90]

You're just being your usual obtuse self

The club might well have demonstrated that they can fund losses for a specified period time based on average gates of 4000 (neither of us know the basis of this so-called 'promise', but it would be absurd to suggest that this notional agreement would have involved some sort of self-imposed embargo on the sale of players), but given that gates have actually fallen below most people's expectations then I don't believe that offloading a play or two in January would be seen as 'reprehensible' for all but the most entrenched.

So far of course they have demonstrated that they are willing to continue to subsidise our football club so that we can sustain a squad way beyond our current means. Will that be the case in January? Who knows, although I fully expect one player to go, probably Christie.

If we could get between £1M-£2M for him I'd let him leave.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

They had all the information about potential crowds available to them, it's their job as owners to set a budget IMO. Admittedly selling in January if not in a certain position may have been part of that budget.

Christie will go in January, and would've whatever our gates or home ground.

Must have missed that where it had been confirmed after Pressley said recently that he would rather keep Cyrus until the end of the season..

 

[magic82ball]

Must have missed that where it had been confirmed after Pressley said recently that he would rather keep Cyrus until the end of the season..

Didn't Wenger say he would like to keep RVP, Fabregas, Nasri or Ferguson would like to keep Ronaldo etc etc etc.

What Pressley wants and what will happen are two wildly different things as you should know...

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Didn't Wenger say he would like to keep RVP, Fabregas, Nasri or Ferguson would like to keep Ronaldo etc etc etc.

What Pressley wants and what will happen are two wildly different things as you should know...

I do understand that. Yet Pressley said he wanted to keep his players in the summer and did, Pressley has also said that he would keep Cyrus until the end of the season rather than sell him and has Pressley has also indicated hat it would only take ridicilous offer to sell any players in January, I doubt anything between £500K and £1.5M is going to be considered.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

That's a lame argument even by your mediocre standards of debating.

Sufficient funds to cover a shortfall will include many things. The club have signed 3 loan players which also may not have been in their plan.

The much heralded survey said we'd struggle to get 8,000 at the Ricoh so they may have budgeted for 10,000 there. Then would they be reprehensible for selling players?

Give up ehe your behind. Is Santa buying you an I love ACL t shirt for Christmas?

I could have picked up any number of ones to quote on this one, but I'll go with Crown Prince SISU for ease.

So, what I'm seeing is that some people's interpretation of SISU's commitment to the Football League as 'we'll commit to fund the club fully and unconditionially, unless we've got our projections wrong; in which case we'll sell players'.

So what was the 'proof of funds' shown? Was it enough to just fund 'some losses according to projections, but maybe not enough if we've got the maths wrong again'?

And people try and see reason in this?

And you accuse me of unconditional and unwavering support of one side when you are okay with this, Grendel? I hope Santa's bringing you some smelling salts

 

[RoboCCFC90]

I could have picked up any number of ones to quote on this one, but I'll go with Crown Prince SISU for ease.

So, what I'm seeing is that some people's interpretation of SISU's commitment to the Football League as 'we'll commit to fund the club fully and unconditionially, unless we've got our projections wrong; in which case we'll sell players'.

So what was the 'proof of funds' shown? Was it enough to just fund 'some losses according to projections, but maybe not enough if we've got the maths wrong again'?

And people try and see reason in this?

And you accuse me of unconditional and unwavering support of one side when you are okay with this, Grendel? I hope Santa's bringing you some smelling salts

The funds shown by Sisu to the Football League will not be open to public knowledge this is almost a certainty. It's a valid point that the attendance figures are lower than Fisher 'quoted' whether he planned for this after his statement at the Forums remains to be seen.

However to say that Sisu will sell players or consider it because they're not getting the attendances they'd hoped for is a guess at best.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

The funds shown by Sisu to the Football League will not be open to public knowledge this is almost a certainty. It's a valid point that the attendance figures are lower than Fisher 'quoted' whether he planned for this after his statement at the Forums remains to be seen.

However to say that Sisu will sell players or consider it because they're not getting the attendances they'd hoped for is a guess at best.

Agreed and agreed. However, I'm sure you'd agree that to cite lower than budgetted gates as the reason for selling players having made the 'cover all losses' pledge to the football league in order to get the move sanctioned would be a slap in the face, at best?!?

 

[theferret]

I could have picked up any number of ones to quote on this one, but I'll go with Crown Prince SISU for ease.

So, what I'm seeing is that some people's interpretation of SISU's commitment to the Football League as 'we'll commit to fund the club fully and unconditionially, unless we've got our projections wrong; in which case we'll sell players'.

So what was the 'proof of funds' shown? Was it enough to just fund 'some losses according to projections, but maybe not enough if we've got the maths wrong again'?

And people try and see reason in this?

And you accuse me of unconditional and unwavering support of one side when you are okay with this, Grendel? I hope Santa's bringing you some smelling salts

Magic82ball has addressed this point in a previous post. The FL would have been looking for a commitment that SISU had the means with which to keep the club in business, pay staff wages etc. They would not have been looking for a commitment on the quality of the players on the payroll. The FL surely have no interest in whether or not the club choose to accept a generous offer for Cyrus Christie. What they are interested in is whether the club can fulfill its fixtures, and at the time this assessment was made it clearly was demonstrated to them that the club could, and anything that followed in terms of transfers in and out is of no consequence (to them), because they had to make a judgement based on the information they had at the time.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Agreed and agreed. However, I'm sure you'd agree that to cite lower than budgetted gates as the reason for selling players having made the 'cover all losses' pledge to the football league in order to get the move sanctioned would be a slap in the face, at best?!?

No doubt it would, but there is no guarantee players will leave, some posters have mentioned Christie but in truth it's obvious that Cyrus' future is away from this club on the state of things. If Cyrus goes in January you would expect many on here to say it was because low attednaces and NOPM, but I doubt that's the biggest reason.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

No doubt it would, but there is no guarantee players will leave, some posters have mentioned Christie but in truth it's obvious that Cyrus' future is away from this club on the state of things. If Cyrus goes in January you would expect many on here to say it was because low attednaces and NOPM, but I doubt that's the biggest reason.

I am aware that the business cycle means players will go to balance the books. I understand that. I also know players with contracts running down may be moved on, and ambitious players will seek a more challenging level.

But this debate started asking if I thought my non attendance had a bearing on players being sold in January. In that context, I maintain the promises made to the FL stated that the owners would cover such

 

[magic82ball]

No doubt it would, but there is no guarantee players will leave, some posters have mentioned Christie but in truth it's obvious that Cyrus' future is away from this club on the state of things. If Cyrus goes in January you would expect many on here to say it was because low attednaces and NOPM, but I doubt that's the biggest reason.

I would guess the biggest factor will be weather there is enough value in the fee for them - which is exactly as it should be.

 

[magic82ball]

I am aware that the business cycle means players will go to balance the books. I understand that. I also know players with contracts running down may be moved on, and ambitious players will seek a more challenging level.

But this debate started asking if I thought my non attendance had a bearing on players being sold in January. In that context, I maintain the promises made to the FL stated that the owners would cover such

But they didn't though did they MMM. It was a promise to sustain the club at reduced attendances etc while they play at Northampton. What makes you think Cyrus or anyone wouldn't be sold should we be at the Ricoh still? I am no SISU lover by any means but you have to be honest and say since relegation, they have supported the manager and team well financially DESPITE the low income levels.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

I am aware that the business cycle means players will go to balance the books. I understand that. I also know players with contracts running down may be moved on, and ambitious players will seek a more challenging level.

But this debate started asking if I thought my non attendance had a bearing on players being sold in January. In that context, I maintain the promises made to the FL stated that the owners would cover such

Yes I saw that briefly, should it affect the sale of our best players? No. However unfortunately no one would swear blind to it!

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

But they didn't though did they MMM. It was a promise to sustain the club at reduced attendances etc while they play at Northampton. What makes you think Cyrus or anyone wouldn't be sold should we be at the Ricoh still? I am no SISU lover by any means but you have to be honest and say since relegation, they have supported the manager and team well financially DESPITE the low income levels.

They made a commitment to cover all losses as a function of the move. That's why I am saying my non attendance is irrelevant.

As above, I understand players will be sold for normal reasons. No problems.

Just stating that if low crowds are cited as the issue, I'd take issue given the funding promises made

 

[Grendel]

They made a commitment to cover all losses as a function of the move. That's why I am saying my non attendance is irrelevant.

As above, I understand players will be sold for normal reasons. No problems.

Just stating that if low crowds are cited as the issue, I'd take issue given the funding promises made

You don't know what the agreement is. It's hardly going to be specific down to fine detail but the league will only be interested in funding to achieve fixture fulfilment.

The club is homeless the only club in football history to be booted out by its council.

The league support that argument. That I'm sure doesn't sit well with you but that's the only fact they care about.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

You don't know what the agreement is. It's hardly going to be specific down to fine detail but the league will only be interested in funding to achieve fixture fulfilment.

The club is homeless the only club in football history to be booted out by its council.

The league support that argument. That I'm sure doesn't sit well with you but that's the only fact they care about.

That's an assertion too far even for this board's biggest WUM; and I shall ignore it, affording it the reception it's vulgarity deserves

 

[Grendel]

That's an assertion too far even for this board's biggest WUM; and I shall ignore it, affording it the reception it's vulgarity deserves

That's why the league sanctioned the move. What reason do you think it is - they fancied eating in the oriental Sixfields buffet after the game?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

That's why the league sanctioned the move. What reason do you think it is - they fancied eating in the oriental Sixfields buffet after the game?

I refer you to the answer I gave at #88; which, in fairness, was more attention than you deserved

 

[shmmeee]

I do understand that. Yet Pressley said he wanted to keep his players in the summer and did, Pressley has also said that he would keep Cyrus until the end of the season rather than sell him and has Pressley has also indicated hat it would only take ridicilous offer to sell any players in January, I doubt anything between £500K and £1.5M is going to be considered.

I think if Christie gets wind of a move he wants Pressley is the type to get rid if it affects his game/the dressing room chemistry.

I hope he sticks around, I just think the combo of Sisu needing some cash and him not signing a contract don't bode well.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

I think if Christie gets wind of a move he wants Pressley is the type to get rid if it affects his game/the dressing room chemistry.

I hope he sticks around, I just think the combo of Sisu needing some cash and him not signing a contract don't bode well.

Thing is it's not just CCFC this situation occurs at, Cyrus in the last three games (Crewe, Hartlepool, Swindon) has been much better like the player he was at the beginning of the season and I hope he keeps it up, if he wants to go and has an offer which he feels he can't turn down and decides against signing a new deal then let him go.

I took a few work lads to the game Saturday as it was one's leaving due and he said from what he had seen of Christie that Cyrus is easily Championship quality.

 

[skyblueinBaku]

The club is homeless the only club in football history to be booted out by its council.

I must have missed something, Grendel. At what point in this sorry saga did the council instruct the club to leave the Ricoh?

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

I must have missed something, Grendel. At what point in this sorry saga did the council instruct the club to leave the Ricoh?

Exactly and that was the tipping point for me... a needless, reaction; born of greed to hold CCFC as hostages of kidnap whilst the debacle runs its course.

 

[Hobo]

You don't know what the agreement is. It's hardly going to be specific down to fine detail but the league will only be interested in funding to achieve fixture fulfilment.

The club is homeless the only club in football history to be booted out by its council.

The league support that argument. That I'm sure doesn't sit well with you but that's the only fact they care about.

They were not booted out by the council. They left of their own free will to break a contract.

Shame they had not planned ahead and bought some land to build the toilet seat on.

 

[cloughie]

I could have picked up any number of ones to quote on this one, but I'll go with Crown Prince SISU for ease.

So, what I'm seeing is that some people's interpretation of SISU's commitment to the Football League as 'we'll commit to fund the club fully and unconditionially, unless we've got our projections wrong; in which case we'll sell players'.

So what was the 'proof of funds' shown? Was it enough to just fund 'some losses according to projections, but maybe not enough if we've got the maths wrong again'?

And people try and see reason in this?

And you accuse me of unconditional and unwavering support of one side when you are okay with this, Grendel? I hope Santa's bringing you some smelling salts

as they say you couldn't make it up, an unbelievable excuse from grendull

 

[cloughie]

You don't know what the agreement is. It's hardly going to be specific down to fine detail but the league will only be interested in funding to achieve fixture fulfilment.

The club is homeless the only club in football history to be booted out by its council.

The league support that argument. That I'm sure doesn't sit well with you but that's the only fact they care about.

Never one for sticking to facts were you as usual full of bullshit

 

[RPHunt]

Nick, I think Comical Ali has hijacked the login of your most devoted poster.

 

[covmark]

Ooh it's another council love in on here tonight. Grendel is right in some respects, there's no other club in the land where the premier football forum is made up of the majority backing the council over their club.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Ooh it's another council love in on here tonight. Grendel is right in some respects, there's no other club in the land where the premier football forum is made up of the majority backing the council over their club.

Who has put the very future of the club at most jeopardy? The owners or the council? Figure that one out and you'll begin to understand some people's feelings

 

[Hobo]

Ooh it's another council love in on here tonight. Grendel is right in some respects, there's no other club in the land where the premier football forum is made up of the majority backing the council over their club.

It's not a council love in at all, just a fact our owners left of their own free will and without buying any land for their dream 12000 stadium.

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

Ooh it's another council love in on here tonight. Grendel is right in some respects, there's no other club in the land where the premier football forum is made up of the majority backing the council over their club.

Who is backing the council?

 

[simple_simon]

Who is backing the council?

I am, they may not be angels but would stand in there corner than in SISU's any day.

 

[Grendel]

Who is backing the council?

I am, they may not be angels but would stand in there corner than in SISU's any day.

Lol and there's many more where he came from

 

[cloughie]

Lol and there's many more where he came from

there are very few out there that are as deluded as the small minority