Search results

If reducing outgoings means reducing income by a far greater amount then no. I am willing to have a bet with you that losses now are far greater than this time last year.

Pointless when you reduce the clubs income by a far greater amount. In other news I hear British Leyland reduced their outgoings to zero last financial year. They must be doing really well now. No doubt we will soon be seeing Triumphs, Austins, and Wolseleys dominating Britain's roads again soon.

Good point. Crewe game was sold out despite the attendance being about 1300 below capacity. HR used to be "sold out" at about 22k despite the capacity being well over 23k.

60 acres brownfield sites then. Cant be many of them knocking round is there? Should easily be able to work out where its going to be.

Could you explain why?

It was nearly 4k at HR IIRC. I think the impact of away crowds is miniscule when averaged out. When you see that over the course of the season Andy Thorn drew in more fans than Eric Black then the Ricoh was clearly more popular.

Selling off a sports hall is hardly comparable to selling the ground or the companies last fixed asset.

Averages below. Still higher than the initial capacity of the Garlick Bowl. Coincidently it also blows away the myth that HR was more appealing to fans as comparable crowds were always much higher at the Ricoh. 04/05 16048 03/04 14816 02/03 14813 01/02 16150

Ok your right. Its ok to gamble with the companies fixed assets. You've just lost any authority in being critical of Richardson then.

So if I'm interpreting sisu bullshit correctly, the initial investment in the new stadium will come from selling Ryton? Past mistakes repeating themselves?

WTF are you talking about? First game at the Ricoh the capacity was limited to 23k. The attendance was 23k, yet your saying it wasn't a sell out?

That's the intelligence of the average footballer though. Most sensible people would try harder if they thought there was a chance of getting a better job out of it.

Robbo, Nick, I dont think I could disagree with you more to be honest. Why exactly should the trust have stayed neutral? Their job is to do what is right for the club, and if one side decides to up sticks and move the club 35 miles away then they should be criticised.

By consult, do you mean tell? A bit like how we were consulted about the Northampton move?

I would be interested to know which bit of the article they disagree with. All looks pretty accurate to me.

Apologies if its already been posted but I couldn't see it anywhere.

http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/attachments/article/324/slet.png

I'm still confused as to what is balanced about Les Reids view anyway. We all want CCFC back in Coventry, that we agree on. Surely a balanced view would be showing equal pressure to both the council to sell, and Sisu to accept the rent deal?

NOPM to the Coventry Telegraph until facts are reported, not opinions!