Search results

10% of ACL's turnover.... not 10% of the club's total revenue though was it? What was the break even figure for the club on the deal 22K a game?

And these 'rental' deals haven't. You don't want to discuss the rejected CVA becuase you know there isn't a single justified reason to this day for it to have happened.

Essentially strangling the life out the home town football club... all long before any of us had even heard of SISU.

At least one deal was offered to the administrator, in the full knowledge that the club couldn't accept it. Secondly.. if everything was to 'keep Coventry City in Coventry' then why the CVA rejection? Had that not occurred I believe we would have been back some time ago.

SISU's actions in regards to their rental dispute with ACL and ensuing legal battles have been rightly criticised, and have been very destructive. However to suggest that the council and ACL haven't in other ways contributed to our precarious position is quite frankly nonsense.

I don't think anyone is actively supporting SISU, but there is balance to be found between those who don't really care about the fans (SISU) and those that pretend that they care about the club and the fans - but actually don't care either (Council and ACL) Evidently - in this whole scenario...

Maybe you can't lump them in with other owners, and when you look at their actions it's clear that their strategy is utter bollocks. They clearly went for a quick buck return and fucked it up spectacularly. Their only chance of ever getting anywhere near a return is to invest in the football...

Every owners goal is money and some form of return. It's not and will never be an objective exclusive to SISU. If the club has borrowed money then it goes somewhere.. mostly to fund the losses because the club can't stand on it's own two feet. If this situation had been dealt with properly back...

Without going over old news there is a distinct difference between saying that liquidation could be a possibility to saying 'I am going to liquidate the football club' as a direct threat. It's interesting that is a matter of record but the lawful spending of £14m of taxpayers money couldn't even...

Does it? I don't think so.. just emphasises that people will dismiss a statement out of hand with no evidence.. and then take another statement as gospel with equally little evidence. All I'm suggesting is a little consistency.

Clearly people have a simple method of judging any press release from the club. Every single thing they release is bullshit... unless of course the word 'liquidation' is used and then it becomes gospel truth.

What do you want the club to say? If this is what they are actually going to do then the football side will benefit from the sale of Wilson.

There are some definitions of revenue laid out by UEFA - Pages 77-81. http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/80/54/10/1805410_DOWNLOAD.pdf One line I found interesting... 'The income (and expenses – see part C(1)(k)) of non-football operations only needs to be...

So it's not really an offer... Just some clever accounting with no net value to the club, and ultimately is of no benefit to anyone.

I agree about needing a will to get a deal done. Said deal has to be far better than the half baked ideas served up so far.

By who?

Except that's not what it says is it? You can't apply the rent deal to a matchday revenue scenario. It doesn't stack up.

And here is the crux of it. This is where the money can be made. EDIT: If it's enough revenue to deem ACL a 'sustainable business' then it's enough for the club to want to have it.

What? The offer relates to the matchday revenue at the Ricoh - not Sixfields.

What proposal? That KCIC pay all the matchday revenue? Will there be a caveat on it like the rent deal where they only paid up to 5K attendance. 'KCIC will pay for the first 250 pies, 300 hot dogs and then ACL get the rest'? 23 games with a 10K attendance as a minimum - if average spend per...