1 year in the Ricoh (would make sense) (5 Viewers)

dongonzalos · Jul 8, 2013

We are very close to the start of the season nothing is available for sale yet, apart from our players.

It seems quite evident that SISU are going to carry out their tactic of moving out and trying to break ACL.

However they seem to have left it too late to organise.

They claim the FL are stopping them from discussing ticketing prices transport options etc.

This is imperative for them to be able sell the idea.

Would it not make more sense for them to be in the Ricoh for one more year whilst they arrange their plans more professionally.

This would allow them time to possibly find a more practical and fans friendly ground. It would also give them time to have more fans forums and put their argument across with an actual plan in place. As oppose to having forums with no stadium agreed and not been allowed to discuss the incentives.

It would also allow a year in which they can buy their plot of land and see how getting planning permission goes. If it all goes Pete tong at least by then the Ricoh may still be an option.

The disadvantage for SISU is they want to try and start breaking ACL straight away.

The advantage for ACL is they now know SISU are serious enough to go as far as a ridiculous ground share and probably buying some land.

Another year would give ACL time to prepare from when CCFC moved out.

Probably unlikely now but it strikes me it is better for both sides to do one more year.

stupot07 · Jul 8, 2013

Pretty sure Tim said we approached ACL to negotiate a 3 year deal, but ACL refused.

dongonzalos · Jul 8, 2013

stupot07 said:
Pretty sure Tim said we approached ACL to negotiate a 3 year deal, but ACL refused.

Yes he did.

I was thinking recent activity may focus people's minds.

Plus maybe just one year not three.

BrisbaneBronco · Jul 8, 2013

Well. I reckon we will still be in admin for most of next season. Didn't ACL say that we could play at the Ricoh for no rent, just overheads, whilst in admin?
Take that deal, get the embargo lifted, players in.
Then spend 12 months bridge building with ACL.

Noggin · Jul 8, 2013

stupot07 said:
Pretty sure Tim said we approached ACL to negotiate a 3 year deal, but ACL refused.

They didn't need to do this, I can't believe that SISU actually plan to build a stadium because the smart thing to do would have been.

(1) Agree the 400k deal with ACL. Ok you still arn't happy because you arn't getting certain revenues, but now your rent is much better, you haven't pissed off all your fans, you don't lose mark Robbins, perhaps you even get promoted,.

(2) Start the process of building the stadium, you're in no hurry now, your getting 11k fans each week, rent is the best it's ever been, you can do this properly, slowly and cheaply, you can continue to move your assets around over the next 4 or 5 years while you build the stadium to make liquidating limited as painless as possible.

3) You tell ACL look we have a new stadium now and we are going to break the lease, we can do that by putting the club in admin/liquidation, hurting the fans and you'll end up with say 500k. Or you can accept our compensation package of three years rent. It's in ACL's interests to take the three year rent. Thats still less money than SISU have wasted with the administration process we've just gone through. Even if ACL force the breaking of the lease it's still better than what is happening now

DONE!

The club start in their new stadium getting all the revenue, it's done at less cost and less harm than the current plan, you havn't had years with only a few k fans, not only did you not get relegation but perhaps you got promoted.

This is a smart and obvious plan with no downsides compared to what they are doing and numerous massive upsides. So the only explanations are SISU are stupid, or SISU are not really planning to build a stadium.

wince · Jul 8, 2013

[QUOTEWell. I reckon we will still be in admin for most of next season. Didn't ACL say that we could play at the Ricoh for no rent, just overheads, whilst in admin?
Take that deal, get the embargo lifted, players in.][/QUOTE] Did he really say that ?

dongonzalos · Jul 8, 2013

Noggin said:
They didn't need to do this, I can't believe that SISU actually plan to build a stadium because the smart thing to do would have been.

(1) Agree the 400k deal with ACL. Ok you still arn't happy because you arn't getting certain revenues, but now your rent is much better, you haven't pissed off all your fans, you don't lose mark Robbins, perhaps you even get promoted,.

(2) Start the process of building the stadium, you're in no hurry now, your getting 11k fans each week, rent is the best it's ever been, you can do this properly, slowly and cheaply, you can continue to move your assets around over the next 4 or 5 years while you build the stadium to make liquidating limited as painless as possible.

3) You tell ACL look we have a new stadium now and we are going to break the lease, we can do that by putting the club in admin/liquidation, hurting the fans and you'll end up with say 500k. Or you can accept our compensation package of three years rent. It's in ACL's interests to take the three year rent. Thats still less money than SISU have wasted with the administration process we've just gone through. Even if ACL force the breaking of the lease it's still better than what is happening now

DONE!

The club start in their new stadium getting all the revenue, it's done at less cost and less harm than the current plan, you havn't had years with only a few k fans, not only did you not get relegation but perhaps you got promoted.

This is a smart and obvious plan with no downsides compared to what they are doing and numerous massive upsides. So the only explanations are SISU are stupid, or SISU are not really planning to build a stadium.

Don't get ideas above your station you are a meagre midlander

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 8, 2013

dongonzalos said:
Don't get ideas above your station you are a meagre midlander

Which is why there must be an alternative underhand reason for them pursuing this course of action.

Jack Griffin · Jul 8, 2013

Can't be done, it has to be a long term deal of ACL are recklessly risking the business of the company and the directors are legally responsible to make it successful.

https://www.gov.uk/running-a-limited-company/directors-responsibilities

As a director of a limited company, the law says you must:

try to make the company a success, using your skills, experience and judgment

follow the company’s rules, shown in its articles of association

make decisions for the benefit of the company, not yourself

tell other shareholders if you might personally benefit from a transaction the company makes

keep company records and report changes to Companies House and HM Revenue & Customs

make sure the company’s accounts are a ‘true and fair view’ of the business’ finances

register for Self Assessment and send a personal Self Assessment tax return every year

You can ask other people to manage some of these things day-to-day. For example, an accountant can manage your accounts for you - but you’re still legally responsible for them.

However the conduct of TF & ML with respect to certain of those points with respect to CCFC Ltd & other SBS&L Ltd group companies is questionable.

SonofErnie · Jul 8, 2013

wince said:
[QUOTEWell. I reckon we will still be in admin for most of next season. Didn't ACL say that we could play at the Ricoh for no rent, just overheads, whilst in admin?
Take that deal, get the embargo lifted, players in.]

Did he really say that ?[/QUOTE]

Embargo can't be lifted whilst the club is in admin !

Grendel · Jul 8, 2013

Jack Griffin said:
Can't be done, it has to be a long term deal of ACL are recklessly risking the business of the company and the directors are legally responsible to make it successful.

https://www.gov.uk/running-a-limited-company/directors-responsibilities

However the conduct of TF & ML with respect to certain of those points with respect to CCFC Ltd & other SBS&L Ltd group companies is questionable.

See what I mean. A typical post I'm sure of a football supporter on a fans forum.

BrisbaneBronco · Jul 8, 2013

SonofErnie said:
Did he really say that ?

Embargo can't be lifted whilst the club is in admin ![/QUOTE]

So how have Pompey managed to bring in players?
Also, we have an embargo due to late filing of accounts not admin.

ccfcway · Jul 8, 2013

SISU would rather not play the game at all than play at Ricoh

rupert_bear · Jul 8, 2013

stupot07 said:
Pretty sure Tim said we approached ACL to negotiate a 3 year deal, but ACL refused.

Put yourselves in ACLs position would you give a 3 year lease to a business who owed you a million quid in rent ?

Yorkshire SB · Jul 8, 2013

Noggin said:
They didn't need to do this, I can't believe that SISU actually plan to build a stadium because the smart thing to do would have been.

(1) Agree the 400k deal with ACL. Ok you still arn't happy because you arn't getting certain revenues, but now your rent is much better, you haven't pissed off all your fans, you don't lose mark Robbins, perhaps you even get promoted,.

(2) Start the process of building the stadium, you're in no hurry now, your getting 11k fans each week, rent is the best it's ever been, you can do this properly, slowly and cheaply, you can continue to move your assets around over the next 4 or 5 years while you build the stadium to make liquidating limited as painless as possible.

3) You tell ACL look we have a new stadium now and we are going to break the lease, we can do that by putting the club in admin/liquidation, hurting the fans and you'll end up with say 500k. Or you can accept our compensation package of three years rent. It's in ACL's interests to take the three year rent. Thats still less money than SISU have wasted with the administration process we've just gone through. Even if ACL force the breaking of the lease it's still better than what is happening now

DONE!

The club start in their new stadium getting all the revenue, it's done at less cost and less harm than the current plan, you havn't had years with only a few k fans, not only did you not get relegation but perhaps you got promoted.

This is a smart and obvious plan with no downsides compared to what they are doing and numerous massive upsides. So the only explanations are SISU are stupid, or SISU are not really planning to build a stadium.

are we secretly building this stadium? Would ACL offer such a rent deal if we were planning to leave the Ricoh in four or five seasons time?

jimmyhillsfanclub · Jul 8, 2013

ACL offered for CCFC to play at the Ricoh, rent free, whilst in admin.

If ACL refuse to accept the CVA......CCFC remain in admin.

If that happens, The FL can then "make an offer" to CCFC to exit admin, but at the cost of other penalties such as further points deductions.

My question: If the 3 things listed above actually come to pass, Can CCFC decline the FL offer & remain in admin?

RoboCCFC90 · Jul 8, 2013

dongonzalos said:
We are very close to the start of the season nothing is available for sale yet, apart from our players.

It seems quite evident that SISU are going to carry out their tactic of moving out and trying to break ACL.

However they seem to have left it too late to organise.

They claim the FL are stopping them from discussing ticketing prices transport options etc.

This is imperative for them to be able sell the idea.

Would it not make more sense for them to be in the Ricoh for one more year whilst they arrange their plans more professionally.

This would allow them time to possibly find a more practical and fans friendly ground. It would also give them time to have more fans forums and put their argument across with an actual plan in place. As oppose to having forums with no stadium agreed and not been allowed to discuss the incentives.

It would also allow a year in which they can buy their plot of land and see how getting planning permission goes. If it all goes Pete tong at least by then the Ricoh may still be an option.

The disadvantage for SISU is they want to try and start breaking ACL straight away.

The advantage for ACL is they now know SISU are serious enough to go as far as a ridiculous ground share and probably buying some land.

Another year would give ACL time to prepare from when CCFC moved out.

Probably unlikely now but it strikes me it is better for both sides to do one more year.

Is this the same deal that is for while CCFC Ltd is only in Admin?

So basically Dong you are pinning your hopes on CCFC being in Admin for the whole season..

RoboCCFC90 · Jul 8, 2013

templericoh said:
are we secretly building this stadium? Would ACL offer such a rent deal if we were planning to leave the Ricoh in four or five seasons time?

Yup right next to Tim Fisher's house..

jimmyhillsfanclub · Jul 8, 2013

rupert_bear said:
Put yourselves in ACLs position would you give a 3 year lease to a business who owed you a million quid in rent ?

.....If they are the only real prospective tenant and ACL stand to lose further contracts (Compass) & monies due to the collapse in other business (Casino).........:thinking about:

RoboCCFC90 · Jul 8, 2013

jimmyhillsfanclub said:
.....If they are the only real prospective tenant and ACL stand to lose further contracts (Compass) & monies due to the collapse in other business (Casino).........:thinking about:

It's alright though because there is also a hotel, gym, conference exhibition centre and the indoor arena with the huge event Ambulex about to take place shortly.. Has to be said they won't need CCFC for sometime... :facepalm:

italiahorse · Jul 8, 2013

The fact that ACL are quiet on this leads me to believe they know the SISU plan is not achievable.

It's a game to see who will break first and at stake is CCFC.

In reality the FL will not allow CCFC out of administration until they have a firm stadium plan. Including land, planning permission and ground share.
That will take the best part of a year at least as it will undoubtedly have to go for appeal. IMHO

An enforced usage of Ricoh will be the only possible way of CCFC competing this year as I can't see the FL agreeing to a ground share without the full plan. IMHO

The Ricoh is available at cost this year and should give everybody time to negotiate.

Noggin · Jul 8, 2013

templericoh said:
are we secretly building this stadium? Would ACL offer such a rent deal if we were planning to leave the Ricoh in four or five seasons time?

Huh? I'm saying back when ACL gave their final offer and said we arn't willing to negotiate further, even if SISU felt this was unacceptable and wanted to build a new stadium they should have taken the deal. With the deal in place they had somewhere to play that is financially massively massively more preferable to playing outside the city while they built the stadium. Once the stadium was ready they could do what they have done now with administration or more preferably give ACL a compensation package of three years rent to break the lease.

Houdi · Jul 8, 2013

The fact that the FL have yet to make any announcement re ground share would surely suggest that they haven't as yet accepted it. If the FL had agreed the deal between SISU and Northampton, you would have thought it would it would have been announced by now. If indeed the regulations specify that the higher ranked club has priority, maybe that is the cause of the holdup, as it would be very difficult/impossible for the Northampton Chairman to sell that to his own supporters. Or could it be that the FL are not convinced or reassured by SISU promise to build a new ground. At the moment the FL can hide behind the, 'no decision has yet been made', however once a decision has been given they know that fans will be demanding the evidence of what guarantees that SISU have given re a new ground.

dongonzalos · Jul 8, 2013

RoboCCFC90 said:
Is this the same deal that is for while CCFC Ltd is only in Admin?

So basically Dong you are pinning your hopes on CCFC being in Admin for the whole season..

No, not for free an agreed one year rent.

A year in admin seems to be a possibility though.

Paxman II · Jul 8, 2013

So it seems most of you feel that SISU's current stance is a bluff?
You think they would go through all this process as a bluff tactic to simply distress ACL?

I think it's time to realise they may have drawn a line in the sand and intend to carry out their objective.
Guess we will find out soon enough.....we have to play somewhere come August!

valiant15 · Jul 8, 2013

Paxman II said:
So it seems most of you feel that SISU's current stance is a bluff?
You think they would go through all this process as a bluff tactic to simply distress ACL?

I think it's time to realise they may have drawn a line in the sand and intend to carry out their objective.
Guess we will find out soon enough.....we have to play somewhere come August!

You seem delighted.

dongonzalos · Jul 8, 2013

Paxman II said:
So it seems most of you feel that SISU's current stance is a bluff?
You think they would go through all this process as a bluff tactic to simply distress ACL?

I think it's time to realise they may have drawn a line in the sand and intend to carry out their objective.
Guess we will find out soon enough.....we have to play somewhere come August!

Yes it is not financially viable to build the stadium 100% confident
They will buy the land ground share if they are allowed. They will not build a stadium.

Yorkshire SB · Jul 8, 2013

Noggin said:
Huh? I'm saying back when ACL gave their final offer and said we arn't willing to negotiate further, even if SISU felt this was unacceptable and wanted to build a new stadium they should have taken the deal. With the deal in place they had somewhere to play that is financially massively massively more preferable to playing outside the city while they built the stadium. Once the stadium was ready they could do what they have done now with administration or more preferably give ACL a compensation package of three years rent to break the lease.

I still don't think we could happily play in the Ricoh for the next few seasons whilst building a new ground elsewhere in the city.

Noggin · Jul 8, 2013

templericoh said:
I still don't think we could happily play in the Ricoh for the next few seasons whilst building a new ground elsewhere in the city.

Why? what options would ACL have?

psgm1 · Jul 8, 2013

It is laughable thinking in anyway shape or form the club is going to do well away from coventry! All those coming out of the wooidwork saying if they do x or y then they can make it work is BS. Those that are (must be sisu plants) have to assume that the same crowds city get now will get the same at any new stadium. But it is common sense that the crowds are just not going to be anywhere near what they have been, and as such you have to reduce this part of the equation!

There is not a cat in hells chance of any new stadium being built in the city. There simply is no business case, so it would have to be on the outskirts. There is a reason why coventry is the size it is, because on the outskirts it is all greenbelt! Anyone wanting a stadium is going to have to go through governmental approval. You only have to look at the outrage and difficulties Bagington had, and they didn't have to build that much infrasturcture! A new stadium is just going to be a red rag to a bull.

So you then have to look at building even further out of the city. So even if you assume the FL are utterly spineless, you then have the unpalatable truth that you are going to lose around 90% of the current fans. With the club more than likely in league 2 by then how can they possibly argue they need a stadium larger than 8,000 - you will struggle to justify the bare minimum!

So even if you give every benefit of the doubt that everything goes sisu's way, you are looking at a club stable in league 2 / BSN. Do they really think they are going to get crowds anywhwere near what they get now? Outside coventry, league 2 with a ground not much larger than Hinkley!

Sure they will get all the food & drink, but 10% of a lot is far better than 100% FA which is what sisu will get!

I have no doubt sisu might win this, buy it is a purely phyrric victory, as they will have successfully alienated pretty much the entire fanbase, a stadium that even filled each week will give far less income than at the ricoh, and effectively an utterly toxic brand!

Certainly I cannot think of anything more abhorrent than allowing to play at the ricoh for a year allowing these people to go ahead with their plans to ruin the club!

It wouldn't surprise me if even at this stage sisu will try and thrash out a deal with ACL. After all in the scheme of things what is £100k. Certainly sisu wont give 2 hoots that they mess around NT, FFS they don't give a damn if they mess around the club they supposedly own!

Noggin · Jul 8, 2013

Noggin said:
Why? what options would ACL have?

and even if ACL could do something about it (and I don't see what) SISU could have been a couple of years further ahead, They could have the land purchased, designs done, investors on board and into the process of getting planning permission before ACL found out, and perhaps started the build by the time they managed to do anything about it, that would minimise time away from the city and increase fan support towards the plan. Instead what they have chosen is ludicrous and makes no sense at all on the face of it.

shmmeee · Jul 8, 2013

stupot07 said:
Pretty sure Tim said we approached ACL to negotiate a 3 year deal, but ACL refused.

No "we" didn't "he" did. I.e. CCFC Holdings asked for negotiation (while they did not own the club) and ACL said (correctly) that they couldn't negotiate as they do not own the club.

Paxman II · Jul 9, 2013

psgm1 said:
It is laughable thinking in anyway shape or form the club is going to do well away from coventry! All those coming out of the wooidwork saying if they do x or y then they can make it work is BS. Those that are (must be sisu plants) have to assume that the same crowds city get now will get the same at any new stadium. But it is common sense that the crowds are just not going to be anywhere near what they have been, and as such you have to reduce this part of the equation!

There is not a cat in hells chance of any new stadium being built in the city. There simply is no business case, so it would have to be on the outskirts. There is a reason why coventry is the size it is, because on the outskirts it is all greenbelt! Anyone wanting a stadium is going to have to go through governmental approval. You only have to look at the outrage and difficulties Bagington had, and they didn't have to build that much infrasturcture! A new stadium is just going to be a red rag to a bull.

So you then have to look at building even further out of the city. So even if you assume the FL are utterly spineless, you then have the unpalatable truth that you are going to lose around 90% of the current fans. With the club more than likely in league 2 by then how can they possibly argue they need a stadium larger than 8,000 - you will struggle to justify the bare minimum!

So even if you give every benefit of the doubt that everything goes sisu's way, you are looking at a club stable in league 2 / BSN. Do they really think they are going to get crowds anywhwere near what they get now? Outside coventry, league 2 with a ground not much larger than Hinkley!

Sure they will get all the food & drink, but 10% of a lot is far better than 100% FA which is what sisu will get!

I have no doubt sisu might win this, buy it is a purely phyrric victory, as they will have successfully alienated pretty much the entire fanbase, a stadium that even filled each week will give far less income than at the ricoh, and effectively an utterly toxic brand!

Certainly I cannot think of anything more abhorrent than allowing to play at the ricoh for a year allowing these people to go ahead with their plans to ruin the club!

It wouldn't surprise me if even at this stage sisu will try and thrash out a deal with ACL. After all in the scheme of things what is £100k. Certainly sisu wont give 2 hoots that they mess around NT, FFS they don't give a damn if they mess around the club they supposedly own!

As ever you are in your own world making statements without a shred of evidence to back up what you say.
You are delusional if you think they will play at the Ricoh. When will you realise this and let the penny drop?

SISU for whatever reasoning they have are done with this council and the operator ACL. They appear to have drawn a line in the sand. It's actually not as though they did not say so over and over is it?
I despise SISU for their lack of ability to negotiate their way around the problems and help find a way for staying at the Ricoh but caution everyone to stop making too many summations and assumptions on it all, as we don't now all the facts and perhaps never will. I'm sure there is much more to come out that will become public knowledge. The Elliott/Hoffman camp have been remarkable quiet haven't they? So many broken promises and if as has been reported they were still in some way active over this then I think we would have heard something and not just confirmation that the club will be playing at Northampton?

I agree it's still a big IF on the face of it but if and when they build such a new stadium I can assure you the support (like sheep) will come flooding back. It will be commensurate to whatever league we are in at the time but never the less come back. I spoke to several season ticket holders this last few days disgusted with events and largely blaming SISU for all our ills. However everyone agreed that such a scenario take place they would return to the new stadium and buy a season ticket! So would I.

You just can't be that dismissive. ACL have paid the price of doing just that.
It's a football club with a long and proud history going through temporary bad times that will change.
The owners are not the main criteria why you support your football team.

1 year in the Ricoh (would make sense) (5 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

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

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Banned

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency