I see the usual sisu rent boys are out in force. Are you actually condoning the bullying by seppalla and co? Is it ok to bully people cos its for the club then?(if true).
I see the usual sisu rent boys are out in force. Are you actually condoning the bullying by seppalla and co? Is it ok to bully people cos its for the club then?(if true).
Please, if there is any part of you that still thinks SISU are 'turning things around' or 'making good progress' - listen to what OSB has said. CCFC is NOT a concern for SISU.
If this 'apparently' was the case - I would ask SISU, "If you truly believe that football club can turn it's finances around under your stewardship, and the council don't help you out - why not just find somewhere cheaper to play?" - the price they pay to play is not even relevant.
Every company needs a back-up plan, right?
The council are the only ones actually trying to hold on to something that safeguards the football club. Ask yourself, in 5 years from now, with SISU holding their half of the areana, results running poor, club dropping divisions...
Will SISU fight as hard to safeguard the football club as the council are doing now?
Yet some people still stick up for them. Unbelievable.
Nearly as unbelievable as someone wanting their own club to be liquidated.
I hope SISU don't get to own half the Ricoh - it would be a disaster for the club
It's our only hope of becoming self sufficient and avoiding admin.
Do you fancy me torch? What part of your brain fails to grasp the fact that sisu don't give a monkeys for ccfc? As long as its not before next may duffy
It's our only hope of becoming self sufficient and avoiding admin.
Hill83,sort this mess out? Sisu are digging themselves a bigger hole every year. They are a total and utter. joke.
So Sisu finally come out from beneath that stone and show themselves in their true colours......a rabble of bully boys with absolutely no class whatsoever.(think we all knew that anyway). So, the question now is; will their ownership of half the stadium move CCFC forward? From what I know and hear, the answer to that question is NO. Will it make CCFC more saleable?.......probably YES. We all now know where this shower of sh#te is coming from.
In fairness if their trying to buy the Ricoh in order to sell the club (and stadium) to a new owner then I would be delighted.
The day Sisu leave should be a local Public Holiday!
I don't understand any of this.
What are the council doing to "safegaurd the football club"? Nothing I hope as they are surely not allowed to help private organisations with taxpayer money.
So please enlighten me what are they doing.
As for SISU they are answerable to investors - not supporters. The cold reality is they should commit to strategies that will only satisfy their investors. The reality seems to be they are so useless that they cannot do anything right to satisfy supporters or investors.
"Find somewhere cheaper to play" - what does that mean. So what does that mean? Pay the current rental price or leave I assume. Have you not considered the rental agreement is unsustainable? The club cannot afford it and it would almost certainly deter any potential investor. So if that is the case no-one is helping the football club at all.
Any organisations that depend on either council involvement or hedge funds are often doomed to failure.
We have both involved.
Wrong on so many levels. I can't be bothered to go through it all.
1. the current rental agreement is in-line with others - not all, but others.
1a) The council spearheaded an offer of reduction (with behind the scenes agreements to invest in the team with the money saved) - SISU declined a mouth opening reduction in rent.
1b) The rent offered was way below most in League 1.
2) Re: "helping private organisations with tax payers money" - Coventry City is a 'community team'. The football club brings together people of all ages and more importantly, families and encourages people to unite for a common cause. If bringing communities together instead of hiding away (or worse, fighting each other) isn't deemed a good investment in tax payer money - shoot me dead. The argument that it's a minority for the town doesn't wash with me either - the council should be encouraging the growth of support - its good for all the people of Coventry.
3) If SISU truly know that they can get the club to become 'self-sustaining' - then where they do it is irrelevant. So why wouldn't they have a back up plan for a cheaper venue to play in if all else fails? If you couldn't afford the rent on your house - you wouldn't declare the "end of the world" - you'd simply move to a cheaper house.
Ask yourself this... They categorically state that they don't have the money to keep pumping into the squad and 'need' the club to 'break-even' - but they have the money to invest in half the stadium... that isn't currently making money.
Thus: Council helping the club. (albeit not as much as they could) & SISU=C**Ts
Nearly as unbelievable as someone wanting their own club to be liquidated.
If this is true... At face value, SISU are C**TS for threatening liquidation, BUT if the council were to be veto this they to are C**TS.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I can see why they're giving the council the ultimatum, we're losing too much money and need this share in the RICOH.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Always the fans who have to suffer though!
<p>
Owning a share in the Ricoh will generate zero money for ccfc.
I think you may only be half right.
It is true that in the short term the club will not gain any cash dividend but surely owning 50% of the lease should mean that any money paid in rent half of it contribute to the asset value.
So a bit like putting 50% into a savings account.
OSB may shoot this theory down though.
I think you may only be half right.
It is true that in the short term the club will not gain any cash dividend but surely owning 50% of the lease should mean that any money paid in rent half of it contribute to the asset value.
So a bit like putting 50% into a savings account.
OSB may shoot this theory down though.
<p>
Owning a share in the Ricoh will generate zero money for ccfc.
Ok.
Something is definitely not right here.
I've read this entire thread VERY carefully.
There has been much discussion over Administration for SEVEN pages and there hasn't been one mention of Hoffman yet.
How can that be possible...? :thinking about:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?