Grendel
Well-Known Member
I think you will find this is capitalism. What actually do you want? All you do is post curious anti-sisu comments with no alternative. The OP is crap and so is your assumption. Grow up.
Apparentl Joy threatens liquidation if half stadium is vetoed (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter sotv1987
- Start date
I think you will find this is capitalism. What actually do you want? All you do is post curious anti-sisu comments with no alternative. The OP is crap and so is your assumption. Grow up.
skyblueinBaku
Well-Known Member
CJ, is there a new deal on the rent yet, or are the parties still dancing? If a deal has been struck, I'm sure that TF would let the world know.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
All CJ knows is Marlon King should play for Emgland. May as well have done today.
Hope they do
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
BurbageSkyBlues
New Member
The op may well be misguided, but some of the subsequent analysis of Sisu's strategy could be very valid.
Fisher has stated in interviews on 3-4 for occassions that it is "purely Strategic", and indeed it is obvious how the horizon is intended to look .Of course the Paxmanlike journo's of local rag and radio have pursued him with equivilent zeal on the diachotomy of what he says,IE; "We can't afford this level of rent" , Journo,"Why not pay what you think you can afford in the interim"?
"We are paying no Rent for strategic reasons",Journo, "Is that likely to aid or alienate the organisation you are intending to do a deal with,,when it appears you have money for aquisition but not what you are legally bound to HONOUR,you do know the meaning of the word Tim"?
skyblueman
New Member
This is not going to be an amicable settlement - SISU are IMO over playing their hand - the 50% reduction offered WAS a very good discount and not legally required by ACL - SISU need to stop being so hard faced about this and consider actually ACL's position and their need to satisfy their owners - it would not therefore surprise me to find ACL using the full weight of the law to force the original contract through
I have seen many posts asking 'how is it the club can't afford the rent when sisu apparently have millions to invest in the stadium'.
Money to pay operational costs is not the same money that would be used for investment. Money to pay the rent comes out of the clubs empty coffer, while investment money will come from sisu's clients ... probably a new fund that in return for shares place the money at the club and are then spend to buy the ACL shares. (I assume the club - not sisu - will acquire the ACL shares).
So money to pay the rent (£1.2m/yr) is not available as the club is skinned.
The money to buy ACL shares will only become available when a deal to buy half or all the ACL shares is signed ... and that money will be ringfenced to that purpose.
Money to pay operational costs is not the same money that would be used for investment. Money to pay the rent comes out of the clubs empty coffer, while investment money will come from sisu's clients ... probably a new fund that in return for shares place the money at the club and are then spend to buy the ACL shares. (I assume the club - not sisu - will acquire the ACL shares).
So money to pay the rent (£1.2m/yr) is not available as the club is skinned.
The money to buy ACL shares will only become available when a deal to buy half or all the ACL shares is signed ... and that money will be ringfenced to that purpose.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
The OP might have been told this and it might indeed be "bollocks" ...... but he did qualify things in his original post by saying he didnt know if it was true or not. But he might have been told this and it is correct... we simply dont know if this message, simply relayed, is or not
You could view the alleged threat as unhelpful in discussions ....... playing your cards too early............ clearly SISU are cleverer than that arent they ?
You could also look back and consider ......
TF has on several occassions stated that CCFC is not viable without an interest in the stadium ........ think I have proven on lots of occassions buying a half share gets the club no immediate income. So in making his statement is TF making an implied threat "no stadium no club". You tell me because you can read it that way
The PR campaign that has been waged by the club has undoubtedly been designed to put public pressure on the Council (in particular) and the Charity to sell. Unfortunately opportunistic councillors rise the bait and get caught in the PR trap...... we dont hear much from the charity (thats the right and clever way to do things)
We know SISU play hard ball in their business dealings, is it inconceivable that JS would make such a threat in an effort to scare business novices at the council - we dont know but that doesnt mean she wouldnt.
A reasonable tenant would pay what they could ......... we pay nothing, yet set a player budget at £4.2m, keep spending and expect over £3m in losses by end of the year..... you dont do that unless you have a reason, a plan, an objective. Remember what is on offer from half the shares isnt income for the club for the next 5 years or so at least.
The local paper all of a sudden is much more positive about CCFC/SISU/JS and co. Clearly they are in a cleft stick because if they had the balls to investigate the club would cut them off and if they dont investigate they become a puppet for the club. Where does most of their info come from ...... CCFC. Of course personally I do not have much faith in their reporting in the first place
We also know that SISU itself is under pressure on its finances and that getting hold of the stadium increases in importance because of that. Would that make "balls of steel" Joy a little more snappy ........... i would think so.
What has been achieved by the PR campaign, the careful leaks of comments and info, the careful avoidance of any proper answers by TF etc ............
-A council under considerable pressure to do any deal SISU put forward "for the benefit of the club"
-Pressure on the Charity to "do the right thing" and sell
-A public image that things are better with TF at the helm and now that JS is "hands on" <shudder>
-A perception that it was everyone elses fault and JS has stepped in to save the day .......... 5 years of ineptitude had nowt to do with her :facepalm:
-No real facts details transparency improvement because fans do not ask because things look better on the pitch. Lets face it why would they ask all they want in general is a team doing well.
-A growing number of fans that accept what TF JS etc say as the truth and dont look beyond those statements to find the dots dont actually join up
So could JS have said it ............. yes but equally no ........... we dont know. Only thing i am certain of is that we are dealing with a PR astute board and owners that are seeking to maximise their investment and that the way to do that has nothing to do with CCFC other than they own the option to buy the shares from the charity. The key to SISU's investment return is the stadium, and fear of letting down thousands of fans by not doing a deal or being seen as the reason the club folds is a damn good tool to use against any publically elected officials.
Just my own conspiracy theories ............ of course as with much else very few facts, but it isnt an unreasonable opinion or view of what is going on
You could view the alleged threat as unhelpful in discussions ....... playing your cards too early............ clearly SISU are cleverer than that arent they ?
You could also look back and consider ......
TF has on several occassions stated that CCFC is not viable without an interest in the stadium ........ think I have proven on lots of occassions buying a half share gets the club no immediate income. So in making his statement is TF making an implied threat "no stadium no club". You tell me because you can read it that way
The PR campaign that has been waged by the club has undoubtedly been designed to put public pressure on the Council (in particular) and the Charity to sell. Unfortunately opportunistic councillors rise the bait and get caught in the PR trap...... we dont hear much from the charity (thats the right and clever way to do things)
We know SISU play hard ball in their business dealings, is it inconceivable that JS would make such a threat in an effort to scare business novices at the council - we dont know but that doesnt mean she wouldnt.
A reasonable tenant would pay what they could ......... we pay nothing, yet set a player budget at £4.2m, keep spending and expect over £3m in losses by end of the year..... you dont do that unless you have a reason, a plan, an objective. Remember what is on offer from half the shares isnt income for the club for the next 5 years or so at least.
The local paper all of a sudden is much more positive about CCFC/SISU/JS and co. Clearly they are in a cleft stick because if they had the balls to investigate the club would cut them off and if they dont investigate they become a puppet for the club. Where does most of their info come from ...... CCFC. Of course personally I do not have much faith in their reporting in the first place
We also know that SISU itself is under pressure on its finances and that getting hold of the stadium increases in importance because of that. Would that make "balls of steel" Joy a little more snappy ........... i would think so.
What has been achieved by the PR campaign, the careful leaks of comments and info, the careful avoidance of any proper answers by TF etc ............
-A council under considerable pressure to do any deal SISU put forward "for the benefit of the club"
-Pressure on the Charity to "do the right thing" and sell
-A public image that things are better with TF at the helm and now that JS is "hands on" <shudder>
-A perception that it was everyone elses fault and JS has stepped in to save the day .......... 5 years of ineptitude had nowt to do with her :facepalm:
-No real facts details transparency improvement because fans do not ask because things look better on the pitch. Lets face it why would they ask all they want in general is a team doing well.
-A growing number of fans that accept what TF JS etc say as the truth and dont look beyond those statements to find the dots dont actually join up
So could JS have said it ............. yes but equally no ........... we dont know. Only thing i am certain of is that we are dealing with a PR astute board and owners that are seeking to maximise their investment and that the way to do that has nothing to do with CCFC other than they own the option to buy the shares from the charity. The key to SISU's investment return is the stadium, and fear of letting down thousands of fans by not doing a deal or being seen as the reason the club folds is a damn good tool to use against any publically elected officials.
Just my own conspiracy theories ............ of course as with much else very few facts, but it isnt an unreasonable opinion or view of what is going on
Last edited:
It really is about Trust and entitlement .Are Sisu allowed to use this vehicle to make amends for their massive FEFF UP?!! I have no doubt there is greater potential within the set up of ACL to increase income and earnings as i think elements are under used for the majority of the year.The destabalising effect has already started and been felt with the exit of the two top execs within ACL .If they were successful in their bid there are likely to be three scenario's.
1.They apply the same principle as they have to the football club ,bringing in a ill qualified troupe to work alongside the ACL crew,meaning Hiatus ,Failure,Boardroom War ,Blood on the Carpet ,que the revolving Door.Culminating in ACL's failure and a purchase of the second half for a pittance.Pretty much what Hoffman tried to do with the Club !!!
2.They recruit persons who've excelled in this field ,taking a longterm approach to grow the business alongside ACL ,Investing extra revenue to aid the payoff of the loan on the lease and make a return earlier.
3. They get through the door on this deal and promptly try to recoup some of their losses by departing.
There are few complicating factors which make No.2 unlikely haha.Hedgefund,not enough funding,plus local factors in the current setup,IE;Compass ,the Super Rate if ACL makes over a certain level of Profit ,so 1.or 3. place your bets.
i
Last edited:
skyblueman
New Member
Agreed... but fundamentally I just don't think SISU are up to it - I just don't think they are smart enough
I have one big reservation in all of this and that is the view of PWKH.
He has stated on here or in the press that he believes these people are the best who have run the club since his organisation have been involved in ACL.
Now that may be true if he's refferring to addressing costs within the club ,however when basing it on the approach to the success of the club and its part in the success of the whole venture I find him wide of the mark .
He's stated that while Higgs would like to be involved in other ventures within the City he is under no obligation to exit Higgs from ACL.
Is he taking any account of the difficulties Sisu are creating for the council /ACL.
What is or Who is reassuring him that these people are the ones to safeguard the venture and the Club??
He has stated on here or in the press that he believes these people are the best who have run the club since his organisation have been involved in ACL.
Now that may be true if he's refferring to addressing costs within the club ,however when basing it on the approach to the success of the club and its part in the success of the whole venture I find him wide of the mark .
He's stated that while Higgs would like to be involved in other ventures within the City he is under no obligation to exit Higgs from ACL.
Is he taking any account of the difficulties Sisu are creating for the council /ACL.
What is or Who is reassuring him that these people are the ones to safeguard the venture and the Club??
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
think you have to read his words a little more closely Wingy .......... he was saying that since he became involved that the current people running CCFC are the best he has had to deal with in respect of financial nous ......... not that they are the best thing for the club to go forward. I took it as basically the best of a bad lot.
skyblueman
New Member
So if there's no obligation then why sell at all??
I mean their share is 50% and the £10 Million figure is a deeply discounted one by anyone's standards - there is a time limit on this discount and exclusivity for the club
Why not just sit on the shares until the time limit is passed and sell on for a higher amount?
Can't be like that... OSB what am I missing here?
Thats what I was meaning OSB ,and based on that ,can he not see the risk to ACL from his desire to do a deal with them ,he said he would'nt do a deal to jepeordise all Higgs and ACL have achieved .How is he re-assured on this??
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Think that the previous message from the poster as shown by Godiva, shows there is little reason to believe that it isn't just made up.
Originally Posted by sotv1987
I’ve just had a text off my mate, who’s brother works at the Ricoh, I don’t know how true this is but this was the text….
Joy Seppala has told Clr John Mutton that if the council vote against SISU buying Higgs half of the stadium, she will put the club in to liquidation straight away!!!!
I thought that a deal was already sorted, I didn’t realise the council had to vote on it.
Is this correct??????"
Let's check how accurate your mate's brother usually is:
Date 18-08-2011
Right, i have just rec'd a text from my mate, it reads exactly this ...............
Just in from my brother, Sisu have brought the meeting forward with Hoffman to Friday cos the club are in serious danger of administration before next week, trust me!
(his brother works up the city!!!
Before you all start say "Source, Source" i am only passing on information, it may be old news to some of you, but passing it on anyway, i await the usual responses.
SISU OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PUSB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
The thing is the Charity never set out to be involved in the way it has been in the first place. They stepped in because no one else would or perhaps could. I would guess to do so created problems with Charity Commission and Tax authorities in convincing them that the purpose was indeed charitable......... the reason they could was that the authorities accepted the arguement that it was for the regeneration of a poorer area of Coventry specifically not to help CCFC.
They are not there to run a multi million pound business for profit, nor are they equipped to do so in terms of getting the full potential from the Ricoh. As such it is a right decision to consider moving on so that potential can be tapped. CCFC also has the option to buy the 50% and as such if they approach the Charity then the charity has to consider it. Does that mean they have to accept anything CCFC offer - no there will be a formula to calculate value and terms to say when payment is made. Those terms can by agreement be negotiated.
Over the years the Charity has supported the club on different occassions and wants to see the club prosper. If the club can put forward a business plan that sees the club prosper I think it is reasonable for the charity to consider it and if satisfied move on.
What they are doing is in my mind commensurate with charitable principles, making decisions they believe to be for the greater good and concentrating on their own core principles. They have other projects planned and selling the shares would unlock funds to do that. Got to remember the Charity is not and cannot be here simply to support CCFC or ACL
We can not just look at it from a CCFC perspective or even an ACL one
That said you have to look where we are or thought to be ............. i dont see a signed deal anywhere only an outline of an agreement that has yet (i assume) to be proven to have substance. The Charity hasnt gone yet.
They are not there to run a multi million pound business for profit, nor are they equipped to do so in terms of getting the full potential from the Ricoh. As such it is a right decision to consider moving on so that potential can be tapped. CCFC also has the option to buy the 50% and as such if they approach the Charity then the charity has to consider it. Does that mean they have to accept anything CCFC offer - no there will be a formula to calculate value and terms to say when payment is made. Those terms can by agreement be negotiated.
Over the years the Charity has supported the club on different occassions and wants to see the club prosper. If the club can put forward a business plan that sees the club prosper I think it is reasonable for the charity to consider it and if satisfied move on.
What they are doing is in my mind commensurate with charitable principles, making decisions they believe to be for the greater good and concentrating on their own core principles. They have other projects planned and selling the shares would unlock funds to do that. Got to remember the Charity is not and cannot be here simply to support CCFC or ACL
We can not just look at it from a CCFC perspective or even an ACL one
That said you have to look where we are or thought to be ............. i dont see a signed deal anywhere only an outline of an agreement that has yet (i assume) to be proven to have substance. The Charity hasnt gone yet.
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
wingy - you mentioned about the two execs leaving because of the situation. It isnt quite like that
the Chairman Mr Allvey left not because as reported in the CT he was upset with SISU but because the Board of ACL made a decision that they required someone better equiped to deal with the further development of the site
Similarly with Daniel Gidney. He didnt leave as reported in the CT because of his frustrations over the rent and SISU. He totally denied that in a radio interview at the time, said it was paper talk and totally inaccurate. He was in fact head hunted by Lancashire Cricket club (they approached him because of the job he did at the Ricoh), he has moved to a prestige venue with exciting investment plans. He felt he had done all he could at ACL and it was time for other staff to step up
Sometimes a shake up of management is a good and correct thing to do. On both counts the CT got the story wrong for the sake of a headline ......... creating a perception that two entities benefited from, the CT and guess who
the Chairman Mr Allvey left not because as reported in the CT he was upset with SISU but because the Board of ACL made a decision that they required someone better equiped to deal with the further development of the site
Similarly with Daniel Gidney. He didnt leave as reported in the CT because of his frustrations over the rent and SISU. He totally denied that in a radio interview at the time, said it was paper talk and totally inaccurate. He was in fact head hunted by Lancashire Cricket club (they approached him because of the job he did at the Ricoh), he has moved to a prestige venue with exciting investment plans. He felt he had done all he could at ACL and it was time for other staff to step up
Sometimes a shake up of management is a good and correct thing to do. On both counts the CT got the story wrong for the sake of a headline ......... creating a perception that two entities benefited from, the CT and guess who
Last edited:
Do you have an inside line here OSB ,some of your info seems to suggest you may be professionally involved in some way ,or have contact through business associates,I do indeed recall that Gidney was headhunted ,but when did I ever let a fact such as that get in the way of a good conspiracy,would he have taken it if Alvey had'nt gone and Sisu wer'nt trying to barge the door in.So was it Council pressure that encouraged Mr.Alveys shift to further the developement within and without the Stadia.Finally if you do have an inside line could you find out which way the money went in the Compass deal of £125M.,as I would like to figure out if it was good busines for either party.
:facepalm:kingharvest
New Member
OSB is right, in fact a company that looks at making changes in its senior management team every 3 years or so is a characteristic of a growth company.
You mean like ccfc?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
No inside line Wingy ........ good memory maybe, plus my own profession allows me to think perhaps in a different way and question I also heard Gidney interviewed on CWR so that helps
The compass deal is worth a reported £125m (which is the estimated income they predict over the 10 years before costs i would guess) it isnt what they paid for it. Compass and ACL work in partnership...... Compass get their costs back and the profit under the agreement is split between. So ACL did not and will not receive the £125m
I also heard Gidney interviewed on CWR so that helpsThe compass deal is worth a reported £125m (which is the estimated income they predict over the 10 years before costs i would guess) it isnt what they paid for it. Compass and ACL work in partnership...... Compass get their costs back and the profit under the agreement is split between. So ACL did not and will not receive the £125m
No inside line Wingy ........ good memory maybe, plus my own profession allows me to think perhaps in a different way and question
The compass deal is worth a reported £125m (which is the estimated income they predict over the 10 years before costs i would guess) it isnt what they paid for it. Compass and ACL work in partnership...... Compass get their costs back and the profit under the agreement is split between. So ACL did not and will not receive the £125m
In effect then they're recieving possibly in the region of £1M. profit for their part ,which is to supply labour and expertise in the overall operation/ running of the venture ,a benefit or negative depending on how you look at it for ACL as no responsibility for that element ,keeps their Profit Element down also so no Super-Rate to handover,Would Sisu be so happy with this arrangement,is it a good deal ,could more be made from keeping it in house??
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Most things like this are done that way. The expertise is bought in. CCFC isnt set up to run conferences, exhibitions etc. The deal is there for 10 years so would be hard to shift it in the present set up should CCFC get the shares. Is it a good deal - i couldnt tell you i just dont know, but would assume it is acceptable to ACL
JUST CLOCKED THIS IN THE NEWSBOT SECTION AND COULD'NT RESIST ,APPOLOGIES IN ADVANCE
BUT IS THIS WHAT SISU ARE BANKING ON:laugh:
NEWS : Coventry council agrees to review its bailiffs practices - as Telegraph invest
BUT IS THIS WHAT SISU ARE BANKING ON
:laugh:
COVENTRY council has agreed to review procedures for protecting vulnerable people from inappropriate bailiff action to recover debts – amid an ongoing Telegraph investigation.
Visit The Coventry Telegraph for More...
Visit The Coventry Telegraph for More...
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
:facepalm::laugh:
Wrenstreetcarpark
New Member
If PWKH is comparing Wisher and Faggott to Richardson, Hover, Robinson, Fletcher and saying they are better, it is rather like saying a stale pint with a fagend in it is better than one that's been pissed in.
And of course the reverse could be true,I believe there are certain health freaks out there who advocate the supping of ones own urine as a form tonic,have to say WSCP thats a great analogy.:laugh:
ashbyjan
Well-Known Member
Nick - you asked what a Trust can do. The Sky Blue Trust is, among other things, making sure it is in a position to try and help save the club should this threat be real or any other similar disaster hit these or any other owners - far fetched? See link - obviously not a done deal but they have our best wishes and it shows what a strong trust and united fan base can achieve
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/p...-in-takeover-bid-to-takeover-pompey-1-4388414
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/p...-in-takeover-bid-to-takeover-pompey-1-4388414
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Aren't Swansea the benchmark for a supporters trust? Are they the ones where season ticket holders automatically join?
ashbyjan
Well-Known Member
They definitely are but the situation they were in when they went bust was peanuts compared to what could happen here (although Mr Tim does tell us we are debt free.........) but Swansea are a great example of what can happen if done correctly Premiership team, 20% of shares owned by Trust and supporter on main board and the Trust is simply getting all the necessary information and plans in place to be ready IF it were ever to happen - not scaremongering and saying its imminent or anything like that just best to have plans should the worst occur.
Info on Swansea if anyone interested:
http://www.swanstrust.co.uk/History.aspx
Info on Swansea if anyone interested:
http://www.swanstrust.co.uk/History.aspx
