Prove it.
All the rhetoric from the club was “two turkeys don’t an eagle make” and “we’re building our own”.
Ridiculous revisionism. And maybe if they’d approached the purchase the same way Wasps did, with a modicum of understanding about what the seller wants, rather than allying with political fruit loops and throwing their toys out the pram, they’d have got a better deal.
Maybe if they weren’t still throwing their toys out the pram we’d be playing in Cov right now.
Yep bad appointments tooAnd Coleman,Thorn,Venus,Slade.....
incorrect and if you believe that genuinely then there's no hope for an intelligent conversation with youWe are in St Andrews thanks to them and we went to Northampton thanks to them
I've never felt closer to the club as a fan.And that makes them bad owners, the ever increasing distance between fans and club.
What are the biggest outgoings? What is the biggest compared to Rochdale?As i have said before the club is not self sufficient. It required loans from the owners in 2016 £530k ,2017 £500k and 2018 £500k simply to pay the day to day bills. However rather than leaving all the funds in the company they repaid some of their loans £112k in 2017 and £255k in 2018 when cash flow allowed
The net player sales made a big contribution to keeping CCFC going. The player sales less player purchases funded the club by £2.7m in 2015 £2.2m in 2016 in £180k 2017 in £870k 2018. or 5.95m in total. That was used to fund operating the club but we still made losses in those years even ignoring the interest on the loans
They have done, in reality, just enough to keep the business paying its bills, and the prime reason for that is not a kindling of empathy or passion for the club or being better owners...... its because without the club their whole legal strategy and therefore their investment comes crashing down around their ears
They have neither backed any manager in that time other than to keep their distance or kept the club self sufficient. Any player purchases have been through necessity just to have a squad and funded by the sales of other players and the adds ons from former players based on the managers decisions on who to sell or keep. But those sales also helped pay the overheads. This season is no different, without the sales of Chaplin and Bayliss we had a small budget and would have been in trouble with SCMP rules, much of the profit will simply pay for running the club.
incorrect and if you believe that genuinely then there's no hope for an intelligent conversation with you
What are the biggest outgoings? What is the biggest compared to Rochdale?
Is their balance sheet available in a spreadsheet anywhere?
Should we have continued to pay 1.3m pounds per year in rent as a league one club?Who made us go to Northampton?
£10 million when they were on good terms with the council for 50% share on a sub 50 year lease and still paying £1.3m a year - why don’t you just crawl back up George’s backside where you belong?
Ray Ranson: We''ll turn it round
incorrect and if you believe that genuinely then there's no hope for an intelligent conversation with you
Should we have continued to pay 1.3m pounds per year in rent as a league one club?
What was the alternative? Would've ended up like Bury
‘Wood and Hussey will be as good as Dann and Fox if not better’. That statement didn’t age well
The alternative was to re-negotiate the rental terms which was in fact happening. ACL cut the rental offer to £150k after SISU put the club into administration but Sepalla wanted nothing less than complete ownership of the freehold. Look at what the 'alternative' is now. Wasps own the ground for good. We have to play in Birmingham which may work in the short term but in the longer term will force us to cut costs further, lose fans and make it harder to attract players.
Yeah because there wasn't a plan for Wasps before Administration was there? Probably the same sort of thing as when Haskell was being shown off as the new owner before it even happened.
We know Wasps were being eyed up around that time. It was also blatantly obvious at the time what SISU's plan was with the rent strike and move to Northampton and if they had known of Wasps' interest you can be sure they wouldn't have left the door open. ACL thought they could nominate their own administrator and get in Haskell. SISU had pre-planned it with the ARVO charges, Appleton came in and the rest is history.
I don't see how anyone but SISU can take the blame for Sixfields.
I wasn't really on about Sixfields, more Wasps owning the stadium now and putting us in this mess.
It was said at the time that the decision to sell to Wasps would fuck us over with or without SISU for many years to come, not many listened to that due to the Trust and local media getting lovestruck by them.
ACL had no idea what was planned, there were news articles about ACL's forced takeover and the new owner they were courting.
Wonder if they had courted the Wasps owner to buy them as well with the idea to move?
Yup by me and many others here. Without evidence it's hard to comment on the other points though it would have represented an even bigger financial risk for Richardson to take on CCFC as well as bankroll Wasps' losses and start-up costs. What does seem clear though is that without SISU's distressing of ACL, Wasps wouldn't have had the opportunity to buy at a knock down price. The kick in the teeth is that nobody else was.
I wasn't on about Richardson buying CCFC, he was clearly lined up to buy Wasps and move them here as he was talking about it and planning it before he even bought them.
The alternative was to re-negotiate the rental terms which was in fact happening. ACL cut the rental offer to £150k after SISU put the club into administration but Sepalla wanted nothing less than complete ownership of the freehold. Look at what the 'alternative' is now. Wasps own the ground for good. We have to play in Birmingham which may work in the short term but in the longer term will force us to cut costs further, lose fans and make it harder to attract players.
Oh dear
There was no re-negotiation happening while the rent was being paid. You understand that right? And you understand why given that the council were already dropping their trousers for Wasps at this point, way before northampton?The alternative was to re-negotiate the rental terms which was in fact happening.
Refutation?
The £150,000 deal was on condition the club remained in administration and was negotiable after sisu surrendered tenure — it was a desperate piece of PR
There was no re-negotiation happening while the rent was being paid. You understand that right? And you understand why given that the council were already dropping their trousers for Wasps at this point, way before northampton?
deal that was agreed with charity in 2012 was £1.5m plus £4m spread over 10 years, SISU walked away from it and offered £2m the Charity walked away from that. It never got further than that. Further than that in 2014 SISU offered £2.8m for the charity shares when the Wasps sale was going on, with certain clauses in addition. The Charity rejected it and took 2.77m from wasps
Any deal with CCC was not about the sale of the CCC shares in 2012 as far as i remember. The heads of Terms agreed August 2012 are attached. Frankly i think these are muddled and not at all sure how it would have worked.
https://www.ccfc.co.uk/contentassets/2ec0f8e40f044ad0a54d3635ef5fac67/council-hot_signed_2aug12.pdf
Council walked away from that, which they were entitled to do. Heads of terms are not legally binding. Without the deal for the charity shares there is no way to proceed in any case
The council accepted 2.77m from Wasps for their ACL shares in 2014
As far as i am aware SISU never made a bid for the CCC shares when wasps sale going on, i believe Seppala said at the time that they wouldnt interfere
Should we have continued to pay 1.3m pounds per year in rent as a league one club?
What was the alternative? Would've ended up like Bury
She isn't getting it back. Once the legals are done in the EU she will decide if she can get more money back from from selling or asset stripping and liquidating. Which ever comes out on top is the route she will take . Just my opinion of course. She may decide to put 100 million in to get us into the prem.Where is she getting it back from? This 50, 60 million
It may not even be as simple as that. Given the SISU brand is about playing hardball, it may suit to liquidate to send a message elsewhere.She isn't getting it back. Once the legals are done in the EU she will decide if she can get more money back from from selling or asset stripping and liquidating. Which ever comes out on top is the route she will take . Just my opinion of course. She may decide to put 100 million in to get us into the prem.
You are correct, she will do whatever suits sisu, and costs less money.It may not even be as simple as that. Given the SISU brand is about playing hardball, it may suit to liquidate to send a message elsewhere.
Discount that risk at your peril.
If memory serves, there was also an offer for £400k made before that stage. What's your aim here?
The fans are the IP of the club, nothing else. Without that they have nothing.
Rangers went pop in 2012 they are back, Chester as well, same will happen with Bury. The fans will see it through.
At not point whatsoever am I saying we should do the same, just worried the longer we are away, the bigger problem this becomes....
If wasps go bust (which is the hope of many) one of the main reasons is the fans have given up and they haven’t travelled, coupled with not enough new fans.
Will they be left with a club that goes back to Wycombe or London and tries to rebuild a fan base, or will it have gone too far and they have done something less boring instead ?
How long away from Coventry would we become the same.?
Playing away from our home means a lot more medium / long term, than a good pitch or better pubs enroute to the ground
I think the appointment of Dave Boddy as chief executive has helped massively as he seems like a genuine guy who cares for he club as well as being mindful of the business side of things to ensure we are operate at a level which does not put the club at risk.
Pre-2015 they were woeful owners and we just needed to get rid but recently there have been some positive signs in terms of on field matters and an acknowledgement of the matters behind closed doors but there is still some way to go to sort out the off field mess.
Club is still very much at risk though, and we still operate at a loss with debt increasing
Curious to know when the owners have ever said exactly what mistakes or bad decisions they have made. Only thing i seem to remember is a bland apology of "we made some mistakes" back when Seppala made her first statement, but the rest has been pretty much pointing the finger at everyone else.
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?