Banners & Chants at Sixfields (1 Viewer)

[shmmeee]

Exactly PROTEST is PROTEST and there are too many just sitting on the fence sniggering at other people's ideas...it won't work. It won't work because half of you give in and let the situation roll over you.

Why not have a big protest where some blame SISU and some blame CCC....it's the fans suffering. The only voice you and I as fans have is ourselves. I don't understand why they don't have banners at Sixfields?

Someone said it would spoil their enjoyment of the game, what chanting at a football match? Then people complain of a lack of atmosphere?

Only you can bring them home.

No no no.

We need to get back to issue 1: We should not be playing in Northampton.

Request that ACL give us free rent until the end of say next season (pretty much what they've already offered). Request that Sisu do whatever the fuck it is that Plan A is this week in that time and stop fucking the fans about.

Then if we go bust/buy/rent/build a new ground/move the club to outer mongolia at least we don't massively damage the future of the club.

Of course there's a very good reason why this won't happen (considering it's already pretty much been offered by one side) and that's that the division of the fans is being used as a tactic by one side. Aaaaand we're back to square one.

 

---

[cochese]

But surely rent would only go up on promotion if that's the lease we agreed to? You say the "mercy of ACL" as if they have at any point in recent times been unwilling to support the club. I'd be interested to know what lead you to that viewpoint.

I actually did the analysis of our average attendance since the turn of last century and actually, it's fairly consistent with success. We lose roughly 5k for a relegation and gain roughly the same or a bit more for a promotion, then it starts to atrophy without further success. I think in this particular chicken and egg situation the club has to provide the product first.

The problem with our club goes back well past the Ricoh. We were £60m in debt upon relegation. We overspent and never got that debt under control. We then had a ground in HR that didn't provide enough revenue to support a modern club so moved to the Ricoh then immediately sold the revenue there as well.

You talk as if (and again stop me if I'm wrong) Sisu will just sell up because that's how they want to realise the value in the club and make back their investment. But isn't it just as, if not more likely, that they will simply mortgage the Ricoh/new ground and leave the club with the debt? Sure it makes the club less sellable, but if they've got their cash back why do they care? I am especially worried that comments from Fisher in private I've been told about (can't stand people of Coventry) and frankly the way the whole thing has gone down mean that there is quite a bit of bad blood between Joy and the City of Coventry. In a situation where she wouldn't make much more from selling as she would from liquidation, I wouldn't put it past her to do it out of spite.

That's what worries a lot of people. I, like you, want a sustainable club going forward. If I'm honest I think that there are two routes to that:

- CCC agree to hand back the 50% of ACL as originally agreed on a long lease with low rent guaranteed. (Even this one relies on us getting out of the debt to Sisu somehow)
- We go bust and start again.

If we build a new ground we're stuck with lower revenues then the Ricoh and will have the problem as you said of relying on ticket sales alone. If Sisu get the freehold there is nothing ensuring that the club is protected and they can load us with debt.

I'm also concerned as to who on earth would buy us in L1 for £60m. Is there any record of any club at our level going for that kind of amount, own ground or not?

We don't know that they will mortgage the Ricoh/new stadium. It is possible. But it is not a fact. It does worry me that that will happen. But the only path that leads the club to owning a ground and all things in and around it is for SISU to buy the Ricoh or build a new ground. From what I can make out anyway. It's a feint hope.

The relationship between joy and the council (I assume that you imply that with the city of Coventry) is not good. And I wish both parties would just grow up and swallow a bit of pride. But I don't think the council want to give in because they will seem weak, and joy won't give in because it might give the impression that she's a soft business woman.

20 rocks and 53 hard places.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

But if they don't agree with the move to Northampton, to go and support it is pretty stupid also, especially without a visual or vocal protest.

At least the people on the hill are travelling In order to protest.

Don't bring us into this we get enough shit as it is.

 

[shmmeee]

We don't know that they will mortgage the Ricoh/new stadium. It is possible. But it is not a fact. It does worry me that that will happen. But the only path that leads the club to owning a ground and all things in and around it is for SISU to buy the Ricoh or build a new ground. From what I can make out anyway. It's a feint hope.

The relationship between joy and the council (I assume that you imply that with the city of Coventry) is not good. And I wish both parties would just grow up and swallow a bit of pride. But I don't think the council want to give in because they will seem weak, and joy won't give in because it might give the impression that she's a soft business woman.

20 rocks and 53 hard places.

No we don't. And we don't know that they won't. What we do know is that they can't under a rental deal.

Again, I think where we're disagreeing (sorry but I'm fascinated) is in whether a rental deal is a valid option. I still don't see (and this is no criticism of you) why a rental deal on appropriate terms isn't a solution. I mean they could ask ACL for almost any terms right now and the political pressure to do a deal would be huge. And like I said, if ACL changing things is an issue, it'll only cost them £5m or so for the Higgs' veto powers. And that's ignoring the fact that A) Sisu seem to be able to argue out of any contract and B) ACL couldn't legally change the lease.

What a rental deal can do that a sale can't is legally tie the ground or it's proceeds to the betterment of the club. Once the ink is dry on a sale then all bets are off and we're relying on the good graces of our owners.

 

[Astute]

I attend sixfields and haven't vocally protested because I am yet to see anything that is aimed at both SISU and the council.

Chant SISU out? Who takes over?
Boycott the games? How does this affect the council?
Demand a return to the Ricoh at all costs? Then we will be back to where we started and SISU will have no chance of selling up.

As soon as a campaign actively targets both council and SISU, and doesn't affect me supporting my football club, then I'm on board.

We should all get CCC to come up with a cheap rental agreement like free for the rest of this season and then 100k a year after this. Nobody with even only half a brain could turn it down when Northampton costs them more.

 

[Grendel]

We should all get CCC to come up with a cheap rental agreement like free for the rest of this season and then 100k a year after this. Nobody with even only half a brain could turn it down when Northampton costs them more.

That offer is the webber Shadwick communication. The reality is a lot higher cost - also league rules stipulate a 10 year commitment - have ACL confirmed this will be waived?

 

[cochese]

No we don't. And we don't know that they won't. What we do know is that they can't under a rental deal.

Again, I think where we're disagreeing (sorry but I'm fascinated) is in whether a rental deal is a valid option. I still don't see (and this is no criticism of you) why a rental deal on appropriate terms isn't a solution. I mean they could ask ACL for almost any terms right now and the political pressure to do a deal would be huge. And like I said, if ACL changing things is an issue, it'll only cost them £5m or so for the Higgs' veto powers. And that's ignoring the fact that A) Sisu seem to be able to argue out of any contract and B) ACL couldn't legally change the lease.

What a rental deal can do that a sale can't is legally tie the ground or it's proceeds to the betterment of the club. Once the ink is dry on a sale then all bets are off and we're relying on the good graces of our owners.

A rental deal does not bring the club an asset. Simple as that really. A cheap rental agreement will mean that we will be restricted in what we can earn by ticket sales alone. Not one penny from any other event will go to the club. An event that would not have taken place had the club not needed a new stadium. I've not seen any details about a rental agreement that means the club benefit from corporate hospitality, parking, etc etc... With the council it's always been, "here's the rental deal we will offer. Oh and can you pay running costs. And we might keep all the parking and corporate money too". I might be assuming the last bits but that's how I imagine the rent agreement going from the councils side.

I think I will always see a rental deal as a way in which the council can try and make as much money from the club as they can. And I want every penny going to my club.

 

[Astute]

That offer is the webber Shadwick communication. The reality is a lot higher cost - also league rules stipulate a 10 year commitment - have ACL confirmed this will be waived?

This offer was ACL/CCC to the FL when SISUE told us they hadn't received an offer from ACL/CCC.....stretching the truth as usual. And as the FL have bent the rules for SISUE a few times already I can't see them not bending another one for them. And yes the costs would be higher. That is because there would be about 10,000 more paying customers to look after. But the money raised would be worth millions more each season.

 

[Astute]

A rental deal does not bring the club an asset. Simple as that really. A cheap rental agreement will mean that we will be restricted in what we can earn by ticket sales alone. Not one penny from any other event will go to the club. An event that would not have taken place had the club not needed a new stadium. I've not seen any details about a rental agreement that means the club benefit from corporate hospitality, parking, etc etc... With the council it's always been, "here's the rental deal we will offer. Oh and can you pay running costs. And we might keep all the parking and corporate money too". I might be assuming the last bits but that's how I imagine the rent agreement going from the councils side.

I think I will always see a rental deal as a way in which the council can try and make as much money from the club as they can. And I want every penny going to my club.

Why don't you have a go at SISUE for charging our club 2.5m a year in mismanagement fees and 1.2m interest a year if you want every penny to go to our club? And either buying the Ricoh or building a ground will have the interest payments go up.

 

[Hobo]

Don't bring us into this we get enough shit as it is.

Sorry mate but you are in it. You chose the Sky Blues, in my experience it means more shit than sunshine!

 

[Grendel]

This offer was ACL/CCC to the FL when SISUE told us they hadn't received an offer from ACL/CCC.....stretching the truth as usual. And as the FL have bent the rules for SISUE a few times already I can't see them not bending another one for them. And yes the costs would be higher. That is because there would be about 10,000 more paying customers to look after. But the money raised would be worth millions more each season.

Ah, it's no and erm no then. Shouldn't you change your signature and substitute lack of alcohol for webber Shadwick communication? Seems to work for you -you swallow every word they say and really get high on it.

 

[Hobo]

No no no.

We need to get back to issue 1: We should not be playing in Northampton.

Request that ACL give us free rent until the end of say next season (pretty much what they've already offered). Request that Sisu do whatever the fuck it is that Plan A is this week in that time and stop fucking the fans about.

Then if we go bust/buy/rent/build a new ground/move the club to outer mongolia at least we don't massively damage the future of the club.

Of course there's a very good reason why this won't happen (considering it's already pretty much been offered by one side) and that's that the division of the fans is being used as a tactic by one side. Aaaaand we're back to square one.

I agree with your stance, but I would still rather see some of the others protest for whatever cause; than their current state of largesse.

 

[Astute]

Ah, it's no and erm no then. Shouldn't you change your signature and substitute lack of alcohol for webber Shadwick communication? Seems to work for you -you swallow every word they say and really get high on it.

You are such a sad old man considering you tell us you earn a six figure sum for your unskilled job Grendull.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Sorry mate but you are in it. You chose the Sky Blues, in my experience it means more shit than sunshine!

I had no choice my dad took me when I was four its his fault God rest his soul come to think of it I'm glad he did:claping hands:

 

[shmmeee]

A rental deal does not bring the club an asset. Simple as that really. A cheap rental agreement will mean that we will be restricted in what we can earn by ticket sales alone. Not one penny from any other event will go to the club. An event that would not have taken place had the club not needed a new stadium. I've not seen any details about a rental agreement that means the club benefit from corporate hospitality, parking, etc etc... With the council it's always been, "here's the rental deal we will offer. Oh and can you pay running costs. And we might keep all the parking and corporate money too". I might be assuming the last bits but that's how I imagine the rent agreement going from the councils side.

I think I will always see a rental deal as a way in which the council can try and make as much money from the club as they can. And I want every penny going to my club.

OK firstly, let's talk in facts. The council have never taken a penny from the Ricoh project so implying profiteering is simply paranoid. We can disagree about likely outcomes, etc but some things are simply untrue.

Ignoring that, I don't see how a say 150 year lease at a peppercorn rent isn't an asset. I also don't see how owning 50% of ACL as has been on offer since day one isn't an asset. Finally, I'm still not entirely sure why on earth we so desperately need "an asset". I'm a but of a dunce financially so I'd be glad for that to be explained.

No-one, and I mean no-one, wants us to go back to the deal we're on. Almost to a man people on this side of the argument want 100% of football revenue and in many cases the original deal the club had before McGinnity sold it which was 100% of football revenue and 50% of the rest.

I'll agree that the ACL (again, NOT the council, accuracy is important) could have been more forthcoming with offers for other revenue streams. That's why I favour a return to the planned relationship with the project being a 50/50 split between the two key stakeholders (CCC & CCFC).

Match day costs is a bit of a red herring. Yes they're cheaper at a 7k L2 stadium with another team in. But let's not pretend that they wouldn't go up massively if we owned a new ground.

But again, my problem is that at the moment the club are refusing to even consider this. Or even state clearly it's what we want. I and many others were behind Sisu when this started and they were asking for a more equitable deal. The problem came when they used my support and yours as leverage in a business deal.

Anyway, I feel we're travelling down well worn roads here but thanks for taking the time.

 

[shmmeee]

Ah, it's no and erm no then. Shouldn't you change your signature and substitute lack of alcohol for webber Shadwick communication? Seems to work for you -you swallow every word they say and really get high on it.

Well then and the Football League yes.

As always G if you have evidence for someone's statements being wrong then present it, but just shouting insults does your argument no favours.

 

[Covstu]

going back to the original question about what at the 6fielders doing to protest etc, I think this is still wider to all fans on this front. We are relying on scraps of protests, some here, some there but again there is no united protests to tell the world that all of us think this is unacceptable. Its all well and good not attending, its painful but easy to do. This isn't effective on a protest front and I honestly believe that even if the ground was empty the FL wouldn't do a thing.

If there were regular protests through the city of Coventry on the scale of the previous one, blocking up roads (In a peaceful way) this will raise awareness.

Sitting at home isn't telling the world that we are not accepting this change.

 

[cochese]

OK firstly, let's talk in facts. The council have never taken a penny from the Ricoh project so implying profiteering is simply paranoid. We can disagree about likely outcomes, etc but some things are simply untrue.

Ignoring that, I don't see how a say 150 year lease at a peppercorn rent isn't an asset. I also don't see how owning 50% of ACL as has been on offer since day one isn't an asset. Finally, I'm still not entirely sure why on earth we so desperately need "an asset". I'm a but of a dunce financially so I'd be glad for that to be explained.

No-one, and I mean no-one, wants us to go back to the deal we're on. Almost to a man people on this side of the argument want 100% of football revenue and in many cases the original deal the club had before McGinnity sold it which was 100% of football revenue and 50% of the rest.

I'll agree that the ACL (again, NOT the council, accuracy is important) could have been more forthcoming with offers for other revenue streams. That's why I favour a return to the planned relationship with the project being a 50/50 split between the two key stakeholders (CCC & CCFC).

Match day costs is a bit of a red herring. Yes they're cheaper at a 7k L2 stadium with another team in. But let's not pretend that they wouldn't go up massively if we owned a new ground.

But again, my problem is that at the moment the club are refusing to even consider this. Or even state clearly it's what we want. I and many others were behind Sisu when this started and they were asking for a more equitable deal. The problem came when they used my support and yours as leverage in a business deal.

Anyway, I feel we're travelling down well worn roads here but thanks for taking the time.

The thing that irks me the most about ACL, the council, whoever runs the place is that we have gone from 1.2million a year, to 400k, to 150k. To me that doesn't sit right.

Any chance you could be a bit more shouty and frothy mouthed though? I'm not used to civilised on here... Maybe take some lessons from (not very) astute.

 

[Astute]

going back to the original question about what at the 6fielders doing to protest etc, I think this is still wider to all fans on this front. We are relying on scraps of protests, some here, some there but again there is no united protests to tell the world that all of us think this is unacceptable. Its all well and good not attending, its painful but easy to do. This isn't effective on a protest front and I honestly believe that even if the ground was empty the FL wouldn't do a thing.

If there were regular protests through the city of Coventry on the scale of the previous one, blocking up roads (In a peaceful way) this will raise awareness.

Sitting at home isn't telling the world that we are not accepting this change.

But how would blocking roads in Coventry get SISUE to do anything?

 

[Covstu]

But how would blocking roads in Coventry get SISUE to do anything?

it wont but neither will putting a random bed sheet saying 'I want to go home' is it?? What it will do is create media attention, uniting the fans. We all know this wont happen as it is easier to sit at home and complain on the forums.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

But how would blocking roads in Coventry get SISUE to do anything?

I agree however blocking roads in Central London on a friday might get you noticed:thinking about:Just a thought

 

[Astute]

The thing that irks me the most about ACL, the council, whoever runs the place is that we have gone from 1.2million a year, to 400k, to 150k. To me that doesn't sit right.

Any chance you could be a bit more shouty and frothy mouthed though? I'm not used to civilised on here... Maybe take some lessons from (not very) astute.

Shouty and frothy mouthed? :laugh:

Or do you really mean I ask questions that are hard for you to answer. I will ask you the last one again. Why don't you have a go at SISUE for charging our club 2.5m a year in mismanagement fees and 1.2m interest a year if you want every penny to go to our club? And either buying the Ricoh or building a ground will have the interest payments go up.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

I agree however blocking roads in Central London on a friday might get you noticed:thinking about:Just a thought

But I forgot we are all going on the piss aren't we?

 

[Astute]

I agree however blocking roads in Central London on a friday might get you noticed:thinking about:Just a thought

Don't think anyone would notice any difference

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Don't think anyone would notice any difference

Would cause a bit of a stir gridlocking it

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Like on that slow walk from Sisu to FL Offices.

I agree however blocking roads in Central London on a friday might get you noticed:thinking about:Just a thought

 

[Otis]

it wont but neither will putting a random bed sheet saying 'I want to go home' is it?? What it will do is create media attention, uniting the fans. We all know this wont happen as it is easier to sit at home and complain on the forums.

The point I was making with that Stu was in terms of unity for the fans. If the fans not going could see visceral and visual signs that the fans in the ground were also unhappy at our playing our home games 34 miles away.

 

[Hobo]

I had no choice my dad took me when I was four its his fault God rest his soul come to think of it I'm glad he did:claping hands:

Well done your dad, God rest his soul indeed.

 

[shmmeee]

The thing that irks me the most about ACL, the council, whoever runs the place is that we have gone from 1.2million a year, to 400k, to 150k. To me that doesn't sit right.

Any chance you could be a bit more shouty and frothy mouthed though? I'm not used to civilised on here... Maybe take some lessons from (not very) astute.

I'd love to know about the finer details of the original rent negotiation. PWKH has been on here and stated that the club turned down the offer of a sliding scale, as they thought they'd be back in the Prem soon and it wouldn't be worth while. He also said that until Sisu no-one seriously asked for a new deal. There's evidence Robinson went to ask but got nowhere but PWKH didn't class that was "whole hearted" so make of that what you will. Similarly, when Leonard Brody went to the papers saying the rent was killing the club Igwe and Delieu went public stating how it wasn't and that they are happy with it. So I find it a little hard to feel too sorry for the club here.

WRT how the council dropping the rent like they did. Well firstly, how you imagine things going when you first open and how things are going 7 years later are two different things. Circumstances changed significantly for both ACL and CCFC in that time. IIRC the original sliding scale had a level of roughly £400k/year in L1, maybe even less, I'm not sure. But as I say the original rent was too high and a negotiation was needed long ago.

The move from £400k to £150k was for two reasons: firstly the £400k offer included access to ACL's books for FFP reasons (and I think other revenue but am not 100% and some say it didn't). Secondly when the Sisu deal for ACL's mortgage fell through the restructured loan with CCC meant that the finances were better off and that ACL could offer a deal that isn't commercially viable but recognised the value the club has to the community/project as a whole.

At the end of the day, no matter what you think of them politically, the likes of Mutton and Lucas for CCC and the Higgs' ARE Coventry City fans. None of them want to see the club hurt. In fact that was Mutton's downfall as he stupidly thought he could engineer a situation where Sisu left the club and rightfully he fell on his sword.

I also find it slightly funny how you want nothing to do with the council because they didn't cut the rent fast enough, but will give a pass to Sisu who defended the rent figure and also moved the club out of the city. Like I say not judging, I just find it interesting that people on both sides will accept some behaviour and not others.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Well done your dad, God rest his soul indeed.

Just glad he saw a lot of the good times we had and me.

 

[Otis]

I think fuzzy language has a lot to answer for here. When you talk about "this debacle" some people go back to Richardson, some even go to Hill, many go back to Sisu taking over, but for me all we're talking about is the move out of Coventry. Not the financial state of the club. Not previous misdemeanours. Just the fact that we currently don't play in Coventry.

Now some will say that all the other things play a part, but if that's so why did it come to a head last season when none of those things changed?

The trigger was action by Sisu. I don't see how anyone (even those who think Sisu are spotless and it's the evil council) can argue with that. Sisu made the decision that the way to remedy other issues with the club (whoever caused them) was to move them to Northampton.

For me it's a bit like me going to the Dr with an ingrowing toenail and he chops my leg off. Then on pops edgy and AndreasB to tell me that the leg coming off is my fault because I didn't tend my nails properly. Well in a way yes, but the far bigger problem is the fucking Doctor who went overboard to solve said problem.

If we could just stick to that we'd be OK. That was the message at the march. Instead we've allowed the debate to be widened to the entire viability of the club and who is to blame for that.

No, agree. The debacle for me is that of the club playing home games 34 miles away when there's a perfectly decent stadium already here in Coventry.

It was the owners who moved us out of the City and this should never ever have happened and I honestly believe that it didn't need to happen. Sisu should have dug their heels in and thrashed out something in terms of a deal that kept us playing our home games here at the Ricoh.

There was a deal to be done. Even a very short term deal could have been arranged while further negotiations were taking place.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Like on that slow walk from Sisu to FL Offices.

Takes me ages to cross the road bad foot,sometimes the lights can change ten times before I get across :facepalm:

 

[Covstu]

The point I was making with that Stu was in terms of unity for the fans. If the fans not going could see visceral and visual signs that the fans in the ground were also unhappy at our playing our home games 34 miles away.

I don't disagree but more in response to Astute's resignation that why bother because it wont make SISU change their mind. To protest properly has to be a relentless and scheduled approach but for me, numbers attract attention and the only realistic way is to organise more events in Cov. People are inherently lazy so make it easy for people to attend, this was why the hill was always destined to fail as the numbers were never going to be there.. The idea was sound however..

 

[Astute]

it wont but neither will putting a random bed sheet saying 'I want to go home' is it?? What it will do is create media attention, uniting the fans. We all know this wont happen as it is easier to sit at home and complain on the forums.

Something is needed that will bring all sides together. Stopping innocent people from getting on with their lives won't help.

The way I see it is one side is willing to talk. The other side wants anything but to talk through their differences. The big problem we have is it is the side that can make things happen.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Similarly, when Leonard Brody went to the papers saying the rent was killing the club Igwe and Delieu went public stating how it wasn't and that they are happy with it. So I find it a little hard to feel too sorry for the club here.

The problem as ever is there can be reasons for saying both.

It wouldn't be beyond the realms of probability that any counter about how the club could cope with the rent would be as much so suppliers etc. wouldn't get itchy feet about being paid, and pull out (the consequence of administration many miss btw, that suddenly a business's ability to get credit is rather impaired - not, ironically, an issue when the credit is all'internal debt'!). Unfortunately, as you mention with the Robinson/PWKH representations of prior rent negotiations, public and private faces can be very different, and it's impossible to know 'the truth' beyond that. It's where like it or not, the odd court case to flush out everybody's dirty laundry might actually be handy, let's see some chickens come home to roost... wherever they rock up. That said, when it comes to the public face, and public displays...

None of them want to see the club hurt. In fact that was Mutton's downfall as he stupidly thought he could engineer a situation where Sisu left the club and rightfully he fell on his sword.

Showing it isn't just 'the council' I'm afraid Mutton's public pronouncements really do suggest he has a lot to answer for. Quite frankly, some of the things he said are truly shocking to my eyes (ears) about what the leader of a public body should do, and border on the reckless and irresponsible. It's a shame we didn't have the more 'considered' approach of Lucas when this blew up, as it might never have got that far.

Beyond that, the very fact the dominant arguments are financial rather than social tend to show that SISU have control over the terms of the debate.