Yep agree, no doubt we have gone backwards, and they haven't invested as many would have liked, but in reality if we had not had the Ricoh issues (something they were landed with), something that was caused by many sides, then we would probably not have so much angst towards them.
Imagine if ACL had bought Wasps and then the Haskell dream worked.
they werent landed with it, they chose to accept it at a time they had the most leverage. It was a fundamental error on their part, something every other potential investor saw and walked away from.
Get some blokes from down the park and pay them £100. Or raffle off places on the team, make fans pay.Unless the kids strike as well.
Strange that you say others walked away because of it rather than trying to negotiate it?
No they haven't asset stripped but it has all been about trying to get things in the best interests of their investors not necessarily the club. It very nearly worked but equally it very nearly caused complete disaster for CCFC. Football is high risk enough without that additional endangerment, the alienation of fans and income because of their tactics, that is why SISU have not been good owners. Have they taken monies out of CCFC yes - over the years around £1.5m. Have they put large loans in and claimed high interest yes (but not as much loans as they claim)
No ACL tried to buy Wasps before the rent strike, up to that point the only people involved in stadium sale talks was SISU. Highly likely that neither side knew what the other was doing outside the sale talks. The plan to go on rent strike had its origins in the formation of Otium in April 2011. The email from Gidney was March 2012 but talks were started before that. At that same time in 2012 ARVO registered their charge which would prove crucial in the administration that followed, that of course didnt happen by accident or unplanned.
The rent strike would have happened whether or not there had been a Gidney email, the details of which would not have been available to SISU until they commenced JR1.
What that Gidney email points to is that ACL could have owned Wasps which means if SISU could have done the stadium deal SISU could have owned Wasps how ironic would that have been.
It wasnt "underhand" for assets to move company then and not make anyone aware of it or to lose the golden share? The litigation in the main has been instigated by SISU or companies under their control, certainly in the years 2012 - 2014, with the objective of breaking the lease which it did and to distress ACL, which it nearly did.
Neither side in this comes out well, and the above is not a defence of either party but it frustrates me that things are claimed as fact when it is not.
Yeah... the overall plan at the start still not clear. Was hardball over obtaining control, claiming shares. Also hardball over players' contracts in not renewing them until last possible moment.not really had everyone done the same what do you think the outcome would have been..... the SISU interest gave CCC and other parties an out. For a business that prides itself on playing hard ball then it just looks like another weak position to take .... the first of many
Sisu were very much hands off until Ranson threw his toys out though. Blame not purchasing the ground on him as he wanted to play Football Manager with Coleman instead.Yeah... the overall plan at the start still not clear. Was hardball over obtaining control, claiming shares. Also hardball over players' contracts in not renewing them until last possible moment.
But the ground...? The logic of course was that was irrelevant when it was a punt at the top flight for big rewards. High risk, high return.
We're now on plan... E?
Sisu fit and proper? They have to a certain extent asset stripped us tried to bully the council into selling them the Ricoh on the cheap and failed but have now seemed to realise that they have to try and run it a little less dictatorial and appear to have turned the corner in terms of success for the club ie checkatrade win and promotion plus highest league finishes for a few years so i guess the efl look at them and think they are fit and proper no matter what shite we have to put up with
In terms of running the business SISU have put the finances of day to day operation in to better order. But the club is not self sustaining, the chosen model is to rely on player sales to fund it , but even so it still requires working capital from the shareholders to keep going. It is also loaded with debt and very few assets
SISU have not asset stripped as such, more utilised the the assets to keep going without major funds from them or outside investment. I dont have a problem with that personally, but you have to bear in mind that effectively limits the level to which the club can go whilst everyone else doesn't operate in that manner and owners are prepared to lose millions in pitching for the Premier League
I’m quite happy with the business model we use and having had the turbulent 15-20 years we’ve had I’ve no problem with there being a theoretical ceiling to our progression as long as I still have a (relatively) successful club to support.
the details of the Directors & Owners Test (Fit & Proper) can be found here
EFL Official Website - Appendix 3 - Owners' and Directors' Test
What it doesnt seem to do is to test whether the person has the ability to own and run a football club in good times or in bad. Or whether they understand football finances, or the running of a business
As far as I can tell, the EFL still haven't implemented the recommendations of the Owners' Conduct Review that they agreed to at their AGM in June 2018.I think the Fit & Proper test would probably have to be within the realms of what is permitted under European law and / or Company law
all businesses run on debt-impossibleIs it at all possible to prevent loans to football clubs? That would weed out potential owners who plough in loans to be repaid with high interest?
Would encourage self sustaining. Although not sure that practice of banning loans would be legally allowed.all businesses run on debt-impossible
It's happened plenty of times beforeThe Bolton situation i always assumed that the last games had to start at the same time after our situation in 1977. How are Bolton allowed to play their last game after the season ends?I know it won't affect their postion in the table but it sets a president.IF Bolton went bust would it mean an extra place in our league and only 1 club would be chucked out of division 2.
The Bolton situation i always assumed that the last games had to start at the same time after our situation in 1977. How are Bolton allowed to play their last game after the season ends?I know it won't affect their postion in the table but it sets a president.IF Bolton went bust would it mean an extra place in our league and only 1 club would be chucked out of division 2.
"skybluetony176"there is no extra place in the championship Bolton are on there way down already. The extra place would be in our league.Sorry to piss on your fantasy.
I always value your assessment OSBall businesses do not run on debt, all football clubs do seem to
Instead of loans the EFL could insist that, say from the start of next season, all future investment is done by gift or the issue of shares. Of course it would need the clubs to agree to it at a general meeting, so unlikely to happen. The trouble is it would be impossible to deal with existing debts and the security charges that exist. It wont happen
Individual clubs do this unilaterally at times. Sunderland for example converted £150m of debt to equity shares in their 2018 accounts.
to or for them if it's to has he been a b------d over there.I'd like to think they let Notts County off after everything Doyle's done to them.
He just helped eliminate them from the playoffs and helped them to the brink of relegation. He's not popular there, legs definitely gone.to or for them if it's to has he been a b------d over there.
all businesses do not run on debt, all football clubs do seem to
Instead of loans the EFL could insist that, say from the start of next season, all future investment is done by gift or the issue of shares. Of course it would need the clubs to agree to it at a general meeting, so unlikely to happen. The trouble is it would be impossible to deal with existing debts and the security charges that exist. It wont happen
Individual clubs do this unilaterally at times. Sunderland for example converted £150m of debt to equity shares in their 2018 accounts.
Stadium ownership innit...Also seems that there is a white knight who eventually takes over from the bad guy at all these clubs except ours. The Oystons aside I can't think of another club that hasn't been able to shake off the bogeymen for this long. Even they got their club a season in the top flight...
I thought this was all still part of Operation PremiershipYeah... the overall plan at the start still not clear. Was hardball over obtaining control, claiming shares. Also hardball over players' contracts in not renewing them until last possible moment.
But the ground...? The logic of course was that was irrelevant when it was a punt at the top flight for big rewards. High risk, high return.
We're now on plan... E?
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?