From 20,000 gates in a state of the art stadium in Coventry to 1500 in a piss trough 35 miles away.
Alienated 95 % of their customer base.
Entered into a contract but then decided its not going to be honoured.
Contempt for the British legal system.
Contempt for over 130 years of a city and a clubs history.
I could probably carry on but most get the drift.
20,000 and losing money thanks to your best friends in the council,
Rather be talking about the promotion hopes or the Saturday afternoon traffic on the A444.
All eyes on the FL now as the football is unfortunately coincidental.
20,000 and losing money thanks to your best friends in the council,
Breaking news everyone ↑
CCC solely responsible for CCFC's debt.
What's your next sensational headline Grendull? Judge apologises to Tim Fisher for getting it wrong?
They inherited the contract. The club attempted to reneg the rent in 2006 and got nowhere.Bit if the mismanagement had stopped they would not have signed a contract for such high rent. No thing as contract lawyers in the Cayman Islands then.
Saved the club from administa tion.
Paid off transfer fees the previous regime were unable to pay.
Investing money in the squad when they first arrived.
Sacking Thorn.
Waggot seems to hire decent managers.
Got us out of the most expensive rental contract in English football.
The development of the academy.
Attempting to undo years of mismanagement, which should have been done years ago.
followed by administration mismanagement relegation playing in northampton it can't get worse
They inherited the contract. The club attempted to reneg the rent in 2006 and got nowhere.
Saved the club from administa tion.
Paid off transfer fees the previous regime were unable to pay.
Investing money in the squad when they first arrived.
Sacking Thorn.
Waggot seems to hire decent managers.
Got us out of the most expensive rental contract in English football.
The development of the academy.
Attempting to undo years of mismanagement, which should have been done years ago.
I don't disagree. You do wonder what the extent of the due diligence was. I reckon very very little.It wasn't a fait accompli. If they didn't like the contract that was in place they should and could have walked away. That's what due diligence is all about. By not changing it, they are as complicit as the original signatories. We really don't need to go here yet again, do we?
I don't disagree. You do wonder what the extent of the due diligence was. I reckon very very little.
I don't disagree. You do wonder what the extent of the due diligence was. I reckon very very little.
Having done a fair bit of due diligence in my time - as a buyer, a seller and a consultant - the terms of the lease for the stadium should have been covered pretty much in the first hour of the first day.
In fairness though they should have been looking to control costs from day 1. It's a poor excuse even if it's true.I'm sure it was to be fair, my guess is Ranson promised 'em the earth (ie promotion in a couple of seasons) and 1.2 million a year compared to the vast fortune you get in revenue from the Premier League is chicken feed. It was only when Sisu realised Ranson had spent a fortune and we were no further forward than we were 3 years earlier did the rent/revenues become on issue.
From 20,000 gates in a state of the art stadium in Coventry to 1500 in a piss trough 35 miles away.
Alienated 95 % of their customer base.
Entered into a contract but then decided its not going to be honoured.
Contempt for the British legal system.
Contempt for over 130 years of a city and a clubs history.
I could probably carry on but most get the drift.
I don't disagree. You do wonder what the extent of the due diligence was. I reckon very very little.
20,000 and losing money thanks to your best friends in the council,
Although the talk of it being a 40 year commitment makes it a bit bigger in that senseThe rent was 5% of turnover at the time Sisu looked at the CCFC business. They looked and werent fussed about it. Some on here act as if the rent was 90% it was 5%....
Although the talk of it being a 40 year commitment makes it a bit bigger in that sense
In fairness though they should have been looking to control costs from day 1. It's a poor excuse even if it's true.
The sliding scale rent was £2m per year if the club ever made it to the Prem.The rent for a premiership team was reasonable, but it should have taken into account relegation and should have been on a sliding scale.
The same applies to season tickets which obviously should me much cheaper than premiership prices.
However none of that is part of the real problem, Sisu want ownership of the Ricoh complete with the freehold. This would enable
them to make huge profits for their shareholders at the expense of CCFC and the Coventry tax payers.
My own view is that sisu are running the club into the ground and are doing nothing for the club--the fans --or Coventry.
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?