italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Rubbish !!
Ccc/acl/higgs/ sisu saga (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter skybluefred
- Start date
Rubbish !!
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
If true there's no danger of us ever having to pay £2m in rent so long as SISU are here.
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
Saved the club from administa tion. Then put into administration anyway, for a £1.5 million debt.
Paid off transfer fees the previous regime were unable to pay.More debt on the club, not SISU.
Investing money in the squad when they first arrived. Then let said players leave on frees before being relegated the following season.
Sacking Thorn. Hired him in the first place.
Waggot seems to hire decent managers. Have to agree with this
Got us out of the most expensive rental contract in English football. And lost £3 million+ in revenue by moving us away.
The development of the academy. Agreed, but almost lost it's status, plus Rioch made a hasty exit :thinking about:
Attempting to undo years of mismanagement, which should have been done years ago So why did they not do it years ago, rather than the shambles we are in now?
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
ccfc92- I think that Sisu have been a disaster for us. I hold them, as well as ACL & CCC, as being responsible for our downfall.
The hiring and continued employment of Thorn summed them up, yet many on here agreed with them about Thorn's qualities and wanted to keep him on. That season was a very dark period for the club, and one we may never recover from.
At the end of the day though, a lot on here expect an individual to pour money into the club and expect nothing in return. Then leaving quietly, before another individual pours even more money in.
The hiring and continued employment of Thorn summed them up, yet many on here agreed with them about Thorn's qualities and wanted to keep him on. That season was a very dark period for the club, and one we may never recover from.
At the end of the day though, a lot on here expect an individual to pour money into the club and expect nothing in return. Then leaving quietly, before another individual pours even more money in.
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
I completely see where your coming from, but would you agree that there doesn't have to be money poured in? A return to the Ricoh, plus the revenues that ccfc makes, going to the club will put us in a good financial state. We don't "need" to own the whole of the Ricoh, we want to, but surely a Ricoh takeover would require Money poured in?
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
I agree with what you say, we should be playing at the Ricoh. At the moment the club feels poweless in comparison to sisu and acl. The club is dying while they piss around.
The impression that many give is that the club should give acl whatever theu demand. Also, that they believe acl actually care about the club. Both of these views are counter-productive.
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
Yeahh I know what you mean. Surely though, what is owed to them should be payed?
I know what you mean, but I'd say Acl want the club there rather than care about them if that makes sense. Plus they are more trustworthy, and don't really draw things out. remember when they refunded the club the match day costs?
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
No one really believes this.
The board of ACL care about ACL. The board of CCFC care about Sisu. That is the biggest difference between the two organisations.
That is why so many of us, whilst acknowledging that neither have CCFC as their priority, can empathise more with the position of ACL.
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
How? & why?
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Because ACL board members are trying to do what is best for ACL.
Do you begrudge board members doing what is best for the long term survival of their business?
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
I agree that CCFC should pay ACL thr amount that the FL decide on. How would you feel if the FL said 300k, then ACL continued to demand the extra 290k before discussing a Ricoh return.
I'm sure that they want us there to make money off us. They would be more than happy for us to be paying 1.2m rent a year. No idea why you think they are trustworthy.
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
No of course not. Doesn't explain why you and others feel empathy for them though. I couldn't care less if they went out of business.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Quite. WHen it becomes a business dispute, then it's hard to feel sympathy for any position.
Although empathy is another thing altogether of course
Money money money, makes the world go round and clubs bugger off because it stops being about the social.
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
When if that situation arises, we will see. I can't see them pressing for the extra money, but we shall see.
Of course they want to make money off us. A landlord doesn't have a tenant to not make money. With regards the 1.2 million, I thought the Yorkshire bank loan restructuring would help reduce rental costs for ccfc? So there's no need to charge that much anymore?
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
And say they went out of business, does that mean ccfc automatically get the Ricoh?
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Because on one hand we have a business that has tried to do everything properly and by the book.
On the other we have a business (CCFC) that went into self destruct mode by deliberately distressing ACL in order to please its parent company.
Its difficult to dislike the board of ACL for doing what their supposed to do.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Quite. WHen it becomes a business dispute, then it's hard to feel sympathy for any position.
Although empathy is another thing altogether of course
Money money money, makes the world go round and clubs bugger off because it stops being about the social.
Exactly. Empathy isn't about liking a decision, its just understanding why its happening. All I am saying is its easier to understand the position of ACL than it is of CCFC.
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
I would wager that you'd be hard pressed finding fans of other clubs talking about their own team in this way.
Imagine reading that on a West Ham, Spurs or even a Leicester forum.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Might have been 1.8m. Can't remember exactly. This is prior to sisu
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
To be fair the situation that CCFC have been plunged into is an utterly novel & bizzare one. So there is nothing to compare it too.
Nick
Administrator
Say what? It is difficult to like any party involved in any of this.
skybluefred
New Member
Is there a new ground being built ? I didn't know about that,whereabouts is it and when will it be ready.?
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
I cant dislike an individual for carrying out the responsibilities of their job.
To do so is just bitter and twisted.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
So are you saying CCFC didn't go into self destruct mode in order to assist its parent company?
Nick
Administrator
So you can't dislike SISU for just doing their job as a hedge fund or can't dislike Tim Fisher for doing his job or Seppalla for her job?
I get you, actually no, they are all massive dickheads. All parties.
Tim Fisher isn't doing his job, his job and legal responsibility as a director of Otium entertainment is do what is best for Otium entertainment he is not doing that, he is doing what Joy Seppala thinks is best for Arvo Masterfund and SISU. If Tim Fisher and Mark Labovich were doing their jobs we'd be at the Ricoh.
L
limoncello
Guest
I'm with you, bro. God bless the concentration camp guards, the black and tans and all the CIA torturers.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I think you'd be hard pressed to find another club in our situation.So is there really a fair comparison available to be made against our fans?
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Don't be a Dick, obviously I mean things that are within the law and public decency.
L
limoncello
Guest
All those positions were within the law. Your logic is shit.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Tim Fisher's responsibility is to Otium/CCFC. Of that responsibility he is failing.
Statistically he must be the worst CEO/Chairman that CCFC has ever had.
Nick
Administrator
Yeah but, but, but, but , but, but, but, but, but, but. That is different yeah?
I didn't say he was doing a good job, just that he is doing his job so by your theory you can't dislike him, else it would be bitter and twisted.
What is even more bitter and twisted is saying it but only meaning it for one side and finding excuses for the other.
I didn't say he was doing a good job, just that he is doing his job so by your theory you can't dislike him, else it would be bitter and twisted.
What is even more bitter and twisted is saying it but only meaning it for one side and finding excuses for the other.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Oh, concentration camps were within the law? Could you tell me what the Nuremberg trials were about please?
Torture is permitted under the US constitution?
Atrocities committed against British citizens is permitted on UK soil?
Please think before insulting me.
