shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Which, until recently, you were a card carrying member of, we should remember.
Convinced (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sky Blue Pete
- Start date
Which, until recently, you were a card carrying member of, we should remember.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
It's a difficult one, I believe we would have gotten relegated at some point probably the season after. The heartbreaking thing for me is, in our relegation season we were in the bottom 3-4 in terms of our turnover despite 9-10 teams averaging lower crowds than us.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
You are absolutely right, it's criminal that after 4 years Sisu hadn't managed to either start negotiations for reclaiming their rightful share of revenue. Shocking that they publicly backed a deal that was obviously hobbling the club. Yet another example of their incompetence.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure I would use the word criminal, but do agree. I've stated many times that the first 2 things they should have done is start negotiating on the revenue and restructuring the wage bill.
Spending and gambling to get in the PL is not a good business plan.
However we are where we are.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Is it possible if they win the review then the loan from the council to ACL will be reversed, then ACL could be under financial pressure to sell
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
I've said many times on here before that we will not see any significant action until the JR has been finalised.
As for the very pessimistic views of the majority on here it surprises me that these views are based solely on the shenanigans of SISU's operations and not so much on the fact we hear almost zilch from the council/ACL? How can you be certain all our problems are fixable by SISU simply departing?
I listened to Labovitch yesterday and while he had some difficulties, his message was never the less clear enough. Believe him or not believe him as you will, but at this stage he is at least making a case to be believed while the Council/ACL are saying nothing.
This has never been about the personalities or a hedge fund or a council acting strangely it has become a straight forward business matter with legal ramifications.
Either way though both these protagonist have failed the football club of this fair City. SISU should never have gone to Sixfield's but I struggle to see what alternatives they had given the legal ramifications. The council and ACL acted without enough considered thought their actions would have and their subsequent 'offers' of rent free periods and the like were designed to soften that previous mistaken judgment in my opinion.
My feelings are that ACL/Council can't win in this situation other than being left with a purpose built stadium and no football club in it. Good luck with that.
Labovitch was correct in so much as we are a big club and a fan base large enough that would be ready and willing to follow the Sky Blues at any stadium in or around Coventry. The franchise is a good valuable ticket. We may complain but we would be there if they came back.
My one concern though is why SISU could not agree to a leasehold of the stadium with all income streams available if that ever got offered? Why so hung up over the freehold? take away the freehold aspect and would the council along with ACL and others finally decide there was a route to satisfy all?
As for the very pessimistic views of the majority on here it surprises me that these views are based solely on the shenanigans of SISU's operations and not so much on the fact we hear almost zilch from the council/ACL? How can you be certain all our problems are fixable by SISU simply departing?
I listened to Labovitch yesterday and while he had some difficulties, his message was never the less clear enough. Believe him or not believe him as you will, but at this stage he is at least making a case to be believed while the Council/ACL are saying nothing.
This has never been about the personalities or a hedge fund or a council acting strangely it has become a straight forward business matter with legal ramifications.
Either way though both these protagonist have failed the football club of this fair City. SISU should never have gone to Sixfield's but I struggle to see what alternatives they had given the legal ramifications. The council and ACL acted without enough considered thought their actions would have and their subsequent 'offers' of rent free periods and the like were designed to soften that previous mistaken judgment in my opinion.
My feelings are that ACL/Council can't win in this situation other than being left with a purpose built stadium and no football club in it. Good luck with that.
Labovitch was correct in so much as we are a big club and a fan base large enough that would be ready and willing to follow the Sky Blues at any stadium in or around Coventry. The franchise is a good valuable ticket. We may complain but we would be there if they came back.
My one concern though is why SISU could not agree to a leasehold of the stadium with all income streams available if that ever got offered? Why so hung up over the freehold? take away the freehold aspect and would the council along with ACL and others finally decide there was a route to satisfy all?
Seaside-Skyblue
Well-Known Member
I agree with your points Paxman. Firstly I find it frustrating that Fisher has said that they cannot work with them council (due to breakdown of relationship) but does anyone believe that this is the only reason or is there more of an underlying reason for not trying to arrange a rent deal temporarily at Ricoh until new stadium is built? Because its obvious playing at Sixfields is financially worse due to low crowds etc. Would playing at ricoh now or entering discussions about the leasehold affect their standing in the judicial review?
magic82ball
New Member
While I agree with all of your points in the main, I still cant help but feel bitter towards the owners for letting it get like this. They are the custodians of the club, not ACL not the Council, and they are the ones that have driven us to where we are today.
Also, ACL as I am sure you are aware in their end of year accounts, don't need to be wished luck. They are running a better ship now than they ever have. Much to the dissatisfaction of some on here.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
It's possible, but if ACL needed to repay the loan they could get another one. They are in a better position now to prove to a new lender that repayments can be met, compared to the position they were in before.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Do you not agree that expenditure should be driven down?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Reducing expenditure is irrelevant to FFP.
Lack of income and the FFP rules will be what destroys us.
Not sure the cost model of Swansea would ever involve them moving their home games to Cardiff though.Of course, but then the following season you drive costs down by another £1 and with no real loss in revenue. You the. Start to rebuild under a new cost model like Swansea.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Two reasons we are not in the Ricih
1) to try and break ACL
2) it hardly looks right making a deal with someone you are trying to make out was part if a conspiracy to destroy you.
Only way we will be back is if they win the JR and get the compo then put the club into administration and someone picks it up who wants to make it work.
They lose the JR and subsequent appeal at the Supreme Court. ACL continue to show they are sustainable.
They agree long term rent deal. We stay in league one possibly two. They get us to break even point they sell the club.
1) to try and break ACL
2) it hardly looks right making a deal with someone you are trying to make out was part if a conspiracy to destroy you.
Only way we will be back is if they win the JR and get the compo then put the club into administration and someone picks it up who wants to make it work.
They lose the JR and subsequent appeal at the Supreme Court. ACL continue to show they are sustainable.
They agree long term rent deal. We stay in league one possibly two. They get us to break even point they sell the club.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
It's not irrelevant though is it? Northampton aside.
To be honest I cannot see the FL enforcing FFP on us based on Sixfields turnover having approved the move, as long as we're broadly inline with others in the league and not taking the piss.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Last edited:
skybluefred
New Member
It's not irrelevant though is it? Northampton aside.
To be honest I cannot see the FL enforcing FFP on us based on Sixfields turnover having approved the move, as long as we're broadly inline with others in the league and not taking the piss.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
FFP was bought in by FIFA--the FL have to oversee it working. The other teams in our division would rightly
be up in arms if one team was allowed to ignore FFP.
Have our owners done anything other than take the **** since they have been here.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No evidence to suggest this at all. The only clubs who have expressed a view have been very sympathetic to the club - Gillingham and Port Vale. No one would be up in arms -- they understand and sympathise at the abhorrent treatment by the council.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
I'd love to read the sympathetic views of Port Vale and Gillingham, just post the bits where they talk about the treatment dished out by the Council.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Why should they so CCC are solely to blame for this farce are they?
At the moment they have nothing whatsoever to do with the club and have never had anything to do with the running of the club as far as I know.
With our current situation we are going to have the least money in the league but some see us still being promoted fuck me we couldn't get in the top six when we did spend
So sisu win the JR don't see that making the slightest difference just gives them the bragging rights unfortunately they have alienated so many fans that there is now no way back...
At the moment they have nothing whatsoever to do with the club and have never had anything to do with the running of the club as far as I know.
With our current situation we are going to have the least money in the league but some see us still being promoted fuck me we couldn't get in the top six when we did spend
So sisu win the JR don't see that making the slightest difference just gives them the bragging rights unfortunately they have alienated so many fans that there is now no way back...
It's not irrelevant though is it? Northampton aside.
To be honest I cannot see the FL enforcing FFP on us based on Sixfields turnover having approved the move, as long as we're broadly inline with others in the league and not taking the piss.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Harry H
Well-Known Member
It's not irrelevant though is it? Northampton aside.
To be honest I cannot see the FL enforcing FFP on us based on Sixfields turnover having approved the move, as long as we're broadly inline with others in the league and not taking the piss.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
No.... can't imagine anybody being able to accuse our owners of 'taking the piss'............:thinking about:
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Not sure that's right, pretty sure it was Uefa that brought it in but their rules only apply to those in European competition.
IIRC the FL brought in the FFP, voted for by clubs, after research in to the finances of FL clubs not because Uefa were imposing it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17841566
I maintain the view that given the FL sanctioned our move to Sixfields knowing full well it would significantly reduce turnover that they will use their 'discretion' as long as we're not taking the piss.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Why should they so CCC are solely to blame for this farce are they?
At the moment they have nothing whatsoever to do with the club and have never had anything to do with the running of the club as far as I know.
With our current situation we are going to have the least money in the league but some see us still being promoted fuck me we couldn't get in the top six when we did spend
So sisu win the JR don't see that making the slightest difference just gives them the bragging rights unfortunately they have alienated so many fans that there is now no way back...
What are you on about and who mentioned CCC or the JR? Because I certainly didn't.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Can you include player sales as FFP income? Also it appears that it's only player wages that count towards the cost/income ratio. The Accounts just published had wages at over 100% of Turnover, but I think this is all wages. I wonder if the League will publish the figures for each club.
Not sure that's right, pretty sure it was Uefa that brought it in but their rules only apply to those in European competition.
IIRC the FL brought in the FFP, voted for by clubs, after research in to the finances of FL clubs not because Uefa were imposing it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17841566
I maintain the view that given the FL sanctioned our move to Sixfields knowing full well it would significantly reduce turnover that they will use their 'discretion' as long as we're not taking the piss.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I think the reason they suppressed their own Data on potential attendance was based around this point ,they secured the ground before releasing the Data.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Not sure that's right, pretty sure it was Uefa that brought it in but their rules only apply to those in European competition.
IIRC the FL brought in the FFP, voted for by clubs, after research in to the finances of FL clubs not because Uefa were imposing it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17841566
I maintain the view that given the FL sanctioned our move to Sixfields knowing full well it would significantly reduce turnover that they will use their 'discretion' as long as we're not taking the piss.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
So let me think about this one.
The FL sanctioned the move as SISU told them over a year ago that we had nowhere else to play. They got a 400k offer. They wanted the pie money. CCC made more offers. They got offered free this season and 100k the next two with pie money. Only the freehold will do SISU said. This last offer was made to the FL. So I would guess that the FL know about the offer. So which part of having nowhere else to play is true? They will now know that it is the choice of SISU for us to be playing in Northampton. Yet you think that the FL will bend the rules for SISU again?
I keep seeing that some on here think that SISU will win the JR because of unfair competition. Bending the FFP rules for SISU would be unfair competition. They would also leave themselves open to litigation by clubs like Swindon. They bought two players. They couldn't agree a price with the clubs they came from. It was decided for them how much they should pay for these players. It was more than they were offering for them. They could afford to pay.......but it cost them an embargo as it put them over their FFP limit. And that was a club that wasn't skint.
And why wouldn't the other 23 clubs in our division complain if we were allowed to dodge a major rule and give us a major advantage like you have said that the FL will allow?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
No they didn't, the pie money wasn't included as part of the deal.
The reason is we will get some level of leniency IMO is that unlike Swindon we're continually reducing our wage bills/spending thus showing willing, and 2) they sanctioned the move.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Are you sure? What were ACL talking about when they were saying the club could have their share (70 something % I think) and arrange a meeting with Compass to discuss access to their share?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
No they didn't, the pie money wasn't included as part of the deal.
The reason is we will get some level of leniency IMO is that unlike Swindon we're continually reducing our wage bills/spending thus showing willing, and 2) they sanctioned the move.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Unfortunately we are not as effective at reducing our wage bill as we are at reducing our revenue streams.
If the FL wanted us to reduce revenue streams we would be top of the class
stupot07
Well-Known Member
No, that was part f the £400k deal and it was to cross invoice so that it could be used for FFP. In the Nii Lamptey show after interviewing members of the ACL board they said that it wasn't included with the the latest rent offer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
No, that was part f the £400k deal and it was to cross invoice so that it could be used for FFP. In the Nii Lamptey show after interviewing members of the ACL board they said that it wasn't included with the the latest rent offer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
If ACL offered the arena for free, and I mean no rent and no service charges, not a single penny charged, do you think the club would come back. I don't.