Cov telegraph: 15000 say City must stay. (1 Viewer)

stupot07 · Jul 31, 2013

They have closed the petition with 15k signatures wanting to keep the city at the Ricoh. 5-7k marched last week to keep city at the Ricoh.

If a deal is reached to keep city at the Ricoh, will we get 15k+ to the first game?

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sp.../telegraph-comment-15000-say-coventry-5387555

Nick · Jul 31, 2013

Not unless you get a Wembley ticket with the stub....

torchomatic · Jul 31, 2013

15K? That's shit really isn't it considering 30K went to the Crewe game. You don't even have to leave your house to fill in an online petition.
Apathy has always been our enemy.

Noggin · Jul 31, 2013

stupot07 said:
They have closed the petition with 15k signatures wanting to keep the city at the Ricoh. 5-7k marched last week to keep city at the Ricoh.

If a deal is reached to keep city at the Ricoh, will we get 15k+ to the first game?

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sp.../telegraph-comment-15000-say-coventry-5387555

I doubt it and rightfully so, there is a very high chance we are going to struggle this year and in fact quite a decent chance of relegation all caused completely unnecessarily. if the money spent on administrators and lawyers had been spent on the squad we'd be getting excited about a season pushing for promotion thats if we weren't in the championship already. I strongly believe we'd have been in the playoffs had SISU signed the rent deal in November or December.

torchomatic · Jul 31, 2013

And possibly if ACL hadn't ended negotiations at the beginning of the year...

Noggin said:
I strongly believe we'd have been in the playoffs had SISU signed the rent deal in November or December.

spwaverley4916 · Jul 31, 2013

IF we play at the Ricoh - there must be a concerted effort by all, regulars, armchair fans, kids, grans,aunts and uncles to attend atleast the first home game to show the 'football league' and others that Coventry is our home.

stupot07 · Jul 31, 2013

Noggin said:
I doubt it and rightfully so, there is a very high chance we are going to struggle this year and in fact quite a decent chance of relegation all caused completely unnecessarily. if the money spent on administrators and lawyers had been spent on the squad we'd be getting excited about a season pushing for promotion thats if we weren't in the championship already. I strongly believe we'd have been in the playoffs had SISU signed the rent deal in November or December.

Why is it rightfully so? 15k petitioned to keep cov in cov but they don't even want to go and watch?

stupot07 · Jul 31, 2013

spwaverley4916 said:
IF we play at the Ricoh - there must be a concerted effort by all, regulars, armchair fans, kids, grans,aunts and uncles to attend atleast the first home game to show the 'football league' and others that Coventry is our home.

I completely agree.

Noggin · Jul 31, 2013

torchomatic said:
And possibly if ACL hadn't ended negotiations at the beginning of the year...

You don't believe that, Robbins had left before ACL "ended negotiations" and there is almost no chance that it was the -10 points that prevented the playoffs.

Noggin · Jul 31, 2013

stupot07 said:
Why is it rightfully so? 15k petitioned to keep cov in cov but they don't even want to go and watch?

it's rightfully so because they have completely ruined this season for no good reason and shouldn't be rewarded for it and anyway you don't need to be a regular at the Ricoh to support Coventry staying in Coventry.

lordsummerisle · Jul 31, 2013

Noggin said:
it's rightfully so because they have completely ruined this season for no good reason and shouldn't be rewarded for it and anyway you don't need to be a regular at the Ricoh to support Coventry staying in Coventry.

You're right actually(assuming you're talking about ACL?).

Not One Pie More NOPM until we get some revenues from sales.

Noggin · Jul 31, 2013

lordsummerisle said:
You're right actually(assuming you're talking about ACL?).

Not One Pie More NOPM until we get some revenues from sales.

I simply don't believe for a second you actually believe the reason we didn't make the playoffs last year was ACL's fault.

regarding not one pie more honestly there is nothing wrong with boycotting over priced, terrible quality food to encourage sales of the revenue to the football club but from Fishers comments they didn't put any actually effort into doing a deal for the revenue and of course as you already know, it was the football clubs choice to sell something that is very important to them.

TheParsonsHose · Jul 31, 2013

torchomatic said:
15K? That's shit really isn't it considering 30K went to the Crewe game. You don't even have to leave your house to fill in an online petition.
Apathy has always been our enemy.

If the other 15k could watch it on the TV half of those would stay at home....Football improved by TV and destroyed at the same time IMO.

stupot07 · Jul 31, 2013

Noggin said:
it's rightfully so because they have completely ruined this season for no good reason and shouldn't be rewarded for it and anyway you don't need to be a regular at the Ricoh to support Coventry staying in Coventry.

No good reason? They've been offered a rent deal approximately 2/3rds cheaper than the final best offer offered in Feb, which will be £1.15m cheaper than was part of the original lease.

Not saying you have to be a regular at the Ricoh, just saying we should have a decent crowd first game back to show Sisu, ACL, the FA and FL, other clubs supporters, journalists and anyone that has taken an interest in our plight that we support cov in cov. Don't bother going after that, but for one game only we need to show those watching what cov being in cov means to us.

wes_cov · Jul 31, 2013

I honestly believe if we kick off at sixfields we will have a bigger crowd at the ricoh

But i would rather be going to the Ricoh to watch city play instead of listening to them on the radio

Noggin · Jul 31, 2013

stupot07 said:
No good reason? They've been offered a rent deal approximately 2/3rds cheaper than the final best offer offered in Feb, which will be £1.15m cheaper than was part of the original lease.

Not saying you have to be a regular at the Ricoh, just saying we should have a decent crowd first game back to show Sisu, ACL, the FA and FL, other clubs supporters, journalists and anyone that has taken an interest in our plight that we support cov in cov. Don't bother going after that, but for one game only we need to show those watching what cov being in cov means to us.

Yes they have ruined the forthcoming season for no good reason and if we get relegated the losses from that will dwarf any savings gained over the original offer. Especially as they could have been in the championship if they had accepted it early and so the difference could be 2 divisions. and the fact that sisu paid 300k in matchday costs last year strongly suggests that the 150k rent doesn't include those costs. If thats the case isn't this deal actually pretty similar to the one offered before? didn't we hear that there was 150k rent only for fisher to explain how many extras need to be paid on top of that?

if the 150k is the total payment then ACL will actually be losing money on each game. Which is possible as it's better for them than no city, doesn't really make it fair though (and no I dont care about acl or the council)

There is also the fact that even if the 150k is total payment it's quite likely to still be worse for the next few years at least than paying 400k. I don't think there is any doubt that the revenues from ticket sales and merchandising are going to be down by more than 250k even if we are at the ricoh due to what they have done over the last year. and there is the the administration and lawyer costs to take into account.

Its going to take a very long time if ever to be better off paying 150k rent with the damage caused than paying 400k last year and making a promotion push.

Nick · Jul 31, 2013

torchomatic said:
15K? That's shit really isn't it considering 30K went to the Crewe game. You don't even have to leave your house to fill in an online petition.
Apathy has always been our enemy.

I know loads of people who went who aren't city fans but would have wanted a day out at Wembley, most hadn't been to the Ricoh since Chelsea...

stupot07 · Jul 31, 2013

Noggin said:
Yes they have ruined the forthcoming season for no good reason and if we get relegated the losses from that will dwarf any savings gained over the original offer. Especially as they could have been in the championship if they had accepted it early and so the difference could be 2 divisions. and the fact that sisu paid 300k in matchday costs last year strongly suggests that the 150k rent doesn't include those costs. If thats the case isn't this deal actually pretty similar to the one offered before? didn't we hear that there was 150k rent only for fisher to explain how many extras need to be paid on top of that?

if the 150k is the total payment then ACL will actually be losing money on each game. Which is possible as it's better for them than no city, doesn't really make it fair though (and no I dont care about acl or the council)

There is also the fact that even if the 150k is total payment it's quite likely to still be worse for the next few years at least than paying 400k. I don't think there is any doubt that the revenues from ticket sales and merchandising are going to be down by more than 250k even if we are at the ricoh due to what they have done over the last year. and there is the the administration and lawyer costs to take into account.

Its going to take a very long time if ever to be better off paying 150k rent with the damage caused than paying 400k last year and making a promotion push.

We wouldn't have reached the championship last season, regardless of the 10 point deduction Leon Clarkes injury would have sealed our fate.

And re: match day costs, the original £1.28m rent didn't include match costs, the £400k January/feb rent off didnt include match day costs. So no the £150k plus £10k per match costs isn't the same as the £400k offer, as the matchday costs were on top of that.

skybluesam66 · Jul 31, 2013

stupot07 said:
We wouldn't have reached the championship last season, regardless of the 10 point deduction Leon Clarkes injury would have sealed our fate.

which if we hadnt been in admin, we could have got a replacement ....

VisitingPie · Jul 31, 2013

stupot07 said:
Why is it rightfully so? 15k petitioned to keep cov in cov but they don't even want to go and watch?

Didn't a lot of fans from other clubs sign this? I know I did, unless that was a different petition

Sub · Jul 31, 2013

skybluesam66 said:
which if we hadnt been in admin, we could have got a replacement ....

we already had a transfer embargo for not submitting our books again

stupot07 · Jul 31, 2013

skybluesam66 said:
which if we hadnt been in admin, we could have got a replacement ....

In which case we still probably wouldn't have breached the top 6, as despite our amazing form particularly under Robins we never managed to win more than 2 in a row, and had one of the worst clean sheet records in the league. Talk about rewriting history.

Noggin · Jul 31, 2013

stupot07 said:
In which case we still probably wouldn't have breached the top 6, as despite our amazing form particularly under Robins we never managed to win more than 2 in a row, and had one of the worst clean sheet records in the league. Talk about rewriting history.

Our points scored per game was high enough that we'd likely have reached the play offs. Thats the statistic that matters, not how many clean sheets you have or your win streak. Lies damn lies and statistics. You can win the playoffs without winning more than 2 in a row and without getting a clean sheet, not that there is any reason to belive we couldn't do either.

There is also the fact that things would have been completely different, leon clark probably wouldn't have gotten injured, of course maybe someone else would have. Every game would have been different. Also possible that we wouldn't have lost mcgoldrick if everything had been sorted before then, thats less likely than keeping robbins though.

Noggin · Jul 31, 2013

stupot07 said:
And re: match day costs, the original £1.28m rent didn't include match costs, the £400k January/feb rent off didnt include match day costs. So no the £150k plus £10k per match costs isn't the same as the £400k offer, as the matchday costs were on top of that.

Can anyone confirm that? because I remember back in Febuary ACL saying the rent would be 150k and Fisher saying actually it's more like 400k once everything is added on.

But anyway whatever the answer to that bit the rest of my post assumed the total paid would be 150k and I'm positive for a good few years at least (perhaps forever) thats significantly worse than paying 400k and accepting early in the year even if we didn't get promoted.

stupot07 · Jul 31, 2013

Noggin said:
Our points scored per game was high enough that we'd likely have reached the play offs. Thats the statistic that matters, not how many clean sheets you have or your win streak. Lies damn lies and statistics. You can win the playoffs without winning more than 2 in a row and without getting a clean sheet, not that there is any reason to belive we couldn't do either.

There is also the fact that things would have been completely different, leon clark probably wouldn't have gotten injured, of course maybe someone else would have. Every game would have been different. Also possible that we wouldn't have lost mcgoldrick if everything had been sorted before then, thats less likely than keeping robbins though.

No it wasn't.

1) Transfer embargo was 2nd march

We had 53 points from 36 games. Ignoring pre-robins it was 50 posts from 29 games = 1.72 points per game, so 17.2 points from the remaining 10 matches. Total of 70.2 points for the season

2) administration 21st march.

We had 60 points from 39 games. Again ignoring pre-robins 57 points from 32 games - 1.78 points per hand so 12.5 points in the remaining 7 matches total of 72.5 points for the season.

Swindon finished 6th on 74 points with a goal difference of +33.

We finished with +7 goal difference so would have needed 75 points. We wouldn't have made it without going on a run of 4-5 wins in a row, which we never did despite fantastic form.

I'm pretty sure Leon Clarke had been playing through injury for a few weeks prior to his lay off so not sure how he could have avoided being injured.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21784734

SkyBlueBlood · Jul 31, 2013

stupot07 said:
They have closed the petition with 15k signatures wanting to keep the city at the Ricoh. 5-7k marched last week to keep city at the Ricoh.

If a deal is reached to keep city at the Ricoh, will we get 15k+ to the first game?

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sp.../telegraph-comment-15000-say-coventry-5387555

Not unless we come out of admin and spend £5 million on players!

Noggin · Jul 31, 2013

stupot07 said:
No it wasn't.

No what wasn't?

1) Transfer embargo was 2nd march

not sure what that has to do with what I said.

We had 53 points from 36 games. Ignoring pre-robins it was 50 posts from 29 games = 1.72 points per game, so 17.2 points from the remaining 10 matches. Total of 70.2 points for the season

2) administration 21st march.

We had 60 points from 39 games. Again ignoring pre-robins 57 points from 32 games - 1.78 points per hand so 12.5 points in the remaining 7 matches total of 72.5 points for the season.

Swindon finished 6th on 74 points with a goal difference of +33.

We finished with +7 goal difference so would have needed 75 points. We wouldn't have made it without going on a run of 4-5 wins in a row, which we never did despite fantastic form.

We scored 1.88 Points per game with Robbins and it's much greater if you count his rein from a 2 matches after he joined to 2 matches after he left. But even just using the games he was in charge of we'd have ended the season on over 73 points, yes swindon finishes on 74 but they beat us during our bad spell once he left so there is a very good chance we'd have made the play offs. As I say if you look at points scored once Robbins was settled in which is a better metric we would finish on even higher points.

I'm pretty sure Leon Clarke had been playing through injury for a few weeks prior to his lay off so not sure how he could have avoided being injured.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21784734

Different manger, slightly different team, different tactics, every game would have been different and so whatever caused Clarks injury would likely not have happened. So unless he'd had it over a month it likely wouldn't have happened. Also we would probably have strengthened the team had we paid up our rent. We were told we were getting multiple people in the last window that never materialised.

stupot07 · Jul 31, 2013

But you're forgetting the DMC factor. In fact results had started to tail off under robins when DMC left.

Robins league record: -

DMc era - P19 W10 D4 L5 Goals 38 - 34 points (1.78 points per game), 2 goals per game

Post DMc P6 W3 D1 L2 Goals 7 - 10 points (1.67 points per game) 1.17 goals per game.

Also you mention the fact Swindon finished above us and they beat us. Yes we played them at home where we already had a poor record even under Robins so the likelihood is they would have beaten us anyway.

Truth is, with the poor start we were always struggling and unlikely to reach the play offs.

covcity4life · Jul 31, 2013

stupot i really thought ypu had moved on from this, found you a really good poster last few months

and now you are coming out with vintage stupidpot shit! big chance we would have made playoffs, you jsut want to pretend that you were right in hating on us all last season.

ccfcway · Jul 31, 2013

each to their own, but for me NOPM means not giving SISU a penny. Haven't set foot in the Ricoh for a CCFC match since the Ben Turner Leeds match and wont be returning until SISU are gone...

Completely see why people wish fans to turn up though, its just not for me.

Noggin · Jul 31, 2013

stupot07 said:
But you're forgetting the DMC factor. In fact results had started to tail off under robins when DMC left.

Robins league record: -

DMc era - P19 W10 D4 L5 Goals 38 - 34 points (1.78 points per game), 2 goals per game

Post DMc P6 W3 D1 L2 Goals 7 - 10 points (1.67 points per game) 1.17 goals per game.

Also you mention the fact Swindon finished above us and they beat us. Yes we played them at home where we already had a poor record even under Robins so the likelihood is they would have beaten us anyway.

Truth is, with the poor start we were always struggling and unlikely to reach the play offs.

Where are you getting your statistics from because I get that Robbins had 1.88 points per league game and I'm not going to add it up again because you are moving the goal posts.

"Also you mention the fact Swindon finished above us and they beat us. Yes we played them at home where we already had a poor record even under Robins so the likelihood is they would have beaten us anyway."

Our home record was disapointing but we were still winning or drawing much more than we were losing and either a win or a draw along with the 1.88 points per game would have put us into 6th place.

I'm not sure why we are debating this because you know full well we would have had a good chance of making the play offs if we'd paid our rent at the start of the year and again it's possible we wouldn't have lost mcgoldrick if it hadn't been so obvious the shit was about to hit the fan at ccfc.

stupot07 · Jul 31, 2013

Noggin said:
Where are you getting your statistics from because I get that Robbins had 1.88 points per league game and I'm not going to add it up again because you are moving the goal posts.

"Also you mention the fact Swindon finished above us and they beat us. Yes we played them at home where we already had a poor record even under Robins so the likelihood is they would have beaten us anyway."

Our home record was disapointing but we were still winning or drawing much more than we were losing and either a win or a draw along with the 1.88 points per game would have put us into 6th place.

I'm not sure why we are debating this because you know full well we would have had a good chance of making the play offs if we'd paid our rent at the start of the year and again it's possible we wouldn't have lost mcgoldrick if it hadn't been so obvious the shit was about to hit the fan at ccfc.

We would have lost DMC, Ipswich paid his £10k per week salary and offered him championship football, we were paying just £2k per match.

We'd played 7 points 3 when robins joined. He left on 14th feb, we'd played 32 and have 47 points. That's 44 points in 25 games which is 1.76 points per game.
Played 25, won 13, drawn 5, lost 7.

At home his record was played 13 Won 5 drew 3 lost 5

Yes there was a chance but a very slim chance, employing Thorn had more of an impact on our promotion hopes than going into admin.

stupot07 · Jul 31, 2013

covcity4life said:
stupot i really thought ypu had moved on from this, found you a really good poster last few months

and now you are coming out with vintage stupidpot shit! big chance we would have made playoffs, you jsut want to pretend that you were right in hating on us all last season.

No not at all.

covcity4life · Jul 31, 2013

stupot07 said:
No not at all.

Noggin · Jul 31, 2013

stupot07 said:
We would have lost DMC, Ipswich paid his £10k per week salary and offered him championship football, we were paying just £2k per match.

We'd played 7 points 3 when robins joined. He left on 14th feb, we'd played 32 and have 47 points. That's 44 points in 25 games which is 1.76 points per game.
Played 25, won 13, drawn 5, lost 7.

At home his record was played 13 Won 5 drew 3 lost 5

which is 8 wins or draws and 5 loses so as I said its wrong to say we'd likely have lost to swindon.

Yes there was a chance but a very slim chance, employing Thorn had more of an impact on our promotion hopes than going into admin.

You are having a different debate to me, I have not said nore do I think that admin was the reason we didn't get promoted. It was the loss of Robins and the failure to properly strengthen has promised in the last window.

Cov telegraph: 15000 say City must stay. (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency