Coventry City Council have Failed CCFC (2 Viewers)

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
Sorry don't buy it. The argument is all ifs buts and maybes.

The long and the short is that most landlords would've told them to fuck off when asked for a new deal and certainly wouldn't be keeping the door open.

They restructured their entire business to allow a lower rent than the one agreed.

The fact is that rent was never the issue. That's been shown by their actions since. Frankly if you believe rent was ever the issue you're very naive IMO.

The rent was an issue though as the Club asked for a reduction before Sisu even arrived!

Sisu's actions haven't been fantastic that we can all agree on but to say the figure of the rent was not an issue coupled with the fact that Matchday revenues were non-existent then of course we had a major problem!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Not just McGinnity but every board member who had the chance to buy them back but didn't.

At least we all now that the council never cared about the club at all and just wanted to exploit it. If it had a shred of dignity given the give these back given the exploitation over the years.

Still lets all wait for the JR and see what it says about the council and in particular its past and present leaders of the council.
 

ccfc92

Well-Known Member
At least we all now that the council never cared about the club at all and just wanted to exploit it. If it had a shred of dignity given the give these back given the exploitation over the years.

Still lets all wait for the JR and see what it says about the council and in particular its past and present leaders of the council.

If the council profited from CCFC, would it be the City of Coventry who benefits, or the Councillors/MP's bank balance?
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
At least we all now that the council never cared about the club at all and just wanted to exploit it. If it had a shred of dignity given the give these back given the exploitation over the years.

Still lets all wait for the JR and see what it says about the council and in particular its past and present leaders of the council.

Im not having my council tax money going to some daft cow who cant run a hedge fund properly.
 

ccfc92

Well-Known Member
Im not having my council tax money going to some daft cow who cant run a hedge fund properly.

This is the thing. As much as we like to look on the whole issue with sky blue tinted glasses, there's clearly 340,000 citizens who don't care about CCFC.

The city no longer affiliates with the club, and the majority of citizens don't have any history in supporting CCFC
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
What I've read is that when we moved to the Ricoh the club did ask for a reduction in the rent because other costs were so high that the gates needed were unlikely to be achieved. ACL rejected this perhaps because as a new business they couldn't afford to or because they were out to get the club financially.

Then up pop Sisu who acquire our club and do nothing to try and renegotiate the rent level at that time. Then after relegation Sisu decided to boycott the rent payments before attempting any serious negotiations. When deals were offered involving reduced rent these were either rejected as being inadequate or agreed and then subsequently denied (handshakes etc.). ACL either attempting to collect the outstanding rent or to punish Sisu - took court action and then later on after no movement from Sisu, applied for Administration.

Against the wishes of the paying customers which is us the supporters, we were moved to groundshare at NTFC. Since then the rent has been the least of our financial worries, given the attendances at "home" matches and knock on effects on the Pie money.

Further to this is the share that the club sold to the Higgs, why did Sisu not make this a top priority? I mean the Higgs aren't making any money from having their money tied up in ACL, but would I assume need to get at least the amount they paid to satisfy the Charity Commission. There was an option to buy it back (at a price determined by a formula) which is now null and void?

Had they purchased that then we would have had 2 seats on the ACL board and a chance to change the deal about rent and revenues - not just the Pie money. The council would then be unable to punish the club/Sisu financially for the benefit of ACL. The share would probably (although I don't know for a fact) have cost least than the amounts we are likely to lose by our self imposed exile in Northampton. Will be interested to see the outcome of the court case over the non payment of lawyers fees.
 
Last edited:

Grendel

Well-Known Member
This is the thing. As much as we like to look on the whole issue with sky blue tinted glasses, there's clearly 340,000 citizens who don't care about CCFC.

The city no longer affiliates with the club, and the majority of citizens don't have any history in supporting CCFC

Those same citizens also couldn't give a fuck about the Ricoh arena and who owns it.
 

letsallsingtogether

Well-Known Member
Correct but some will still see it as CCC fault all this Cash Cow shit that is repeated all the time with no Argument except that the rent was too high???

We couldn't make the Club pay when we last owned our own ground.

So if Sisu do own the Ground is all the maintenance etc free or will they want someone else to pay it for them because they never realised it was so expensive?

Further to this is the share that the club sold to the Higgs, why did Sisu not make this a top priority? I mean the Higgs aren't making any money from having their money tied up in ACL, but would I assume need to get at least the amount they paid to satisfy the Charity Commission. There was an option to buy it back (at a price determined by a formula) which is now null and void?

Had they purchased that then we would have had 2 seats on the ACL board and a chance to change the deal about rent and revenues - not just the Pie money. Would probably (although I don't know for a fact) have cost least than the amounts we are likely to lose by our self imposed exile in Northampton. Will be interested to see the outcome of the court case over the non payment of lawyers fees.
 

ccfc92

Well-Known Member
Those same citizens also couldn't give a fuck about the Ricoh arena and who owns it.

exactly. athough, I'm sure if the Ricoh was generating income for the people of coventry, and that money went towards schools and jobs, that will be better than some "poxy" football club?
 

Noggin

New Member
You can say that Noggin but would you say that paying £1.2M is fair considering that you have also just said that £400K is a fair compromise? As I have said previously on this forum the Ricoh Arena was doomed to fail for CCFC and CCC from day 1.

CCFC to some extent had no choice but to go with it as there was no other options out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not a simple yes or no answer and I don't have the full information required to answer it even if it were. I don't think the club were being ripped off though when the deal was made, you say the club had no choice to go with it and that is true but that was completely of our own making, it was also true that the deal was set up in order to bail out the club and a large amount of money needed to be paid back to the bank, if the rent hadn't been set so high then the whole deal simply wouldn't have worked, ACL wouldn't have had the income to pay back the loan. It was also set up so the club could get the stadium (or at least half of it) as soon as possible and it's completely unforgivable the club hasn't done so.

A more simple question to answer is.. is 1.2million rent a sensible amount to be paying for a league one club with 12k attendance and the answer to that is no, the club were certainly right to try and renegotiate it, there methods were unreasonable but I can't argue that they didn't get results. If the club had agreed the deal at 400k while the way they went about it was wrong I'm sure we'd all have been delighted, as much as Grendel thinks otherwise none of us care about the council.

One things for sure though at least from the number we hear that we are paying for sixfields 400k for a stadium of this calibre is actually very reasonable, it's a much better deal for what you get than sixfields is where we don't even have priority on dates despite it being a football league rule.

The simple fact of the matter though is what damage Richardson did to us and weather or not the councils deal with us at that time was fair is completely irrelevant to the choices sisu have made and the situation we are in now, they knew the situation when they took over the club, the low value of the club and the amount they paid for it was based on the fact that there were serious issues to fix. The fact that not only have they not fixed these issues, not only have they not taken advantage of the opertunitys to get the stadium and club back together they have instead caused many and much more serious issues all of there own.
 
Last edited:

ccfc92

Well-Known Member
The club were offered a sliding scale rent and rejected it as they thought they were coming straight back up.

This is exactly why we as fans need facts given to us. earlier in this thread, there are posts stating the rent was not questioned etc...
 

letsallsingtogether

Well-Known Member
Like has been said before people only post the bits they want to win their argument?


This is exactly why we as fans need facts given to us. earlier in this thread, there are posts stating the rent was not questioned etc...
 

Lorksalordy

New Member
Yet again endless conjecture and hypothesising about what may have happened, may have been agreed, may have been offered etc which is all fundamentally futile in regards to moving anything forward. This all being obviously to provide context and maintain a sense of balance which seems to be the virtue that trumps all.

Whilst everyone ignores the glaringly obvious fact that by far the single biggest mistake in the club's history was made in moving out of the city. The decision was taken solely by the clubs owners who have in the year following not made a single tangible attempt to rectify the situation other than insulting it's ever dwindling customer base by providing a half arsed story about a new stadium.

This is not to say that no mistakes have been made elsewhere in the last 15 years but it would be nice if perhaps we have a little less point scoring on things that are old news, can't be changed and almost without fail cannot be proved.
 

letsallsingtogether

Well-Known Member
You forgot they accused fans of threatening them and in turn threatened the Trust with court action plus other local personalities. They are totally shameless but in turn expect us to back them.


I say Fuck um......


Yet again endless conjecture and hypothesising about what may have happened, may have been agreed, may have been offered etc which is all fundamentally futile in regards to moving anything forward. This all being obviously to provide context and maintain a sense of balance which seems to be the virtue that trumps all.

Whilst everyone ignores the glaringly obvious fact that by far the single biggest mistake in the club's history was made in moving out of the city. The decision was taken solely by the clubs owners who have in the year following not made a single tangible attempt to rectify the situation other than insulting it's ever dwindling customer base by providing a half arsed story about a new stadium.

This is not to say that no mistakes have been made elsewhere in the last 15 years but it would be nice if perhaps we have a little less point scoring on things that are old news, can't be changed and almost without fail cannot be proved.
 

lewys33

Well-Known Member
The OP makes a fair point, and then certain individuals can't help themselves but spout their council hate propaganda bullshit! It's marvellous isn't it! :)
 

lewys33

Well-Known Member
You have proof of that Don?

Yes I'm not going to go specifically looking to prove it but this was mentioned previously. Sliding scale was rejected because the premiership rent was higher than the £1.2 million.
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
6: Before April 2012 did CCFC ever approach ACL to change the licence or rental value?

ACL: In 2004 and 2005 a proposal was made by Sir Derek Higgs that there should be different base rents for each League with escalators that would relate attendance to payment. He was a shareholder and director of CCFC and a director of ACL. This proposition was rejected by the then Board of CCFC, as although the base rents for the lower Leagues would have resulted in a reduction on the agreed rent, the rent in the Premiership would have been higher. Since SISU bought the club there have been one or two light touch discussions with SISU but nothing that amounted to a serious proposition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Again the sliding rent 'looks good' but we have absolutely no detail on what it looked like and judging by the q and a it still would have been £1.2m in the championship. All for 23-25 days use per annum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 

lewys33

Well-Known Member
Again the sliding rent 'looks good' but we have absolutely no detail on what it looked like and judging by the q and a it still would have been £1.2m in the championship. All for 23-25 days use per annum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)

Nobody has ever suggested that the rent figure was acceptable. But 0 rent and all the pies in the world wouldn't leave the club in a fit state according to accounts would it??
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Nobody has ever suggested that the rent figure was acceptable. But 0 rent and all the pies in the world wouldn't leave the club in a fit state according to accounts would it??

It would help to improve the situation, gradually season after season.
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
Again the sliding rent 'looks good' but we have absolutely no detail on what it looked like and judging by the q and a it still would have been £1.2m in the championship. All for 23-25 days use per annum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
Wouldn't it be nice to have all the facts so we could all make educated decisions about who's right and wrong, within any spin applied.
 

tisza

Well-Known Member
Wouldn't it be nice to have all the facts so we could all make educated decisions about who's right and wrong.
Never going to happen. Said this from the start how people can take such definite postions on the issues without having all the facts amazes me.
Everything needs clearing up just to make sure there's no chance of ending in a Luton situation where the club got punished for misdemeanours of previous owners.
I'd still like clarity for example on how the last published CCFC ltd accounts changed so much by the time the administrator was called in.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top