stupot07
Well-Known Member
Didn't realise they were in the PL?
How did Yeovil do it?
Didn't realise they were in the PL?
You know what I mean, Yeovil got promoted to the Championship with low crowds and small budgets/wages. Others have done it too but with them they all had one common theme, owners who had their clubs best interests at heart or at least cared about the club they owned and the fans who follow them.
You know what I mean, Yeovil got promoted to the Championship with low crowds and small budgets/wages. Others have done it too but with them they all had one common theme, owners who had their clubs best interests at heart or at least cared about the club they owned and the fans who follow them.
Like Cardiff City you mean?
Operation PL should be the aim of every single owner of every single football league team. However, Sisu never have and never will have the clubs best interests at heart. The reason we are where we are is because our greedy owners are only in it for the money and because they have no fucking clue about what a football club actually means to it's fans and the local community, hence the Sixfields debacle, football stadium outside the city where it takes its name, smearing the football clubs own fans trust and constant smug directors who think they know best (but strangely cannot seem to answer straight questions).
But we were talking about operation PL, the difference in quality in the championship is much higher than in league one and have to compete with PL parachute payments.
The size of the wage bill correlates to 90% of league position, therefore if you have the lowest turnover you can only afford one of the lowest wage bills and will therefore 90% finish near the bottom of the league.
Sport economists such as Stefan Szymanski have frequently shown that spending on wages explains on average about 90% of a club’s league table position at the end of a season. (See, for example, Szymanski and Tim Kuypers, Winners and Losers, 1999; Szymanski and Simon Kuper, Soccernomics, 2009).
With minor variations, this close correlation holds true for the Premier League or the second-division Championship, for Italy’s Serie A or Germany’s Bundesliga, for the 1970s or the 2000s (and probably already for the 1930s, depending on the reliability of historical data). UEFA’s annual benchmarking report confirms the same relationship between wages and success for its international club competitions across Europe.
We had a turnover of £10.8m when we got relegated, the promoted teams all had wage bills £27m+. It's not rocket science.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Like Cardiff City you mean?
It is being extremely naive to think that any owner will just plough in tens of millions of pounds and expect nothing back. This is what English football has become riddled with and as long as people don't care about where the money comes from as long as the results are good it's never going to change. Until we do what ze Germans do and have 50+1 club ownership set-ups then this is going to keep happening and we will not be the last ones it happens to.
You're right and I did not say that owners need to plough in tens of millions and not expect nothing back. However, if the club is successful on the pitch then surely that in itself will create success off it. Unfortunately we have not really had a chance to try out that theory and our current predicament will certainly help that continue.
Please note: This is NOT a pro SISU thread. I fully acknowledge SISU's many catastrophic mistakes and deplore them. I also acknowledge that one of those mistakes was in not renegotiating the rental deal following due diligence. Having said that, when it became clear that the club would not survive under the existing agreement, CCC should have been instructing ACL (I'm sure the Higgs Charity would have agreed to this) to restructure its business model in favour of the club thus allowing it to maintain it's tenancy and avoiding the eventual situation of the club (rightly or wrongly) withholding rent. I realize that I am inviting accusations of naivety (its just business - would you expect your landlord to knock your door offering a rent reduction, etc etc) but this was not a normal tenant/landlord relationship. The club is not just a business, it is a huge part of our community and loved by thousands. CCC is not just a landlord it is a democratically elected body with a responsibility to its community and its electorate. CCC should have been doing all it could to enable the club to move forward as was its duty. In neglecting to do so it has failed its community, the people of Coventry and the club, costing the city many millions of pounds in the process. At best they stood by, did nothing and watched the club implode, at worst they refused/ignored requests from the club for help.
In my opinion this amounts to dereliction of duty.
Please note: This is NOT a pro SISU thread. I fully acknowledge SISU's many catastrophic mistakes and deplore them. I also acknowledge that one of those mistakes was in not renegotiating the rental deal following due diligence. Having said that, when it became clear that the club would not survive under the existing agreement, CCC should have been instructing ACL (I'm sure the Higgs Charity would have agreed to this) to restructure its business model in favour of the club thus allowing it to maintain it's tenancy and avoiding the eventual situation of the club (rightly or wrongly) withholding rent. I realize that I am inviting accusations of naivety (its just business - would you expect your landlord to knock your door offering a rent reduction, etc etc) but this was not a normal tenant/landlord relationship. The club is not just a business, it is a huge part of our community and loved by thousands. CCC is not just a landlord it is a democratically elected body with a responsibility to its community and its electorate. CCC should have been doing all it could to enable the club to move forward as was its duty. In neglecting to do so it has failed its community, the people of Coventry and the club, costing the city many millions of pounds in the process. At best they stood by, did nothing and watched the club implode, at worst they refused/ignored requests from the club for help.
In my opinion this amounts to dereliction of duty.
Not having that!!!! ... Sorry you are barking up the wrong tree.
It is being extremely naive to think that any owner will just plough in tens of millions of pounds and expect nothing back. This is what English football has become riddled with and as long as people don't care about where the money comes from as long as the results are good it's never going to change. Until we do what ze Germans do and have 50+1 club ownership set-ups then this is going to keep happening and we will not be the last ones it happens to.
Barking maybe. And that is DEFINITELY the club's fault!
Shhmeee I've said before the 2 things sisu should have done as soon as they took over was to a) buy back their share of ACL/whole of ACL and 2) reduce/restructure he wage bill and other costs.
Robinson et al, should have let us go into admin.
However we are where we are, and all I'm doing is pointing out that a return on a rental only / no access to additional revenues will not suddenly make everything rosy, whoever owns us.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Both the Tractor Boys and Forest have paid to redevelop their grounds.I don't know about the city ground but portman road - I don't think so. Sorry I don't care less about the council and what they've "done" for the club - as someone else said don't dwell on the past (something Schmeee likes to do when it suits) and the future would be far brighter without ACL and its council puppet master. Why not then explore some grounds like Swansea and see how they have prospered (cue a council troll to post an irrelevant link about an eu investigation).Haven't both those grounds been redeveloped etc. by the respective tenants at their own expense?
http://web.archive.org/web/20080703...o.uk/page/ClubHistory/0,,10272~347159,00.htmlHistory of Ipswich Town said:The following year saw the demolition of the North Stand which, strangely, did not stand square to the pitch. For most of the season this end of the ground was devoid of fans and there have been assertions that the lack of the 'North Stand Roar' was partially responsible for our relegation from the Premiership at the end of that season. With another 4,000 seats added as a result of this development, Ipswich could boast an all-seater stadium of 30,300. The combined cost of these two developments was in the region of £22m.
http://espnfc.com/print?id=291270&type=storyespnfc article on Forest from 2008 said:Nottingham Forest could be forced out of the City Ground if the club does not repay debts of £4.5million this summer, local councillors have warned.
The club this week failed to make an interest payment of £209,000 on a £4.3million loan which was obtained in 1994 to develop the stadium into an all-seater venue.
If the council have failed the club what have they gained from doing so? ACL as far as I know hasn't made either shareholder any money and the court case(s) against them that they are having to defend are bound to be costing a bit in terms of lawyers. There will be a certain benefit from having the Ricoh in our City in extra visitors etc. But all they appear to be getting for their trouble is grief from Sisu.
Both the Tractor Boys and Forest have paid to redevelop their grounds.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080703...o.uk/page/ClubHistory/0,,10272~347159,00.html
http://espnfc.com/print?id=291270&type=story
Now that's interesting so did both clubs fund through a council generated loan at a low interest rate. I would assume the answer is yes as both grounds are council owned.
Why not use an example closer to home? Sixfields; council owned, with the football club having a 150 lease. It's just been the subject of a £12m loan from Northampton Council. Given their association with both grounds, why haven't SISU rolled this into their Judicial Review?
Now that's interesting so did both clubs fund through a council generated loan at a low interest rate. I would assume the answer is yes as both grounds are council owned.
Not aware that Ipswich did but Forest had the council as guarantor of their loan which they missed a payment on. The council as guarantor for the loan would have been saddled with the full £4m+ if Forest hadn't repaid it and the interest due. That's why the council were so keen to make sure that it was all repaid to the lender (I think it was Morgan Stanley) and the missed interest payment to themselves, the threat of eviction was I would guess to make sure it all was.
Not seen anything to say what the source of funds was in the case of Ipswich, I might have a look later.When did Ipswich take out their loan?
Coventry City FC was founded in 1883 and co existed with CCC all that time.
SISU come along and all of a sudden people tell me the council want to destroy the club. They should be doing more?
Well you can hold out a hand but the other party has to shake it.
They also co existed with the Herebert art gallery. They only started in business with the council in this century and have gone bust twice the first two times in that long history.
They also co existed with the Herebert art gallery. They only started in business with the council in this century and have gone bust twice the first two times in that long history.
Surely that is down to the Apathy of the average Coventrian? Or perhaps it is the parents fault? After all "they fuck you up, your mum and dad"....if you can't get over your deep hatred of CCC I suggest you move to Hull....don't worry I won't expect decent poetry in your exile.
They also co existed with the Herebert art gallery. They only started in business with the council in this century and have gone bust twice the first two times in that long history.
Has the Herbert gone then? Had no idea not living in the city. Sad to hear, spent many an hour in there with my Dad in my younger days.
The Herbert is still going strong as ever, so not sure what he's on about with that one.
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?