Coventry pay to resurface Sixfields pitch as waggot predicts us playing there (1 Viewer)

RoboCCFC90 · Jul 30, 2014

Kingokings204 said:
What do you mean?

I know everyone wants and believes that the Ricoh is the better option - including myself! - however we have to bare in mind that if we can't negotiate a deal with ACL to return to the Ricoh then the Club must plan for the season ahead, I actually approve that the Club is still using foresight, just in case the hopes of many doesn't pay off.

We are paying a little extra to maintain the playing surface? Again very fair, you wouldn't expect NTFC to pay out for it, they lease the playing surface out to the Club and you would think the Club would pay a fair amount to ensure the pitch remains in the best condition possible for CCFC and NTFC.

We'd all like to be at the Ricoh and we all believe it is best for the Club, no arguments there, however a fair deal as to be agreed with ACL and going back on the previous agreements with respect to Matchday Revenues isn't viable or fair on the Club.

RoboCCFC90 · Jul 30, 2014

RegTheDonk said:
If you mean justificaton of improving the pitch, to make it better for our players, then I can see his arguement if it means we win more games....however, if he wants to have a better pitch, there's one in Coventry we could use.

No doubting that Reg, but while a deal isn't agreed with ACL it's nice to see that the Club are being pro-active in there preparations.

duffer · Jul 30, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
No doubting that Reg, but while a deal isn't agreed with ACL it's nice to see that the Club are being pro-active in there preparations.

Take your point Rob - but I'd have thought that this should have been included in the rental. You know, a requirement to keep the pitch in good order.

Which makes me wonder - do SISU ever bother looking at the contracts they sign, or do they just hope to get what they want later in court?

To be honest, I'm actually reading this in part as a veiled threat ("Deal, ACL, or we're staying at NTFC!"), because otherwise it's almost an admission of a lack of foresight, to me.

ajsccfc · Jul 30, 2014

savosdad said:
If you've got shit playing on it it does'nt matter about the surface spend the money on your smug face twatty

crap them bastard what subs sell fuckin scum

wingy · Jul 30, 2014

duffer said:
Take your point Rob - but I'd have thought that this should have been included in the rental. You know, a requirement to keep the pitch in good order.

Which makes me wonder - do SISU ever bother looking at the contracts they sign, or do they just hope to get what they want later in court?

To be honest, I'm actually reading this in part as a veiled threat ("Deal, ACL, or we're staying at NTFC!"), because otherwise it's almost an admission of a lack of foresight, to me.

It's neither ,there Is no Intention to be back at the RICOH,as evidenced by this snippet ,the Signing of playing at Sixfields a whole one month before the deadline and the Protracted settlement of monies owed .All significant pointers to the desire of the people running the Club.

Monners · Jul 30, 2014

Just more PR in my book. Make out that the ball is in ACL's court; much the same as TF's press release the other week, and the "new stadium looking more likely" bollocks from last week.

I was going to submit a couple of questions to TF for his Q&A with the CCLSC this week, centred on SISU dropping litigation as a commitment to negotiation a return to the Ricoh. Can't be bothered to waste the energy on it now though. Let them carry on with their PR game (ACL also) - it gets us nowhere, and its a shame that some fans are happy to indulge them by peddling their nonsense.

joemercersaces · Jul 30, 2014

If Fisher or Waggot told you the cheque was in the post would you believe them?

If Fisher or Waggot told you they loved you would you believe them?

If Fisher or Waggot told you they wouldn't come in your mouth would you believe them?

Yet some are prepared to swallow just about everything this lying, double-dyed, duplicitous, venal shower of monkey's trot out.

We shouldn't be there, we a Coventry City.

DazzleTommyDazzle · Jul 30, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
We'd all like to be at the Ricoh and we all believe it is best for the Club, no arguments there, however a fair deal as to be agreed with ACL and going back on the previous agreements with respect to Matchday Revenues isn't viable or fair on the Club.

SISU have explained to us all that they are building a new stadium, so the question is - what is best for the club in the interim period?

The answer is that they agree a deal to get back to the Ricoh.

In this context the much talked about issue of "match day revenues" is a virtual irrelevance. Pretty much any deal at the Ricoh will leave the club in a better position than more years on life support in Northampton.

shmmeee · Jul 30, 2014

joemercersaces said:
If Fisher or Waggot told you the cheque was in the post would you believe them?

If Fisher or Waggot told you they loved you would you believe them?

If Fisher or Waggot told you they wouldn't come in your mouth would you believe them?

Yet some are prepared to swallow just about everything this lying, double-dyed, duplicitous, venal shower of monkey's trot out.

We shouldn't be there, we a Coventry City.

shmmeee · Jul 30, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
We'd all like to be at the Ricoh and we all believe it is best for the Club, no arguments there, however a fair deal as to be agreed with ACL and going back on the previous agreements with respect to Matchday Revenues isn't viable or fair on the Club.

Nonsense Rob. There's no reason, especially financial, to be in Northampton. You've swallowed the bullshit hook line and sinker there mate.

Monners · Jul 30, 2014

joemercersaces said:
If Fisher or Waggot told you the cheque was in the post would you believe them?

If Fisher or Waggot told you they loved you would you believe them?

If Fisher or Waggot told you they wouldn't come in your mouth would you believe them?

Yet some are prepared to swallow just about everything this lying, double-dyed, duplicitous, venal shower of monkey's trot out.

We shouldn't be there, we a Coventry City.

You are under the impression that I and others would be prepared to "orally entertain" them in the first place!

I suddenly feel slightly ill!

LB87ccfc · Jul 30, 2014

shmmeee said:
Nonsense Rob. There's no reason, especially financial, to be in Northampton. You've swallowed the bullshit hook line and sinker there mate.

So if there is no financial reason to be there why are we?? we cannot continue to lose money whilst at the Ricoh and not make any money from match days apart from ticketing, never mind Northampton? We would need some sort of income just look the other 72 clubs in the FL do.

This all stems from the day we sold HR, by time we built this big shell, we was already on the road to ruin.

duffer · Jul 30, 2014

LB87ccfc said:
So if there is no financial reason to be there why are we?? we cannot continue to lose money whilst at the Ricoh and not make any money from match days apart from ticketing, never mind Northampton? We would need some sort of income just look the other 72 clubs in the FL do.

This all stems from the day we sold HR, by time we built this big shell, we was already on the road to ruin.

It undoubtedly does all stem from the sale of HR, but that isn't why we're preparing to play at Northampton for another season....

As I see it, we're currently in Northampton because our owners are pursuing a high-risk strategy dependent on a court case appeal to support their seeming determination to continue to distress ACL wherever possible.

As long as SISU are determined to follow this strategy we'll need to play at Northampton, regardless of the cost to the club and the fans. Whatever we might have been losing at the Ricoh, under whatever rent deal you choose, we're losing an awful lot more by sticking it out at Northampton.

Coming back and then negotiating for income streams, or even coming back whilst building the new stadium would seem to be better options, personally.

Como · Jul 30, 2014

duffer said:
It undoubtedly does all stem from the sale of HR, but that isn't why we're preparing to play at Northampton for another season....

As I see it, we're currently in Northampton because our owners are pursuing a high-risk strategy dependent on a court case appeal to support their seeming determination to continue to distress ACL wherever possible.

As long as SISU are determined to follow this strategy we'll need to play at Northampton, regardless of the cost to the club and the fans. Whatever we might have been losing at the Ricoh, under whatever rent deal you choose, we're losing an awful lot more by sticking it out at Northampton.

Coming back and then negotiating for income streams, or even coming back whilst building the new stadium would seem to be better options, personally.

The income streams are there, but somebody who owns them will want to be paid for them.

Playing at the Ricoh whilst building a new ground must be more viable, you will have built up the crowd needed to sustain a new ground.

Which only leaves one reason left, never thought there was another.

Hobo · Jul 30, 2014

SISU games, no intention of negotiating. I'll keep my money in my pocket, away only again.

will am i · Jul 30, 2014

Nick said:
I'm 30 and still dream about playing for City whether it is at Wembley or the park.

If you're a centre forward give Waggott a ring you have every chance

Skybluenutterman · Jul 30, 2014

They've no idea. A whole generation will be missed. Their strategy is simply not working and flawed. ACL will not go under. Renting Ricoh has to be the only and sensible option!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

percy · Jul 30, 2014

wow!!! we really know how to over react dont we. as i said on the other thread, this is surely just an obligation on our part. it was probably agreed at the start of last season when we first did the deal. im pretty sure it does'nt mean we are staying there for the whole season.

bigfatronssba · Jul 30, 2014

LB87ccfc said:
So if there is no financial reason to be there why are we?? we cannot continue to lose money whilst at the Ricoh and not make any money from match days apart from ticketing, never mind Northampton? We would need some sort of income just look the other 72 clubs in the FL do.

This all stems from the day we sold HR, by time we built this big shell, we was already on the road to ruin.

What value per season do you place on concourse F & B sales?

Skybluenutterman · Jul 30, 2014

Does this not annoy you all? The only thing stopping us coming back home is Joy!! We can come home whenever she wants us too which is what we all want isn't it?!?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hobo · Jul 30, 2014

percy said:
wow!!! we really know how to over react dont we. as i said on the other thread, this is surely just an obligation on our part. it was probably agreed at the start of last season when we first did the deal. im pretty sure it does'nt mean we are staying there for the whole season.

You mean like reseeding the pitch at the Ricoh?

letsallsingtogether · Jul 30, 2014

Obligation bollox when have Sisu ever honoured anything never mind a little agreement or contract?

You know they never shook hands on it it was a greeting.

percy said:
wow!!! we really know how to over react dont we. as i said on the other thread, this is surely just an obligation on our part. it was probably agreed at the start of last season when we first did the deal. im pretty sure it does'nt mean we are staying there for the whole season.

Grendel · Jul 30, 2014

letsallsingtogether said:
Obligation bollox when have Sisu ever honoured anything never mind a little agreement or contract?

You know they never shook hands on it it was a greeting.

They have honoured most contracts really haven't they. It's only ACL and Higgs they haven't for obvious reasons. This notion you had better insist on cash isn't true is it?

bigfatronssba · Jul 30, 2014

Strange how obligations to NTFC are acted upon straight away isn't it?

Grendel · Jul 30, 2014

bigfatronssba said:
Strange how obligations to NTFC are acted upon straight away isn't it?

Not really strange at all.

Noggin · Jul 30, 2014

Grendel said:
They have honoured most contracts really haven't they. It's only ACL and Higgs they haven't for obvious reasons.

not really no, they pressured the bomb squad into leaving as a "mutual decision" but really they made the position untenable for those players who would probably have had a case for constructive dismissal. You could also argue they haven't honored their contract with the football league. They haven't honored the contracts with regard to private seat licences etc.

Grendel · Jul 30, 2014

Noggin said:
not really no, they pressured the bomb squad into leaving as a "mutual decision" but really they made the position untenable for those players who would probably have had a case for constructive dismissal. You could also argue they haven't honored their contract with the football league. They haven't honored the contracts with regard to private seat licences etc.

Forcing players out was a very good strategy. One of the few things they have done correctly and I hope they do the same with baker.

You can't claim constructive dismissal if you are self employed.

bigfatronssba · Jul 30, 2014

Noggin said:
not really no, they pressured the bomb squad into leaving as a "mutual decision" but really they made the position untenable for those players who would probably have had a case for constructive dismissal. You could also argue they haven't honored their contract with the football league. They haven't honored the contracts with regard to private seat licences etc.

I forgot about the PSL's.

Ripping off your own fans really is disgusting. They truly are the scum of the earth.

Danceswithhorses · Jul 30, 2014

Grendel said:
You can't claim constructive dismissal if you are self employed.

You're saying that the bomb squad players were self employed ?

Grendel · Jul 30, 2014

Danceswithhorses said:
You're saying that the bomb squad players were self employed ?

I've always assumed footballers were as they are given a contract term? Aren't they then? Either way unfair dismissal legislation is not favourable to employees of two years and under.

I always believed the revenue treated them as self employed?

Danceswithhorses · Jul 30, 2014

Grendel said:
I've always assumed footballers were as they are given a contract term? Aren't they then? Either way unfair dismissal legislation is not favourable to employees of two years and under.

I always believed the revenue treated them as self employed?

Aren't footballers just employees of the club they are contacted to ?
As an example, most of us saw John Arne Riise's payslip online a few years ago, showing employee number and PAYE deductions-very interesting
http://metro.co.uk/2007/10/31/liverpool-star-fumes-as-payslip-turns-up-on-web-419011/

Grendel · Jul 30, 2014

Danceswithhorses said:
Aren't footballers just employees of the club they are contacted to ?
As an example, most of us saw John Arne Riise's payslip online a few years ago, showing employee number and PAYE deductions-very interesting
http://metro.co.uk/2007/10/31/liverpool-star-fumes-as-payslip-turns-up-on-web-419011/

They can't be as they are on a fixed term contract. So they are entitled to have that honoured and can't be dismissed and be subject to normal employment laws.

wingy · Jul 30, 2014

Salaries Indicate they would be Employees ,the Stance of HMRC around Admins would suggest also.

I'd Imagine The Players have a form of Self-employment based around all of their Personal rights/Image/Sponsorships etc.

ccfcway · Jul 30, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
you wouldn't expect NTFC to pay out for it.

you wouldn't expect a landlord to make repairs on a property ?

Nick · Jul 30, 2014

ccfcway said:
you wouldn't expect a landlord to make repairs on a property ?

Damn right you would, but it depends on the terms though doesn't it that were agreed.

Coventry pay to resurface Sixfields pitch as waggot predicts us playing there (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency