Grendel
Well-Known Member
Agreed. Also it could dissuade new owners as it sends out a message that underachievement has catastrophic implications on revenue.
I understand why it is being done, but I do worry that the if it gathered momentum it might harm the club whose basic problem is a lack of income, whoever owns it.
That contrary argument would be wrong. As that level of money is in excess of our combined turnover during their tenure
To some, Jas, yes, but my point is that there is massive apathy borne out of years of under achievement and disappoinment.
There may well be a massive apathy but is it worth mentioning? We don't report on the 35% of people who didn't vote in the last general election, so is there any point in mentioning those that are not that bothered about the club?To some, Jas, yes, but my point is that there is massive apathy borne out of years of under achievement and disappoinment.
Well yeah but thats kind of an obvious thing to say, the point is we aren't doing well, in fact the club is imploding with SISU and if they aren't removed its only going to get worse. I don't see how anyone thinks that things are going to imporve with them still in charge?
Even allowing for them clearing the debts they inherited? Was the rent being paid then, by the way, by the previous owners? It may have been, but I'm just asking.
Agreed. Also it could dissuade new owners as it sends out a message that underachievement has catastrophic implications on revenue.
But a lot of that is down to the manager and players surely?
Who would have said Yeovil would have got promoted last season on a shoestring budget and hardly any household names in their team?
Agreed. Also it could dissuade new owners as it sends out a message that underachievement has catastrophic implications on revenue.
Not for 3 summers now .I'm sure having a decent manager and playing squad help yes Otis! But aren't Yeovil a pretty well run club? If they had all the problems off the field we have I doubt they would have got promotion. We must be the only team in England who end up with a transfer embargo EVERY SEASON. Fisher uses the escuse of administration this year, what's been his excuse for all the previous years? I don't think SISU have filed a single set of accounts on time yet!
Even allowing for them clearing the debts they inherited? Was the rent being paid then, by the way, by the previous owners? It may have been, but I'm just asking.
Question to be asked tomorrow, of course, but my understanding is that they (the football club, which TF maintains is what Sisu own) need to exit administration. For as long as part of its structure remains in administration it cannot have the transfer embargo lifted, etc...; the manner of exit is also important if a further points penalty is to be avoided.
There may well be a massive apathy but is it worth mentioning? We don't report on the 35% of people who didn't vote in the last general election, so is there any point in mentioning those that are not that bothered about the club?
You could ask me. Or you could ask Timmy tomorrow. My view would be conjecture. That stated, recent form shows his might.....
Seriously, a breakdown if that value, or any claimed value had been requested many, many times over. Lets see it.
And let us not forget, we were claimed as being 'debt free' by Ranson directly after the take over; and again by Fisher last year.
If you do nothing else, I implore you to nail this one without any side-stepping
Maybe 'bothered' was the wrong word, however we need to concentrate on those who do make their voices heard, whether pro or anti SISU.But you see it's not fair to say they are not bothered about the club. They are, but not enough of a mind to do or say anything, or hold a particular view of the owners.
Hi Stuart (hope that's the right spelling!)
I'd really like any of the following asked and a direct answer pushed for:
1) At the London Supporters meeting you stated that we will not release the new kit until after CCFC Ltd exit admin. What is the reason for this and would a buyer other than Sisu change those plans?
2) If we are to ground-share while build a new home, considering ACL have public ally stated that try are willing to negotiate with you at any time, how is it possible that any deal with another club is still more beneficial than the club renting the Ricoh for that time? How would you know this if you haven't been negotiating with ACL since the decision to move was made public?
3) will you agree to a public discussion, chaired by the BBC (impartial) with ACL about the deal?
4) Would a positive outcome for Sisu in the judicial review open the door for further negotiations?
I will be attending the Forum on Monday but doubt ill get picked over the usual faces at BBC events.
Again, it's a question to be asked, of course, by anyone who wants to ask it. My understanding of the "debt free" perspective is that the only money owed is to the owners (in other words, to themselves). That is not to say that it is a debt that will not be discharged; it has to be dealt with, of course, but - so far as we know - apart from the rent to ACL, they don't have other debts.
Why would Sisu be in a rush to get the transfer embargo lifted ?
The reason i say this is the last two football close seasons it hasn't bothered them !!!!
Hi stu how long will the programme last tomorrow night?cheers
Has Ryton been sold ?
To repeat my previous point, it is NOT a BBC event. It is a Coventry City FC event that BBC Coventry & Warwickshire is covering. If you are attending I hope you will get the chance to ask your question. As I understand it Monday's event will not be broadcast live for entirely pragmatic reasons that we have been unable to overcome. It will be reported on subsequently, however.
At this moment, I honestly don't know.
Id have thought mondays forum would be even more important. Wont all the bids be in by then.
im at work until 8 do you think it will get put on listen again?
Indeed Godiva ,IIRC Stuart was present at last years forum when TF remarked that the debt had indeed been converted to equity ,but equity of what?It's a common setup - injecting money as debts as opposed to equity.
It guards against hostile takeovers!
Also true.You could dear chap, but the accusation of hypocrisy could be labelled at anyone who called an open forum; but hid behind an NDA to not inform anyone where the team might be playing in less than two months' time
Indeed Godiva ,IIRC Stuart was present at last years forum when TF remarked that the debt had indeed been converted to equity ,but equity of what?
Stuart - can you ask TF what his response would be to a breakaway CCFC 2 who played at the Ricoh - if SISU get back in and cling on like a leech. If not, what do you think to that possibility?
PUSB(2?)
Stuart?............
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?