Fisher rejects Hoffman offer (1 Viewer)

SkyBlue76 · Jul 11, 2013

Well done Hoffman, you have called SISU's bluff and they have been forced to show their true colours. Even the Football League cannot be blind to this - surely???

This is a very clever tactic. I know SISU seem to have played a blinder and every time we think they are on their way out the door, some creep (Appleton, Football League) let's them off the hook. But this shows that we also have some very clever people on our side. One day, one of these tactics has got to work.

italiahorse · Jul 11, 2013

ohitsaidwalker king power said:
Does this alone not truly prove the hidden agenda that SISU have had all along.....

Surely if this is true then the football league must act.
If this deal was accepted. Sisu get more gate receipts than at Northampton, Sisu do not pay any rent for 3 years. Coventry fans are back at the Ricoh and ACL continue on.

The only reason SISU would not accept this is because they have no plan to really build a stadium and ACL would carry on.

Well done Gary, in one move everybody is happy and SISU plan will be shown for what it is .......... a sham.

Come on Football League act now.

ajsccfc · Jul 11, 2013

Can Hoffman take this offer directly to the Football League?

Astute · Jul 11, 2013

ohitsaidwalker king power said:
Does this alone not truly prove the hidden agenda that SISU have had all along.....

Hidden? Only hidden to anyone wearing extremely dark SISU glasses :blue:

mattylad · Jul 11, 2013

ajsccfc said:
I'll give you a minute here, but just to help you along: 'What fan in shock having an opinion different to yours attending......... :facepalm:'

And that's the difference.
I although disagreeing with your position can respect it and your right to state it. You on the other hand oppress anyone whose view is different to your own

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 11, 2013

Astute said:
But we all know that it is CCFC suicide making us play in Northampton. I would say they will be lucky to have 1m turnover playing there.........very lucky indeed. Then they have to pay for playing there. The extra expenses. Where will our club shop be? Oh yes I forgot.......we have a barrow :thinking about:

This is much more than where we play. It is much more than ticket sales over the next 5 years or more......although would they keep us going that long?

They are used to taking over companies in distress. They are not used to having thousands of people watching their every move. They are not used to having MP's questioning what they are doing. I think they have bitten off much more than they can chew. We have some very knowledgeable fans (I may be Astute....not that astute though). We have very passionate fans. We won't let them walk all over us. We are not just a company to take over and asset strip, tossing the remainder away.

We are CCFC. Loud, proud and willing to do anything to save our club. :blue:

Oh, I agree completely, but you've always got to read the fine print carefully-Hoffman himself is not providing this money so to say he is offering it is misleading. The outcome would still be infinitely preferable to the present alternative.

CCFC_GT · Jul 11, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Believe me, I respect that offer. I also respect him a lot more than I did for the acceptance his personal relationships with SISU have got in the way, and the overtures to put the past behind them.

So he starts to 'win' me over a little.

The not quite such a simple message as it appears however, is, "the people who put the money up with me would take a return to cover financing and other costs".

So he doesn't seem to be offering to 'pay' as such?

What this offer does do though is underline what is already obvious to all of us, and that is that it can be much more financially viable to play at the Ricoh than at NTFC, which is why financing costs can be covered without costing SISU a penny. The only possible motives i can see that Fishface has for rejecting such an offer are:-

a) SISU wish to deny ACL income for 3 to 5 years + in order to distress ACL financially, just out of sheer spite and malice.
b) SISU wish to deny ACL income for 3 to 5 years + in order to distress ACL financially and get the Ricoh on the cheap. But you have to ask yourself would ACL choose to sell to SISU even if distressed to the point of having to sell. I think not.
c) SISU have no intention of ever returning CCFC to Coventry, and would rather use the next 3 to 5 years + developing their franchise in Northampton.

luwalla · Jul 11, 2013

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Read what he's saying closely-he isn't actually paying this himself but proposing to collect it from other sources who he expects to be compensated out of gate receipts.

compensated out of the EXTRA gate reciepts is how it came across to me.. so SISU still wont have to pay ANY rent themselves = instant saving.. plus they will still make predicted northamption gate reciepts anyway.. plus didnt he also go on to say he will also give SISU half of the additional income generated from the expected 5k + increase.

whichever way to dress it up.. its a win win for SISU.. unless their motives are not what they say they are

Sky Blues · Jul 11, 2013

Hoffman on CWR now.

ajsccfc · Jul 11, 2013

mattylad said:
And that's the difference.
I although disagreeing with your position can respect it and your right to state it. You on the other hand oppress anyone whose view is different to your own

'Oppress', sweet shit. So what have I done to hold you down that's any worse than you implying that fans are traitors helping kill the club?

Opinions shouldn't automatically be respected. If I was trying to rid you from the face of the board (like reporting posts that are mean to me, yeah?) it'd be a different story.

Brighton Sky Blue · Jul 11, 2013

luwalla said:
compensated out of the EXTRA gate reciepts is how it came across to me.. so SISU still wont have to pay ANY rent themselves = instant saving.. plus they will still make predicted northamption gate reciepts anyway.. plus didnt he also go on to say he will also give SISU half of the additional income generated from the expected 5k + increase.

whichever way to dress it up.. its a win win for SISU.. unless their motives are not what they say they are

Oh financially it is still enormously better than leaving for Northampton, I'm just pointing out that to say it's him just offering £400k a year for 3 years as the article suggests isn't quite accurate.

Evo1883 · Jul 11, 2013

if true ,which i believe is as i trust GH , sisu cannot reject this surely , as people have said ,hidden agenda AKA franchise football is all its about

wal3590 · Jul 11, 2013

Gary Hoffman put the phone down! ha

duffer · Jul 11, 2013

Hoffman on CWR now:

Would pay rent for next 3 years at Ricoh. No cost to Otium.

Assumes that 5000 more fans at Ricoh per game, equivalent to +£1.5m per season.

Half of that goes back to SISU. Costs back to Hoffman and investors, who don't want to make money. Any profit back to Academy.

Break clause with NTFC paid for as part of the deal.

Proposed to Tim Fisher, immediate response was an emphatic no. Hopes he will reconsider.

Wants to break through 'bad relationship' and sort this out.

Lives in Northampton but can't watch CCFC play there. Just wants to unblock the situation...

duffer · Jul 11, 2013

wal3590 said:
Gary Hoffman put the phone down! ha

Erm... I thought the line broke up, they called him back, and then ended the interview reasonably normally given there were technical difficulties. You're making it sound like he hung up, which I don't think he did...

RoboCCFC90 · Jul 11, 2013

Okay without looking at this offer in a biase way and slandering Tim Fisher for not keeping us in Coventry (Yet) did Hoffman mention what/if revenue's such as F&B, etc were included in the deal? (I assume not) Not that this is a huge amount I am sure per game, but we have already heard Timmy say that it's because they want to maximise there revenue (Which I understand) that they will look at somewhere else...

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 11, 2013

CCFC_GT said:
What this offer does do though is underline what is already obvious to all of us, and that is that it can be much more financially viable to play at the Ricoh than at NTFC, which is why financing costs can be covered without costing SISU a penny. The only possible motives i can see that Fishface has for rejecting such an offer are:-

a) SISU wish to deny ACL income for 3 to 5 years + in order to distress ACL financially, just out of sheer spite and malice.
b) SISU wish to deny ACL income for 3 to 5 years + in order to distress ACL financially and get the Ricoh on the cheap. But you have to ask yourself would ACL choose to sell to SISU even if distressed to the point of having to sell. I think not.
c) SISU have no intention of ever returning CCFC to Coventry.

I think that's absolutely correct and would plump for b & c if I was a gambling man

grego_gee · Jul 11, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Believe me, I respect that offer. I also respect him a lot more than I did for the acceptance his personal relationships with SISU have got in the way, and the overtures to put the past behind them.

So he starts to 'win' me over a little.

The not quite such a simple message as it appears however, is, "the people who put the money up with me would take a return to cover financing and other costs".

So he doesn't seem to be offering to 'pay' as such?

Yes you are right, there does seem to be an element of cost involved.
But I don't think it's just that.
There have been posts on here saying "what would you do if you were the owner?"
That implicitly implies "If you were the owner you would expect to be able to make your own choice over what to do!"

I think SISU after trying to negotiate a cheaper rent have realised that they don't want to rent but want to "own" along with all income streams.
They have futher realised that they don't need to own the Ricoh in particular - any stadium that the club are using will be just as valuable to them. An empty stadium is little use to anybody!

The councils animosity is understandable but lamentable. "We have built you a nice stadium we expect you to use that. Try snd get planning permission off us fot another one!". The truth is they are taking advantage of the clubs presence to finance the stadium - without the club it is unlikely to work! SISU do not care if it works or not without them, they don't need to bring the Ricoh down to make their alternative stadium work.

Lamentable as the council attitude is, it is that attitude that is solely responsible fot the new stadium being "just outside Coventry"rather thsn within. If the council could be expected to be impartial or better welcome a planning applicacation for a new stadium inside Coventry - SISU would probably be happy to build it there!

imp:

SydneySkyBlue · Jul 11, 2013

You know the drill guys:

Twitter:
@henrywinter
@OllieHolt22
@OliverKayTimes
@TonyEvansTimes
@DTguardian
@johncrossmirror
@RobHarris
@James_Dart
@philmcnulty
@skysports_bryan
@Matt_Lawton_DM
@John_Ashdown
@_PaulHayward
@rwilliams1947
@GlennMoore7
@MiguelDelaney
@Matt_Barlow_DM
@IanChadTele
@ianprior
@JWTelegraph
@Matt_Law_SM
@DickinsonTimes
@BenSmithBBC
@domfifield
@owen_g
@owenslot
@GARSIDEK
@juliette_grace
@NickSzczepanik
@DuncanCastles
@WSC_magazine
@chrisbevan_bbc
@barneyronay
@bbcsport_david
@JacobSteinberg
@seaningle
@JamesMawFFT
@danroan
@CarlyW226
@david_conn

Email:
Letters@guardian.co.uk
Dtletters@telegraph.co.uk
Letters@the-sun.co.uk
Letters@dailymail.co.uk
Alun.thorne@trinitymirror.com
Expressletters@express.co.uk
Letters@thetimes.co.uk

enquiries@football-league.co.uk

Sky Blues · Jul 11, 2013

RoboCCFC90 said:
Okay without looking at this offer in a biase way and slandering Tim Fisher for not keeping us in Coventry (Yet) did Hoffman mention what/if revenue's such as F&B, etc were included in the deal? (I assume not) Not that this is a huge amount I am sure per game, but we have already heard Timmy say that it's because they want to maximise there revenue (Which I understand) that they will look at somewhere else...

What extra revenue streams will CCFC get access to at Sixfields that they would not get access to at the Ricoh? The Northampton Town fella that gave CWR a tour of Sixfields the other day said Coventry would be using Northampton's caters for food and beverage.

Astute · Jul 11, 2013

grego_gee said:
Yes you are right, there does seem to be an element of cost involved.
But I don't think it's just that.
There have been posts on here saying "what would you do if you were the owner?"
That implicitly implies "If you were the owner you would expect to be able to make your own choice over what to do!"

I think SISU after trying to negotiate a cheaper rent have realised that they don't want to rent but want to "own" along with all income streams.
They have futher realised that they don't need to own the Ricoh in particular - any stadium that the club are using will be just as valuable to them. An empty stadium is little use to anybody!

The councils animosity is understandable but lamentable. "We have built you a nice stadium we expect you to use that. Try snd get planning permission off us fot another one!". The truth is they are taking advantage of the clubs presence to finance the stadium - without the club it is unlikely to work! SISU do not care if it works or not without them, they don't need to bring the Ricoh down to make their alternative stadium work.

Lamentable as the council attitude is, it is that attitude that is solely responsible fot the new stadium being "just outside Coventry"rather thsn within. If the council could be expected to be impartial or better welcome a planning applicacation for a new stadium inside Coventry - SISU would probably be happy to build it there!

imp:

So if you are a serious Cov fan......would you take CCFC to play in Northampton where you are paying to use the ground when you can use the Ricoh until a ground is built? All profits to go to the academy that you also own. Or do you really want the Ricoh for nothing?

RoboCCFC90 · Jul 11, 2013

Sky Blues said:
What extra revenue streams will CCFC get access to at Sixfields that they would not get access to at the Ricoh? The Northampton Town fella that gave CWR a tour of Sixfields the other day said Coventry would be using Northampton's caters for food and beverage.

Alright you got a fair point..

Fisher your a :jerkit::jerkit:

Dhinsa's_Millions · Jul 11, 2013

I really don't think Hoffman thought they would even entertain the idea of this offer. He knows the type of people he is dealing with and the history as he alluded to. Its clearly not a better move to groundshare financially surely thats quite obvious to all?!

A very sorry situation indeed.

The Penguin · Jul 11, 2013

Sky Blues said:
What extra revenue streams will CCFC get access to at Sixfields that they would not get access to at the Ricoh? The Northampton Town fella that gave CWR a tour of Sixfields the other day said Coventry would be using Northampton's caters for food and beverage.

We are apparently "sharing" the F & B revenue.

My impression though was that we pay all the costs.

So are we any better off?

This "maximise revenue streams" thing is an absolute furphy.

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 11, 2013

grego_gee said:
Yes you are right, there does seem to be an element of cost involved.
But I don't think it's just that.
There have been posts on here saying "what would you do if you were the owner?"
That implicitly implies "If you were the owner you would expect to be able to make your own choice over what to do!"

I think SISU after trying to negotiate a cheaper rent have realised that they don't want to rent but want to "own" along with all income streams.
They have futher realised that they don't need to own the Ricoh in particular - any stadium that the club are using will be just as valuable to them. An empty stadium is little use to anybody!

The councils animosity is understandable but lamentable. "We have built you a nice stadium we expect you to use that. Try snd get planning permission off us fot another one!". The truth is they are taking advantage of the clubs presence to finance the stadium - without the club it is unlikely to work! SISU do not care if it works or not without them, they don't need to bring the Ricoh down to make their alternative stadium work.

Lamentable as the council attitude is, it is that attitude that is solely responsible fot the new stadium being "just outside Coventry"rather thsn within. If the council could be expected to be impartial or better welcome a planning applicacation for a new stadium inside Coventry - SISU would probably be happy to build it there!

imp:

Just no! Coventry City Football club were started in Coventry, have played in Coventry since 1883 and need to continue playing in Coventry unless there is a bloody good reason not to.

Sisu have no intention of returning to Coventry is becoming more of a fact than an opinion wouldn't you say?

Sky Blues · Jul 11, 2013

The Penguin said:
We are apparently "sharing" the F & B revenue.

My impression though was that we pay all the costs.

So are we any better off?

This "maximise revenue streams" thing is an absolute furphy.

I don't know what furphy means, but it sounds like it means what I think it means, which is something rhyming with rollocks.

The Penguin · Jul 11, 2013

Sky Blues said:
I don't know what furphy means, but it sounds like it means what I think it means, which is something rhyming with rollocks.

That is correct.

It is bollocks

grego_gee · Jul 11, 2013

Astute said:
So if you are a serious Cov fan......would you take CCFC to play in Northampton where you are paying to use the ground when you can use the Ricoh until a ground is built? All profits to go to the academy that you also own. Or do you really want the Ricoh for nothing?

The temporary groundshare was necessary because time ran out.
I am sure SISU were a willing buyer for the arena and would have paid a substatial price for it (say £50m) - (original cost less Tesco land sale less grants) rather than build a new stadium.
But the council would not sell it!

imp:

James Smith · Jul 11, 2013

Astute said:
But we all know that it is CCFC suicide making us play in Northampton. I would say they will be lucky to have 1m turnover playing there.........very lucky indeed. Then they have to pay for playing there. The extra expenses. Where will our club shop be? Oh yes I forgot.......we have a barrow :thinking about:

This is much more than where we play. It is much more than ticket sales over the next 5 years or more......although would they keep us going that long?

They are used to taking over companies in distress. They are not used to having thousands of people watching their every move. They are not used to having MP's questioning what they are doing. I think they have bitten off much more than they can chew. We have some very knowledgeable fans (I may be Astute....not that astute though). We have very passionate fans. We won't let them walk all over us. We are not just a company to take over and asset strip, tossing the remainder away.

We are CCFC. Loud, proud and willing to do anything to save our club. :blue:

Surprised Tim hasn't called it a Mobile Merchandising Display Vehicle.

Ripbuster · Jul 11, 2013

Another string to the bow of the righteous......Well done Hoffman,you played a blinder and SISU reply was exactly what we expected. :claping hands:

Astute · Jul 11, 2013

grego_gee said:
The temporary groundshare was necessary because time ran out.
I am sure SISU were a willing buyer for the arena and would have paid a substatial price for it (say £50m) - (original cost less Tesco land sale less grants) rather than build a new stadium.
But the council would not sell it!

imp:

Time ran out? They are not even supposed to be ruining...sorry....running our club whilst we are in admin.

Sisued · Jul 11, 2013

grego_gee said:
The temporary groundshare was necessary because time ran out.
I am sure SISU were a willing buyer for the arena and would have paid a substatial price for it (say £50m) - (original cost less Tesco land sale less grants) rather than build a new stadium.
But the council would not sell it!

imp:

No they dont want to pay the going rate for the ground they want it cheaply. Why should anyone sell an asset for less than its worth?
SISU are full of shit.
We are moving from our city, going to get less fans, probably have to lower ticket prices in an attempt to attract anyone to watch us play. We will lose income on merchandise but we may get some income from pies sold......really ffs does anyone put any fucking credence in this bullshit income from pies? Its utter crap. Fisher is an utter tool and thinks that we are all morons who he can manipulate. We'll all be up at northampton watching the city in 3 games time donchyano. Fuck him, fuck them ...utter cunts the lot of em

Sterling Archer · Jul 11, 2013

mattylad said:
And that's the difference.
I although disagreeing with your position can respect it and your right to state it. You on the other hand oppress anyone whose view is different to your own

That's a joke considering its coming from the poster who calls anyone who doesn't agree with him "a scab" or "Tim Fisher."

Honestly, your posts almost make me want to side with SISU. That's an impressive superpower you got there champ!

skybluejelly · Jul 11, 2013

is it just me ..but the way i read it ..is that he will pay the rent up front ,and then take it back out of gate receipts at a reasonable charge..how do we benefit!! sisu have said on numerous occasions they are not coming back until they have access to food and beverage revenues..

dont get me wrong sisu piss me off as much as anyone else ..but this is just another empty offer

Sterling Archer · Jul 11, 2013

I may be reading between the lines here and be way off the mark but this seems to suggest to me that its SISU's end game to drive ACL out of business and acquire the Ricoh on the cheap. Until ACL are bankrupt or insolvent, we'll play at Northampton. SISU play a waiting game as ACL gets weaker and weaker and struggles financially more and more.

I honestly don't think SISU want to move the club out of Coventry permanently, it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I see this all as a ploy for them to find a legal loophole of getting ownership of the Ricoh dirt cheap. Its the dirtiest of business tactics and pretty ruthless and of course screws us fans over for the present.

The FL surely should see through this charade and block it, especially in this 125 year anniversary of the FL of which they are claiming is all about the fans?

Fisher rejects Hoffman offer (1 Viewer)

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Active 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

New Member

Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency