Les Reid= FAIL (5 Viewers)

theferret · Sep 26, 2013

chiefdave said:
would the club and stadium be under single ownership? I've not seen that stated anywhere and that's part of my problem with the new ground scheme. SISU could create a new company which charges CCFC rent and retains matchday revenues, exactly the same situation as we're in with ACL. They could also sell the club in the future but retain ownership of the ground. There's a lot of unanswered questions and until they get answered we just don't know if we would be any better off in a new ground.

Of course they could sell the club and retain stadium ownership, but who in their right mind would buy it without at the very least safeguarding the revenue streams essential for the club to prosper. It's all well and good saying SISU would sell the club on in that scenario, but they would have to make it attractive enough for someone to buy it, and given what has happened I doubt buyers would be queuing up. Some pretty full-on due-dilligence would take place before anyone bought the club in those circumstances.

TheOldFive · Sep 26, 2013

So OldSkyBlue, does this make the importance of the question the red herring I suspected ?

Deleted member 5849 · Sep 26, 2013

oldskyblue58 said:
You can sell both at the same time. If the holding company owns the property and the subsidiary the football team you sell the holding company to sell it all.

Of course you do.

skybluetony176 · Sep 26, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Having drawn attention, very publicly, to the problems of one side owning a club while the other owns a ground, why would anybody go to SISU and only buy one half of the whole?

ask shitsu, thats what they did when they bought the club

chiefdave · Sep 26, 2013

theferret said:
Of course they could sell the club and retain stadium ownership, but who in their right mind would buy it without at the very least safeguarding the revenue streams essential for the club to prosper. It's all well and good saying SISU would sell the club on in that scenario, but they would have to make it attractive enough for someone to buy it, and given what has happened I doubt buyers would be queuing up. Some pretty full-on due-dilligence would take place before anyone bought the club in those circumstances.

who knows but what about a scenario where SISU decide CCFC is losing money, the stadium is making money. SISU stop paying the bills for CCFC and we go into administration again, they might gamble that someone, even if only the likes of Joe and Hoff will make a bid to save the club and then they have them tied up with a nice long lease. Of course the new owner could say we're going back to the Ricoh but then we'd be back to everyone being dragged into court with SISU claiming they have a valid lease and want paying for it. it may not be a likely scenario but personally I don't have much trust in SISU to somehow try and pull a fast one if that option is available.

oldskyblue58 · Sep 26, 2013

TheOldFive said:
So OldSkyBlue, does this make the importance of the question the red herring I suspected ?

yes and no because until they actually get a stadium we wont know what it is they are going to do. So raising the point isnt wrong but until there is a stadium they own it is a bit hypothetical.......... and things/circumstances can change.

They might set a rent, sell the club and retain the stadium for instance. The rent would have to be realistic to get the sale, but it might give value to the club if it is a long lease.

There are quite a few options. Its an important question but I wouldnt expect an answer now. But no reason why fans cant show concern about the possibility of the club being charged a high rent though SISU will do what best suits them

Nonleagueherewecome · Sep 26, 2013

chiefdave said:
the point would be if we're going to end up in exactly the same situation why not just stay at the Ricoh? moving away, losing fans and causing all the associated grief there has been is pointless from the clubs perspective if we end up in a new ground we don't own. If there's a clear business case showing the move would benefit the club then great, lets move, however if there isn't, or it's only going to benefit SISU, why bother?

Exactly-we won't be any better off. But SISU will be.

Moff · Sep 26, 2013

Sky Blue Kid said:
The biggest question he should have asked Septic "Which he didn't" according to the statement. Without doubt could have swayed my way of thinking...........................................................Would the Football Club own the new Stadium, and NOT SISU/OTIUM. or indeed any other "Arm" of the SISU business enterprise....If not....Would the "New Stadium" be RENTED to the Football Club???

I cant believe he didn't ring you first to run his questions by you.

lordsummerisle · Sep 26, 2013

Moff said:
I cant believe he didn't ring you first to run his questions by you.

He was watching it live on Sopcast, the Joystation channel.

His texted message did come across the bottom of the screen whilst they were talking, but to be honest don't think that the question was particularly relevant to the problems betweeen the club and ACL/CCC.

Seemed biologically impossible for all but the most supple and trained Yoga expert to accede to the request anyway in my opinion.

Big_Ben · Sep 26, 2013

chiefdave said:
Think the point is if SISU own the stadium and we are paying them rent how is the football club, the bit I assume we are all bothered about, actually better off. Using your house analogy, you own your own house as all the legal documents are in your name, it's only if you default on your mortgage the bank steps in. If you rented your house you could pay for 50 years, and pay way more than the value of the house, without owning a brick.

There's loads of people who have their homes on interest only mortgages who are in exactly that position, so it's a pretty widespread, normally accepted practice. So why is it being made such a huge issue here?
If it's a means of uniting the club with the ground and gaining revenue streams that will benefit the club, why should we worry if the owners should take on other, non-football related interests that could be developed around the central football ground. After all, that's what the original concept was.
Or is it that everybody hates SISU, and they must be stopped at all costs, even if it means the end of the club? Nose, spite and face spring to mind!

Sky Blue Kid · Sep 26, 2013

The Bear.....Here's an Idea?.......Perhaps he could answer some questions I "Tweeted" to him over the last 2-3 months eh?

Nick · Sep 26, 2013

Don't a lot of business owners buy properties as individuals and charge their business rent?

chiefdave · Sep 26, 2013

Big_Ben said:
There's loads of people who have their homes on interest only mortgages who are in exactly that position, so it's a pretty widespread, normally accepted practice. So why is it being made such a huge issue here?
If it's a means of uniting the club with the ground and gaining revenue streams that will benefit the club, why should we worry if the owners should take on other, non-football related interests that could be developed around the central football ground. After all, that's what the original concept was.
Or is it that everybody hates SISU, and they must be stopped at all costs, even if it means the end of the club? Nose, spite and face spring to mind!

But why do people assume the club and ground will be united, or that money made through development of the ground would find it way back to the club, this has not been stated anywhere that I know of.

I'll try and make it clearer. Lets say the council hand SISU the Ricoh for nothing. SISU set up a new company, lets call it LCA and place ownership of the Ricoh in that company. LCA then charge Otium £1.2m a year rent with no access to income streams. SISU now own a money making asset in the stadium, the club own nothing.

Now take another step, CCFC are stuck in L1 losing money and can't afford the rent. Otium is sold (either a straight sale or through another administration). Now Otium is no longer under the same ultimate owners as LCA. SISU have obtained ownership of the Rioch and put in place exactly the same lease they claimed was crippling the club.

Would that happen? Who knows but I think at this stage to assume SISU have the best interests of the football club at heart and would prioritise that over a chance to maximise their return is not the most sensible way to think.

We have to at least ask the question and get a satisfactory answer although I suspect at this stage most people wouldn't believe a satisfactory answer coming from SISU.

Sky Blue Kid · Sep 26, 2013

Moff....I cant believe he didn't ring you first to run his questions by you.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He was going to, but asked if I minded him running it by you and "Sarcastic summerisle" first!

hill83 · Sep 26, 2013

Meltdown number 1

Deleted member 5849 · Sep 26, 2013

chiefdave said:
SISU have obtained ownership of the Rioch and put in place exactly the same lease they claimed was crippling the club.

...then the club is crippled, and SISU soon find themselves owning a ground with no football club.

Deleted member 5849 · Sep 26, 2013

hill83 said:
Meltdown number 1

Just one?

hill83 · Sep 26, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
Just one?

I've been on the beach and this is the first one I've noticed. I'm going to guess it's the funniest without reading any others too.

The Bear · Sep 26, 2013

Sky Blue Kid said:
The Bear.....Here's an Idea?.......Perhaps he could answer some questions I "Tweeted" to him over the last 2-3 months eh?

Perhaps he could. Give them another go...he's been all over Twitter today. Bear in mind that he does it alongside his regular reporting so he might be busy at certain times.

What's your Twitter handle? I'll ask him to keep an eye out.

Sky Blue Kid · Sep 26, 2013

@ The Bear....No thanks mate, not giving my name out, suffice to say, I've tweeted him a couple of times today but no replies.

Grappa · Sep 26, 2013

Sky Blue Kid said:
@ The Bear....No thanks mate, not giving my name out, suffice to say, I've tweeted him a couple of times today but no replies.

To be fair, he does tend to ignore the more idiotic tweets.

WiganSkyBlue · Sep 26, 2013

Was hoping for a Paxman type interview - should have known better really from this particular journalist/columnist.

Sky Blue Kid · Sep 26, 2013

Did somebody say something?

The Bear · Sep 26, 2013

Sky Blue Kid said:
@ The Bear....No thanks mate, not giving my name out, suffice to say, I've tweeted him a couple of times today but no replies.

Fair enough. Post some here and I'll see what I can do. Assuming they're vaguely polite/sane ;-)

fernandopartridge · Sep 26, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
While you're here

The bit about the council being able to take over and thus meaning distressing ACL was pointless as SISU would never be able to gain control of the Ricoh that way, is that a fair alternative position to take, if looking at things?

I quoted that on another thread. It is an important point to bear in mind.

fernandopartridge · Sep 26, 2013

dongonzalos said:
Another insightful contribution.

You really must live in a sad sneering little world

Start another thread about it you attention seeking bore.

hill83 · Sep 26, 2013

fernandopartridge said:
Start another thread about it you attention seeking bore.

Ha ha! Burn.

skybluebal · Sep 26, 2013

skybluetony176 said:
that is the biggest question. alot of people are assuming that a new ground built by shitsu would automatically be owned by the club and the club would only be sold with the ground and vice versa, they are also assuming that the club will not be paying rent for the new ground.

i have challanged more than 1 person on here to prove that this will not be the case and as yet no-one has.

the nearest statement i can find is that a football club should have acces to all revenue that it generates, that doesn't mean the club has to own the ground and it doesn't mean that the club will be paying rent for the ground.

Valid point. With their track record of setting up companies, shifting debt, transferring assets, why would anyone think the situation will be any different for the club?

Snozz_is_god · Sep 26, 2013

I've said it once and I'll say it again. JS has 'USED' Les Reid as a messenger to spread her propaganda. Its a blatant attempt to influence some of the wavering fans that she has the best interest of the club.

Well judging from most peoples responses, its backfired big time & Les is a small time newspaper reporter who's trying to make a name for himself and has jumped into bed with the devil (metaphorically of course).

What this interview says to me is that #NOPM is working.

stupot07 · Sep 26, 2013

Snozz_is_god said:
I've said it once and I'll say it again. JS has 'USED' Les Reid as a messenger to spread her propaganda. Its a blatant attempt to influence some of the wavering fans that she has the best interest of the club.

Well judging from most peoples responses, its backfired big time & Les is a small time newspaper reporter who's trying to make a name for himself and has jumped into bed with the devil (metaphorically of course).

What this interview says to me is that #NOPM is working.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors

theferret · Sep 26, 2013

Snozz_is_god said:
I've said it once and I'll say it again. JS has 'USED' Les Reid as a messenger to spread her propaganda. Its a blatant attempt to influence some of the wavering fans that she has the best interest of the club.

Well judging from most peoples responses, its backfired big time & Les is a small time newspaper reporter who's trying to make a name for himself and has jumped into bed with the devil (metaphorically of course).

What this interview says to me is that #NOPM is working.

Of course it is, it's PR. That's the whole point.

And I hardly think she 'used' him - she could quite easily have said all that on a statement published on the club website.

What this interview says to me is that nopm has little chance of succeeding. Did she come across as the sort of person likely to cave in to pressure?

RegTheDonk · Sep 26, 2013

theferret said:
Of course it is, it's PR. That's the whole point.

And I hardly think she 'used' him - she could quite easily have said all that on a statement published on the club website.

What this interview says to me is that nopm has little chance of succeeding. Did she come across as the sort of person likely to cave in to pressure?

You're probably right re NOPM ferret. While financially she said she would fund the club, staying away or demonstrating will still have some negative PR for SISU. Plus, morally, seems the right thing to do unless we go back to Cov.

RegTheDonk · Sep 26, 2013

The Bear said:
Here's an idea...instead of moaning on here about Les Reid not doing/saying/writing what you want, why not actually talk to the lad himself? He's nearly always happy to answer enquiries via Twitter:
https://twitter.com/Lesreidpolitics

If you want a question asked or some decent information from the person who knows more about this whole debacle than anyone else I can think of, off you go.

I know one thing for sure, he doesn't go wading down into forum posts trying to find out what's what.

Sky Blue Kid said:
The Bear.....Here's an Idea?.......Perhaps he could answer some questions I "Tweeted" to him over the last 2-3 months eh?

Yes, I've also tweeted a couple of things to him over the last few months. Didn't get a reply.

I'm not a WUM or controversial - whats he got against me

Hobo · Sep 26, 2013

theferret said:
Of course it is, it's PR. That's the whole point.

And I hardly think she 'used' him - she could quite easily have said all that on a statement published on the club website.

What this interview says to me is that nopm has little chance of succeeding. Did she come across as the sort of person likely to cave in to pressure?

She is hardly going to come out and say I'm caving in under pressure. But she is feeling the pressure. The bad publicity is stacking up. She is just trying to frighten ACL by adopting a bullish stance.

However I still believe they are in the stronger position. Seppala doesn't want to be funding CCFC for the next 5 to 10 seasons at Northampton. She can't get the return she wants by selling. They have to be committed to the long term, unless they get a break.

RegTheDonk · Sep 26, 2013

Hobo said:
......... Seppala doesn't want to be funding CCFC for the next 5 to 10 seasons at Northampton. She can't get the return she wants by selling. They have to be committed to the long term, unless they get a break.

The longer they stay there, the more dosh they will be flushing down the bog. She said she had investors backing the Northampton move, but like you said, the won't want to hold out indefinitely.

What would be interesting is when/if they finally announce where this new ground is going to be built, and what the local residents/council make of it. Would there be enough opposition to make it a no no?

And if its rejected locally, what would SISUs next step be? Cap in hand to the Ricoh, or crying to the FL that we have to stay in Northampton (with the investor continuing to lose money).

Les Reid= FAIL (5 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

New Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency