Non AMP
Sky Blues Talk
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Quality of other grounds (1 Viewer)

  • Thread starter skybluehugh
  • Start date Dec 28, 2012
Forums New posts
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Next
1 of 3 Next Last
S

skybluehugh

New Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #1
I have just watched the goals from Stevenage and how anyone can compare the rent we pay for the Ricoh to what others pay is laughable. Compared to our ground theirs and others are still in the 1950's. Yes I agree that it needs to be lower but let's get it right some of the figures our owners are talking about are just plain stupid.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #2
skybluehugh said:
I have just watched the goals from Stevenage and how anyone can compare the rent we pay for the Ricoh to what others pay is laughable. Compared to our ground theirs and others are still in the 1950's. Yes I agree that it needs to be lower but let's get it right some of the figures our owners are talking about are just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

But we have a div3 ground as we have a div3 club
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #3
Yes, by all means let's be a third division team paying a Premiership rent. Just don't moan when we can't afford players like McGoldrick.
 
S

skybluehugh

New Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #4
torchomatic said:
Yes, by all means let's be a third division team paying a Premiership rent. Just don't moan when we can't afford players like McGoldrick.
Click to expand...

They have never had any intention of buying Mcg, and that shows just how short sighted they are. With him and Clark we could make a real push for promotion. But to them the club can screw themselves as long as they get the ground for free.

But of course Torch we carn't say anything bad about our saviours, can we.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #5
And how do you know there was no intention of getting McGoldrick? All I'm saying is that there are loads of fans apparently shuffling themselves off with the thought of ACL "winning" the rent argument who will no doubt moan when we can't afford McGoldrick or if we end up selling our next rising star. They can't have it all ways.

skybluehugh said:
They have never had any intention of buying Mcg, and that shows just how short sighted they are. With him and Clark we could make a real push for promotion. But to them the club can screw themselves as long as they get the ground for free.

But of course Torch we carn't say anything bad about our saviours, can we.
Click to expand...
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #6
If we can get ours for £300,000 a year grounds like at Stevenage should cost 20p
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #7
They pay 25k for a 6k stadium, on logic someone suggested on Colchester, so CCFC should pay 5.3x what they pay, so we should pay in and around 226k.
 
S

Steve.B50

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #8
Stevenage were in conference a few years ago and the ground is still at that level. £23 to get in was over the top but the last 15 mins of the game made it worth it, free parking aswell.
Oldham is the worst I have been to this season but they make up for it with the best pies in the league, so far.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #9
skybluehugh said:
They have never had any intention of buying Mcg, and that shows just how short sighted they are. With him and Clark we could make a real push for promotion. But to them the club can screw themselves as long as they get the ground for free.

But of course Torch we carn't say anything bad about our saviours, can we.
Click to expand...

MR has said we'll fight to keep McG.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #10
So, were we as equally short sighted into getting him in the first place? And Bailey? And Adams? And Robins?

skybluehugh said:
They have never had any intention of buying Mcg, and that shows just how short sighted they are.
Click to expand...
 
M

Macca

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #11
I might be simple (no in fact I am) but surely the league we are in is irrelevant, its the premises we are renting?
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #12
Maybe we should think that a club with the revenue of a third division team has to find money to rent a Premiership stadium.

Macca said:
I might be simple (no in fact I am) but surely the league we are in is irrelevant, its the premises we are renting?
Click to expand...
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #13
Maybe if they took the toilets out and replaced them with a piss stinking room and then removed kiosks and replaced them with dodgy burger vans it would be better....as long as some rent was paid.....

Torch, my biggest problem is that no rent is being paid. Not that we should pay more, less or even as much as SISU say.
 

TheParsonsHose

Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #14
torchomatic said:
Yes, by all means let's be a third division team paying a Premiership rent. Just don't moan when we can't afford players like McGoldrick.
Click to expand...

The council should insist Sisu sign DMG as part of any deal LOL
 
M

Macca

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #15
torchomatic said:
Maybe we should think that a club with the revenue of a third division team has to find money to rent a Premiership stadium.
Click to expand...

But I don t see how that is the landlords fault.

As I say simple is my thing. If I rented a house and then lost my job and my salary went down , the rent wouldn t be lowered.

I know it is more complicated than that, but it seems SISU have ACL by the nuts on this one. Basically I'm just interested in us surviving but I still try to get my head around SISU being the good guys and ACL the guilty party
 
M

Macca

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #16
Astute said:
Maybe if they took the toilets out and replaced them with a piss stinking room and then removed kiosks and replaced them with dodgy burger vans it would be better....as long as some rent was paid.....

Torch, my biggest problem is that no rent is being paid. Not that we should pay more, less or even as much as SISU say.
Click to expand...

I d be happy with that,spent many a happy year watching football without the malls that are required for low attention span cases these days
 

TheParsonsHose

Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #17
Macca said:
But I don t see how that is the landlords fault.

As I say simple is my thing. If I rented a house and then lost my job and my salary went down , the rent wouldn t be lowered.

I know it is more complicated than that, but it seems SISU have ACL by the nuts on this one. Basically I'm just interested in us surviving but I still try to get my head around SISU being the good guys and ACL the guilty party
Click to expand...

You would go and get a cheaper house though as there are many about. We are a bit stuffed to find a house that will fit a family of 12000
 

CJparker

New Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #18
Hang on a minute, the rental agreement never envisaged a variable level of rent based on league position. It was clearly to CCFC's advantage, in that the higher the club got in the league, the better. Conversely, this was an incentive not to fall down the league pyramid - because as we did the rent would become unaffordable.

The Ricoh is a Premier League quality ground, with facilities and capacity to match - this comes with a whole load of associated costs that are on another scale to the likes of Oldham, Yeovil etc.

It's very convenient to say "we shouldn't be paying higher than other teams in our league" when a) it's CCFC's fault (not ACL's) that we are in such a low league, b) there was never an agreement to reduce the rent if we got relegated, and c) the extra costs of running the Ricoh, as opposed to Victoria Park, Broadfield etc.....not to mention the millions in loans taken out by CCC/ACL to cover the building costs they incurred when CCFC could have become homeless.

Whatever way you look at it, CCFC does not have a leg to stand on, which is why the court found in ACL's favour.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #19
Ah, the old house analogy. No, you'd be thrown out. However, this isn't an individual and a house it's a 130 year old football club fighting for it's survival.

I'm a simple man, me. SISU own CCFC and I support CCFC. ACL do not own or run CCFC so I do not support ACL. I want the best possible deal the football club can get so if they have to play hard ball to get it, then so be it.

Macca said:
But I don t see how that is the landlords fault.

As I say simple is my thing. If I rented a house and then lost my job and my salary went down , the rent wouldn t be lowered.

I know it is more complicated than that, but it seems SISU have ACL by the nuts on this one. Basically I'm just interested in us surviving but I still try to get my head around SISU being the good guys and ACL the guilty party
Click to expand...
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #20
Macca said:
I d be happy with that,spent many a happy year watching football without the malls that are required for low attention span cases these days
Click to expand...

So would I. That is one of the reasons why you can't beat an away day.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #21
True. And I bet at the time of the rental agreement being signed ACL were creaming in their pants that they'd got away with it. McGinnity should have brokered a better deal.

CJparker said:
Hang on a minute, the rental agreement never envisaged a variable level of rent based on league position. It was clearly to CCFC's advantage, in that the higher the club got in the league, the better. Conversely, this was an incentive not to fall down the league pyramid - because as we did the rent would become unaffordable.

The Ricoh is a Premier League quality ground, with facilities and capacity to match - this comes with a whole load of associated costs that are on another scale to the likes of Oldham, Yeovil etc.

It's very convenient to say "we shouldn't be paying higher than other teams in our league" when a) it's CCFC's fault (not ACL's) that we are in such a low league, b) there was never an agreement to reduce the rent if we got relegated, and c) the extra costs of running the Ricoh, as opposed to Victoria Park, Broadfield etc.....not to mention the millions in loans taken out by CCC/ACL to cover the building costs they incurred when CCFC could have become homeless.

Whatever way you look at it, CCFC does not have a leg to stand on, which is why the court found in ACL's favour.
Click to expand...
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #22
torchomatic said:
Ah, the old house analogy. No, you'd be thrown out. However, this isn't an individual and a house it's a 130 year old football club fighting for it's survival.

I'm a simple man, me. SISU own CCFC and I support CCFC. ACL do not own or run CCFC so I do not support ACL. I want the best possible deal the football club can get so if they have to play hard ball to get it, then so be it.
Click to expand...

And when SISU sent us down last season by not replacing players lost before the season started you backed them fully again?
 
E

elephanttears

New Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #23
what ccfc will never forget is the way we have been exploited, yes were a long way from standing on our own 2 feet and decisions were made within the club that got us here, make no mistake about it acl is a organization designed to make money of ccfc. That will not be forgotten.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #24
Astute said:
And when SISU sent us down last season by not replacing players lost before the season started you backed them fully again?
Click to expand...

It was a statistical inevitability we would be relegated. That really is not relevant.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #25
And we went down ten years ago for the same reason. We are Coventry City we have always sold our best players and if things don't improve we always will. They've made mistakes as all football clubs do. This year they are getting it right on the pitch - as I'm sure even you can agree with - so they obviously seem to be learning. Now, we just need to sort ourselves out off the pitch.

Astute said:
And when SISU sent us down last season by not replacing players lost before the season started you backed them fully again?
Click to expand...
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #26
That's exactly right because without the football club they are nothing.

elephanttears said:
what ccfc will never forget is the way we have been exploited, yes were a long way from standing on our own 2 feet and decisions were made within the club that got us here, make no mistake about it acl is a organization designed to make money of ccfc. That will not be forgotten.
Click to expand...
 

covcity4life

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #27
skybluehugh said:
I have just watched the goals from Stevenage and how anyone can compare the rent we pay for the Ricoh to what others pay is laughable. Compared to our ground theirs and others are still in the 1950's. Yes I agree that it needs to be lower but let's get it right some of the figures our owners are talking about are just plain stupid.
Click to expand...


shut up fool
 
M

Macca

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #28
I have no problem with doing anything to save the football club but I struggle to see how not paying our dues can be considered right.

If another club owed us £5 million for a player or they went out of business would we give a toss, no we'd want whats owed.

As I say lets hope the rent is dropped to what SISU want to pay but lets not dress it up as justifiable for any other reason than having a club to support
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #29
torchomatic said:
And we went down ten years ago for the same reason. We are Coventry City we have always sold our best players and if things don't improve we always will. They've made mistakes as all football clubs do. This year they are getting it right on the pitch - as I'm sure even you can agree with - so they obviously seem to be learning. Now, we just need to sort ourselves out off the pitch.
Click to expand...

Nobody has had more faith than myself on what has been done on the pitch. So do you think it is right they don't even pay what they think is a fair rent?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #30
Macca said:
I have no problem with doing anything to save the football club but I struggle to see how not paying our dues can be considered right.

If another club owed us £5 million for a player or they went out of business would we give a toss, no we'd want whats owed.

As I say lets hope the rent is dropped to what SISU want to pay but lets not dress it up as justifiable for any other reason than having a club to support
Click to expand...

I didn't see as much moral indignation when the last regime did not pay transfer fees owed to other clubs though, did you?
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #31
I think they are doing what they believe will achieve an affordable and sustainable rent to ensure the club has a future. I have no problem with them doing that or how they achieve it.

Astute said:
Nobody has had more faith than myself on what has been done on the pitch. So do you think it is right they don't even pay what they think is a fair rent?
Click to expand...
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #32
Exactly. I don't remember people coming on here demanding we pay Southampton the money owed for Leon Best. There's definitely a smell of hypocrisy in the air.

Grendel said:
I didn't see as much moral indignation when the last regime did not pay transfer fees owed to other clubs though, did you?
Click to expand...
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #33
torchomatic said:
I think they are doing what they believe will achieve an affordable and sustainable rent to ensure the club has a future. I have no problem with them doing that or how they achieve it.
Click to expand...

So you now trust them with the future of our club?
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #34
Yes, I don't have a problem with them owning and running CCFC. If they get the Arena at a low rent, improve the squad and eventually buy half or all of the stadium then it would ultimately make us more attractive to another buyer who could maybe take us to the next level.

The majority of people who don't "trust them with the future of our club" seem to be a few blokes on an internet forum. Why should that bother me?

The lowest point of my 40 years of supporting Coventry City came when Richardson sold HR, the only asset we had. We need to get back to where we own (or part own) our own ground. The club will forever struggle without that.

Astute said:
So you now trust them with the future of our club?
Click to expand...
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Dec 28, 2012
  • #35
torchomatic said:
The lowest point of my 40 years of supporting Coventry City came when Richardson sold HR, the only asset we had. We need to get back to where we own (or part own) our own ground. The club will forever struggle without that.
Click to expand...

My lowest point was getting relegated to Div3. As you well know SISU admitted it was their fault.
 
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Next
1 of 3 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Share:
Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
  • Default Style
  • Contact us
  • Terms and rules
  • Privacy policy
  • Help
  • Home
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2021 XenForo Ltd.
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Home
  • Forums
    • New posts
    • Search forums
  • What's new
    • New posts
    • Latest activity
  • Members
    • Current visitors
  • Donate to the Season Ticket Fund
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?