Question regarding sisu (1 Viewer)

ACL refuse to negotiate with Sisu, have dome since about February I think.

hitmanhearns said:

Ok so they refuse to negotiate with ACL even though they probably? could reach an agreement and and a rent which both parties would accept, why are they not doing this?

Is it because they have been told they will, under no circumstances, be able to buy a share in the ricoh? And as a result have to move to build a stadium and a revenue stream that is needed to sustain the club and not come into admin again hence protecting their investment?
The risks with a move away from the ricoh are superhigh though it could all go pearshaped and cost sisu an enoermous amount of money....why take this big risk?

Or is this all happening because they really want out, just jacking up the price?
I mean they could just go to acl and say "we will pay a fair rent" and the problem at hand would be solved they would have a home to present to the FL when asked where to play next season, that would be the logical first step no?

Or is ACL forcing them out so they won´t have a ground when the FL ask where the club will play and a takeover bid becomes more attractive to the FL?

what do you think ?

Click to expand...

As I see it............

SISU didn't like the price tag involved in securing 50% of the Ricoh nor did they like the fact that it would still leave the council able to veto any proposal for the Ricoh they dont like. Much better in their eyes to get all the Ricoh at a very low price by taking ACL out of admin. Their plan failed when the council propped up ACL and so now they are having to get out of town taking their ball (CCFC) with them.

ACL want someone to invest in the land around the Ricoh as it makes them more money, they do not want to hand over control of the Ricoh to the club as several people at the top of ACL know they would be out of a very well paid jobs. They refuse to grasp the fact that those jobs should never have existed and that for the good of the city we need a single umbrella approach. CCFC in the prem would be worth to this city in one year what the Ricoh will make in 40 years with CCFC in the lower divisions.

The Higgs trust would like out but can only do so with the councils blessing on who they sell too and so are pretty much scuppered if CCFC leave as it then gets no return.

The fact is if the people at the Ricoh want a football team in situ next season then it better start making some serious concessions to those who are prepared to invest and the first part is to agree that total control of the day to day activities will live with the (new) owners of CCFC.

To the OP your first half of post is innaccurate as there is no Risk to SISU whatsoever only their investors and the Football club.

sisu investing £30m in a new stadium is just bluster, since their initial investment in 2007 they have are in profit on player sales but this is less than the continual operating losses. There is an amicable rent that could be agreed but IMO SISU are never going to invest sufficiently to allow us to challenge for the Premiership. I think the current SISU strategy is aimed at maximising the sales price when they eventually leave. Can't believe they really think the club could survive a 3 year relocation to Walsall and how many construction companies would like to deal with SISU following ACL's experience.

The thing is nobody trusts sIsu - but there are no good guys in this . Its the baddies "sisu (Joy and Ken)" v the other baddies "ACL (PWK)" v the other baddies "cov council(Mutton and co)"

The supporters want to cheer for the good guy - but he doesnt exist, so instead they will follow anybody

mattylad said:

As I see it............

SISU didn't like the price tag involved in securing 50% of the Ricoh nor did they like the fact that it would still leave the council able to veto any proposal for the Ricoh they dont like. Much better in their eyes to get all the Ricoh at a very low price by taking ACL out of admin. Their plan failed when the council propped up ACL and so now they are having to get out of town taking their ball (CCFC) with them.

ACL want someone to invest in the land around the Ricoh as it makes them more money,

Click to expand...

But ACL don't pay dividends at the moment so neither shareholder gets a cut of ACL Profits these are reinvested in the Ricoh. Council do get the mortgage payments now but that's separate from dividends/profits

mattylad said:

they do not want to hand over control of the Ricoh to the club as several people at the top of ACL know they would be out of a very well paid jobs. They refuse to grasp the fact that those jobs should never have existed and that for the good of the city we need a single umbrella approach. CCFC in the prem would be worth to this city in one year what the Ricoh will make in 40 years with CCFC in the lower divisions.

The Higgs trust would like out but can only do so with the councils blessing on who they sell too and so are pretty much scuppered if CCFC leave as it then gets no return.

The fact is if the people at the Ricoh want a football team in situ next season then it better start making some serious concessions to those who are prepared to invest and the first part is to agree that total control of the day to day activities will live with the (new) owners of CCFC.

Click to expand...

ACL is controlled by a board of directors made up by 2 from the charity, 2 from the council and 2 independents handy in case of deadlock. Now if you're alleging that the only reason that ACL hasn't been sold is down solely to fact that the directors are looking out for their friends/colleagues jobs then that's a serious allegation and one that I hope you haven't made lightly.

James Smith said:

ACL is controlled by a board of directors made up by 2 from the charity, 2 from the council and 2 independents handy in case of deadlock. Now if you're alleging that the only reason that ACL hasn't been sold is down solely to fact that the directors are looking out for their friends/colleagues jobs then that's a serious allegation and one that I hope you haven't made lightly.

Click to expand...

But it isn't really though is it.

I don't see many people jumping to the defence of TF recently, and I seem to recall allegations aimed at him that go way beyond suggestions he is 'looking out for his mates'.

hitmanhearns said:

Ok so they refuse to negotiate with ACL even though they probably? could reach an agreement and and a rent which both parties would accept, why are they not doing this?

Is it because they have been told they will, under no circumstances, be able to buy a share in the ricoh? And as a result have to move to build a stadium and a revenue stream that is needed to sustain the club and not come into admin again hence protecting their investment?
The risks with a move away from the ricoh are superhigh though it could all go pearshaped and cost sisu an enoermous amount of money....why take this big risk?

Or is this all happening because they really want out, just jacking up the price?
I mean they could just go to acl and say "we will pay a fair rent" and the problem at hand would be solved they would have a home to present to the FL when asked where to play next season, that would be the logical first step no?

Or is ACL forcing them out so they won´t have a ground when the FL ask where the club will play and a takeover bid becomes more attractive to the FL?

what do you think ?

Click to expand...

OR since CCFC Ltd have the lease & they are under the control of the administrator...are they negotiating a way forward by dealing with ACL via the administrator?

lordsummerisle said:

ACL refuse to negotiate with Sisu, have dome since about February I think.

Click to expand...

Isn't that because they will only deal with the administrator as he is the one with the say?

Nick said:

Isn't that because they will only deal with the administrator as he is the one with the say?

Click to expand...

Not when it was months before the club went into admin.

Was an answer in the SBTrust/ACL/Sisu Q@A.

theferret said:

But it isn't really though is it.

I don't see many people jumping to the defence of TF recently, and I seem to recall allegations aimed at him that go way beyond suggestions he is 'looking out for his mates'.

Click to expand...

Yes it is if someone is suggesting that the directors of a business are not carrying out their fiduciary (big word there I just looked up the meaning of) duty to the company. If I'm jumping to the defence of anyone it is that poster because making potentialy defamatory statements is not clever and it also makes the publisher of the site (Nick) liable too. Not sure I'd leap to Tim Fishers Defence, might encourage him to take a flying leap but that's a different matter.