Astute
Well-Known Member
Is that why we have been able to keep all of our best players from last season?
There is no suggestion the club has a cash flow problem is there?
The lease is worthless though as it has no tenant. That's my point. The stadium won't attract a lease purchaser as it has no marketability, no sponsor and even the car parking has been taken away - the club would be the only interested party.
There is no suggestion the club has a cash flow problem is there?
The lease is worthless though as it has no tenant. That's my point. The stadium won't attract a lease purchaser as it has no marketability, no sponsor and even the car parking has been taken away - the club would be the only interested party.
Yes, my bias is obvious - it has been the same for many years. I want ACL and CCFC under the same umbrella. I want the club to benefit from every pence spent at the stadium.
I have said it countless times. I said it before most on here believed FFP would ever become an issue.
But I don't want sisu to own the Ricoh. I have said that just as many times. I want SBS&L to own the club and ACL (or equivalent management company), but not the freehold, not the stadium itself.
Sisu own SBS&L for now, but that can change. If they lose the JR - maybe they will walk and invite Byng to buy the club.
But whoever owns the club, it is imperative they also own ACL.
It's just a shame that sisu won't confirm that SBS & L will be the entity that would own ACL or another equivalent management company.
It would be so easy to do this don't you ever wonder why they won't?
The lease is worthless though as it has no tenant. That's my point. The stadium won't attract a lease purchaser as it has no marketability, no sponsor and even the car parking has been taken away - the club would be the only interested party.
The lease is worthless though as it has no tenant. That's my point. The stadium won't attract a lease purchaser as it has no marketability, no sponsor and even the car parking has been taken away - the club would be the only interested party.
Which is what most of us want. But most of us don't constantly try and make out that ACL is losing money when there is no proof at all of it being true.
Timothy admitted that it wouldn't be owned by our club. What he wouldn't admit to was how much rent our club would be charged.
Timothy admitted that it wouldn't be owned by our club. What he wouldn't admit to was how much rent our club would be charged.
Yes - he said it wouldn't be owned by the club - and the club is Otium, remember?
The ONLY way sisu will ever make any money is if they sell on the club and stadium management in a package. Nobody would buy one without the other.
And the only way the club would benefit from the revenue made by the stadium management company would be if they were in the same group.
Oh - and the council issues the lease. How hard can it be to have it written the club and lease should always be in the same group?
No, that is not the impression I get reading here. I get the impression that it would be excellent going back to where we came from a year ago. A rental deal. Which is NOT the long term solution that will see the club ever get back where we were 15 years ago.
I also get the impression that keeping ACL outside the ccfc family is what many fights for. That this is more important than securing the clubs future.
If ACL goes bust, so what? Another will emerge as the stadium requires management.
ACL made a profit when the club was playing there. When the club paid £1.3m per year.
The club helped keeping the stadium management company healthy.
It should be the other way around - the stadium management should help keep the club healthy.
Yes - he said it wouldn't be owned by the club - and the club is Otium, remember?
The ONLY way sisu will ever make any money is if they sell on the club and stadium management in a package. Nobody would buy one without the other.
And the only way the club would benefit from the revenue made by the stadium management company would be if they were in the same group.
Oh - and the council issues the lease. How hard can it be to have it written the club and lease should always be in the same group?
I love the way people keep saying that nobody would buy the club without the stadium conveniently forgetting that that's exactly what sisu did and are you seriously telling me that nobody has ever bought or sold a football club without the stadium?
That's straight out the same book of lame evidence as "every football financial expert says that no club can survive without ownership of its ground" then it turns out we're far from the only club in the world who don't own there stadium and I'm still looking for a list of every football financial expert, it seems very illusive.
I love the way people keep saying that nobody would buy the club without the stadium conveniently forgetting that that's exactly what sisu did
Which is surely the best argument for getting them united...
If you mean it would future proof the club from another sisu type turning up in the future you may well have a point.
I just ain't convinced that sisu uniting club and stadium (if that's what they will do) will automatically mean that they will offload us as a package to make a profit.
For starters I don't think it will necessarily make them a profit.
Profit wouldn't be a profit from when they took over the club (first time).
You'd think that the latter would worry every CCFC fan wouldn't you.
Who at the club is going to bring up a crippling rent when the landlord is your boss. Or put the club on rent strike when the landlord is your boss. Or start talking about building our own stadium to get out of the mess when the landlord is also your boss.
We could end up limping from season to season with no investment in the club because all the profit is being extracted by your landlord, who's also your boss.
Exactly and this would be on top of the 1.8million a year interest fees to Arvo !!!
Interest rates and high rent are the only way I can see SISU/ARVO ever getting there money back with a return out of our club.
Take Fulham as an example. Look at what Mohamed Al Fayed paid for it. Look at how much he had to lend them (interest free by the way) to get them into the premiership and keep them there. Then look at what he sold them for. He made a loss.
And has offered to buy them back for half the amount he sold them for
Don't give sisu ideas
I think you'll find I said facility wise the Ricoh was far superior than high field road.
But you have never defended it against the likes of sixfields?
I wonder why?
How can any City supporter not defend there own ground?
It's not our own ground it's the councils.
It's not our own ground it's the councils.
What a ridiculous notion. I spent my whole childhood and a good part of my adult life living in a council house and it was always my home.
Home is where the heart is. Bricks and mortar do not make a home.
Its not ridiculous. Swansea rent but that is their home. We don't have their benefits. We are very much the tenant not the owner and until this is recognised we will not have the team back in Coventry.
Its not ridiculous. Swansea rent but that is their home. We don't have their benefits. We are very much the tenant not the owner and until this is recognised we will not have the team back in Coventry.
Its not ridiculous. Swansea rent but that is their home. We don't have their benefits. We are very much the tenant not the owner and until this is recognised we will not have the team back in Coventry.
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?