" Sisu Arvo Otium Arena" (1 Viewer)

sky blue john · Aug 10, 2014

I take it Sisu are back to their Ricoh plan.
Do you think they have been knocked back by all the supermarket chains to fund their modest stadium plans ?
Nopm has worked then because I hardly think a supermarket would invest for a percentage of 1300 fans once a week !

Nick · Aug 10, 2014

I don't think there way a stadium to be knocked back

sky blue john · Aug 10, 2014

Nick said:
I don't think there way a stadium to be knocked back

So did they lie to the FL ?

Sick Boy · Aug 10, 2014

sky blue john said:
Nopm has worked then because I hardly think a supermarket would invest for a percentage of 1300 fans once a week !

hahahahaha!! Staw clutching at its best.

johnniericoh · Aug 10, 2014

sky blue john said:
I take it Sisu are back to their Ricoh plan.
Do you think they have been knocked back by all the supermarket chains to fund their modest stadium plans ?
Nopm has worked then because I hardly think a supermarket would invest for a percentage of 1300 fans once a week !

Don't you mean once a fortnight ??

Nick · Aug 10, 2014

sky blue john said:
So did they lie to the FL ?

I think most people think it is bollocks don't they? No point suddenly believing it as and when to suit?

sky blue john · Aug 10, 2014

I was being generous.

sky blue john · Aug 10, 2014

Nick said:
I think most people think it is bollocks don't they? No point suddenly believing it as and when to suit?

Whether I think its bollocks or not is irrelevant. I thought TF was talking bollocks when he said they would be moving CCFC to sixfields.
They would still had studies done and looked at finance. Did they not take on a company to do this ?

Samo · Aug 10, 2014

sky blue john said:
I take it Sisu are back to their Ricoh plan.
Do you think they have been knocked back by all the supermarket chains to fund their modest stadium plans ?
Nopm has worked then because I hardly think a supermarket would invest for a percentage of 1300 fans once a week !

So you believe they would build if they could?

ccfcway · Aug 10, 2014

Nick said:
I think most people think it is bollocks don't they? No point suddenly believing it as and when to suit?

so our owners are lying ?, and you wonder why some are sympathetic to ACL requests ?

Grendel · Aug 10, 2014

ccfcway said:
so our owners are lying ?, and you wonder why some are sympathetic to ACL requests ?

How does being sympathetic to ACL requests help to bring the club home. Don't bore everyone with your usual juvenile response but directly answer the question.

Nick · Aug 10, 2014

ccfcway said:
so our owners are lying ?, and you wonder why some are sympathetic to ACL requests ?

Yes I think it is bollocks this new stadium. I may be wrong but I think it is a bluff.

skybluetony176 · Aug 10, 2014

sky blue john said:
Whether I think its bollocks or not is irrelevant. I thought TF was talking bollocks when he said they would be moving CCFC to sixfields.
They would still had studies done and looked at finance. Did they not take on a company to do this ?

I reckon that they did the studies and decided it would be cheaper to distress ACL and pick it all up on the cheap than buy the Higgs share. It looks to have backfired spectacularly on one than more level.

1) ACL are now capable of surviving without a club on rent strike.

2) I think it's fair to assume that they possibly didn't expect the JR to go as far as it did. My guess is that they thought the council would fold and surrender to a deal on SISU's terms (the unnumbered freehold). CCC called their bluff and fought the JR distressing SISU.

3) SISU are now being distressed from all quarters. Legal bills (both their own and the councils) lost revenue from sponsors, ticket sales, merchandise and even things like league position due to the 2lots of 10points their failed administration has cost us and loosing the benefits of playing in front of a home crowd (in the real sense of the words). Not to mention that ARVO have had to put in more millions by way of share issues to cover the losses at suxfields for FFP.

The distressers have become the distressees.

Samo · Aug 10, 2014

Nick said:
Yes I think it is bollocks this new stadium. I may be wrong but I think it is a bluff.

Well if its not bollocks it aint going too well is it!

sky blue john · Aug 10, 2014

Samo said:
So you believe they would build if they could?

I think they should build it. But if its outside cov then only expect the sixfield numbers.
Of course they would build it if they could get some supermarket to pay for it, its a no brainer.

Samo · Aug 10, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
I reckon that they did the studies and decided it would be cheaper to distress ACL and pick it all up ob the cheap than buy the Higgs share. It looks to
have backfired spectacularly on one than more level.

1) ACL are now capable of surviving without a club on rent strike.

2) I think it's fair to assume that they possibly didn't expect the JR to go as far as it did. My guess is that they thought the council would fold and surrender to a deal on SISU's terms (the unnumbered freehold). CCC called their bluff and fought the JR distressing SISU.

3) SISU are now being distressed from all quarters. Legal bills (both their own and the councils) lost revenue from sponsors, ticket sales, merchandise and even things like league position due to the 2lots of 10points their failed administration has cost us and loosing the benefits of playing in front of a home crowd (in the real sense of the words). Not to mention that ARVO have had to put in more millions by way of share issues to cover the losses at suxfields for FFP.

The distressers have become the distressees.

It was always a two way thing... Sisu trying to distress ACL to collapse and ACL/CCC trying to force regime change at the club.

Samo · Aug 10, 2014

sky blue john said:
I think they should build it. But if its outside cov then only expect the sixfield numbers.
Of course they would build it if they could get some supermarket to pay for it, its a no brainer.

Well it would be outside Cov obviously. Not that it matters because they will never lay a brick.

RegTheDonk · Aug 10, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
I reckon that they did the studies and decided it would be cheaper to distress ACL and pick it all up on the cheap than buy the Higgs share. It looks to have backfired spectacularly on one than more level.

1) ACL are now capable of surviving without a club on rent strike.

2) I think it's fair to assume that they possibly didn't expect the JR to go as far as it did. My guess is that they thought the council would fold and surrender to a deal on SISU's terms (the unnumbered freehold). CCC called their bluff and fought the JR distressing SISU.

3) SISU are now being distressed from all quarters. Legal bills (both their own and the councils) lost revenue from sponsors, ticket sales, merchandise and even things like league position due to the 2lots of 10points their failed administration has cost us and loosing the benefits of playing in front of a home crowd (in the real sense of the words). Not to mention that ARVO have had to put in more millions by way of share issues to cover the losses at suxfields for FFP.

The distressers have become the distressees.

I would imagine that SISU as a whole have deep enough pockets to keep it going. What I would question is the respectability of Fisher, Joy and all within the SISU group. They've made some pretty shit decisions and their legal eagles have fucked things up on a grand scale. That surely won't bode well with the fund investors. Perhaps now is the time to take a more sensible course of action before they lose more face.

torchomatic · Aug 10, 2014

Like the Ricoh with the Tesco money?

sky blue john said:
Of course they would build it if they could get some supermarket to pay for it, its a no brainer.

skybluetony176 · Aug 10, 2014

Samo said:
It was always a two way thing... Sisu trying to distress ACL to collapse and ACL/CCC trying to force regime change at the club.

Is that what the judge said or representative's of SISU? One is the summing up of a respected judge the other is the ramblings of mad men.

sky blue john · Aug 10, 2014

Samo said:
It was always a two way thing... Sisu trying to distress ACL to collapse and ACL/CCC trying to force regime change at the club.

Well half of your statement is correct and has been proven in a court of law !
But I don't know about you but I would like to see Sisu out ?

Samo · Aug 10, 2014

sky blue john said:
Well half of your statement is correct and has been proven in a court of law !
But I don't know about you but I would like to see Sisu out ?

Yes I would love to see SISU out but unlike you and your hoards I don't think its their fault that its raining today. And by the way, no such thing was proven in a court of law.

Samo · Aug 10, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
Is that what the judge said or representative's of SISU? One is the summing up of a respected judge the other is the ramblings of mad men.

Just common sense observation

sky blue john · Aug 10, 2014

Samo said:
Yes I would love to see SISU out but unlike you and your hoards I don't think its their fault that its raining today. And by the way, no such thing was proven in a court of law.

Lol !
So your calling the judge a liar ?

shy_tall_knight · Aug 10, 2014

torchomatic said:
Like the Ricoh with the Tesco money?

The decision to build the Ricoh plus the arena shopping development were taken in 2002 - there were agreements / partnerships / cooperation with the local council / club / tesco etc....

The retail landscape has changed massively, unlikely to ever get a multi use site like the arena, and who would ever be able to cooperate with SISU ?.

sky blue john · Aug 10, 2014

Your probably right ST Night, Sisu would want at least double the stadium build value along with all the supermarkets revenue for the privilege.
And then Susu would think they were being charitable to the supermarket !

Samo · Aug 10, 2014

sky blue john said:
Lol !
So your calling the judge a liar ?

That was not what the hearing was about. The judge expressed an opinion in his summing up (with which I agree by the way) but it was not 'proved in a court of law.' Subtlety doesn't exist in your world does it SBJ?

sky blue john · Aug 10, 2014

Samo said:
That was not what the trial was about. The judge expressed an opinion in his summing up (with which I agree by the way) but it was not 'proved in a court of law.' Subtlety doesn't exist in your world does it SBJ?

So you are saying that the case was nothing to do with the the claim from Sisu that the council paying the loan was a way of forcing Sisu out ?
Did the judge agree with Sisu that the council were trying to force Sisu out ?

skybluetony176 · Aug 10, 2014

RegTheDonk said:
I would imagine that SISU as a whole have deep enough pockets to keep it going. What I would question is the respectability of Fisher, Joy and all within the SISU group. They've made some pretty shit decisions and their legal eagles have fucked things up on a grand scale. That surely won't bode well with the fund investors. Perhaps now is the time to take a more sensible course of action before they lose more face.

I don't think the overall size of sisu's pockets come into it. Unless someone can tell me better I don't think that's how hedge funds work. I think that when you invest in a hedge fund you don't invest in the hedge fund in it's entirety, you invest in a portfolio of some of the companies that they are involved in nas apposed to every company that they are involved in.

sky blue john · Aug 10, 2014

Samo I want CCFC back at the Ricoh but not at any price to CCFC.
The price and debt baggage with Sisu at the helm is to high !

skybluetony176 · Aug 10, 2014

Samo said:
Just common sense observation

Isn't common sense usually based on something factual?

You know when you go and watch a film in the cinema its not a documentary, right.

fernandopartridge · Aug 10, 2014

sky blue john said:
I take it Sisu are back to their Ricoh plan.
Do you think they have been knocked back by all the supermarket chains to fund their modest stadium plans ?
Nopm has worked then because I hardly think a supermarket would invest for a percentage of 1300 fans once a week !

Another quality post from Luton John

torchomatic · Aug 10, 2014

Yeah, like the Ricoh with the Tesco money.

shy_tall_knight said:
The decision to build the Ricoh plus the arena shopping development were taken in 2002 - there were agreements / partnerships / cooperation with the local council / club / tesco etc....

The retail landscape has changed massively, unlikely to ever get a multi use site like the arena, and who would ever be able to cooperate with SISU ?.

Samo · Aug 10, 2014

sky blue john said:
So you are saying that the case was nothing to do with the the claim from Sisu that the council paying the loan was a way of forcing Sisu out ?
Did the judge agree with Sisu that the council were trying to force Sisu out ?

The hearing was about whether or not the loan made to ACL by CCC was legal. That's it. The reasons are almost academic. As for SISU's claim that CCC wanted to force them out... I'm inclined to agree with them. But it really doesn't matter and let's face it, who the fuck doesn't want them out?

Jack Griffin · Aug 10, 2014

torchomatic said:
Like the Ricoh with the Tesco money?

As you well know, that money did not quite stretch far enough and CCC were left to foot a £22M bill, £14.4M of which is outstanding & was central to the recent JR.

But yes it was a sound idea to get Tesco to pay but not an original one, other stadia have been financed similarly or by building in industrial developments (e.g. Pride Park) or housing & leisure developments (e.g. Emitates and now Sixfields).

" Sisu Arvo Otium Arena" (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Member

Administrator

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

Well-Known 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

Well-Known 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

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency