Sisu (6 Viewers)

ICHAN · Oct 21, 2016

We all agree that Sisu are not the best owners ever.
But if the sky blue glasses come off (mine did years ago), would you keep investing in a business where if you look at it as a business, people don't go to watch a team they are supposed to support?
They could look at it, if the people don't care about their team by boycotting games etc (that's not showing your support for the team) then why should they show an interest?
They do fund the team regardless of what anyone says (wages, transfer fees etc), we have no divine right to expect millions to be invested into the team, and expect promotion, just because once upon a time we used to struggle in the prem.
Without Sky Blue Glasses on IF you owned CCFC would you truly keep funding something where the people who are supposed to support their local team want to boycott their team and want to constantly protest.
Maybe people should have protested a bit more a few years ago when Andy Thorn was in charge instead of saying it wasn't his fault for being shit.
I'll wait for the I'm a sisu lover etc

Samo · Oct 21, 2016

Silly post... the boycotts are are a recent thing and are a response to years of neglect and errors by our owners.

Deleted member 2477 · Oct 21, 2016

Another wum looking to stir shit between supporters just like the other threads that have popped up in the last few days about whos going or not Saturday.

Move on guys not worth the effort to read or bite

Kingokings204 · Oct 21, 2016

Sisu lover

Yes I agree with your post but and there is always a but people are being driven away and not turning up for many reasons. There is a lot more to it than would a future investor look at this?

Yes they would, what would put them off more would be the state of the club off the pitch. There is nothing to sell. No ground, no academy no nothing. You are buying the crest and that's it. Even ryton looks like being got rid of.

Fans aren't turning up because we are losing most weeks and seeing good players leave all the time. Now we could argue back and forth why that is but the reality is even mowbray said it himself the day he left and I quote "they (sisu) are going to have to invest at some point" he is right without investment we are a league 2 club waiting to happen because that's all will self fund it. It could be this season.

As I say we can argue back and forth and whys and when's and how's but the reality is we are where we are due to a lack of ownership which have currently no ambition and no money. The fans staying away and boycotting and protesting is because things are very bad not because it's all rosey.

As for tomorrow do as you please it's a free country and whatever you decide will be the right decision. We all agree to get sisu out I think, we just have different ways of doing it.

Sky Blue Kid · Oct 21, 2016

ICHAN said:
We all agree that Sisu are not the best owners ever.
But if the sky blue glasses come off (mine did years ago), would you keep investing in a business where if you look at it as a business, people don't go to watch a team they are supposed to support?
They could look at it, if the people don't care about their team by boycotting games etc (that's not showing your support for the team) then why should they show an interest?
They do fund the team regardless of what anyone says (wages, transfer fees etc), we have no divine right to expect millions to be invested into the team, and expect promotion, just because once upon a time we used to struggle in the prem.
Without Sky Blue Glasses on IF you owned CCFC would you truly keep funding something where the people who are supposed to support their local team want to boycott their team and want to constantly protest.
Maybe people should have protested a bit more a few years ago when Andy Thorn was in charge instead of saying it wasn't his fault for being shit.
I'll wait for the I'm a sisu lover etc

Firstly, if I owned CCFC I wouldn't have stripped assets left, right, and centre like SISU have. I'd have invested on the pitch to at least try and gain a promotion. If after I'd done that it wasn't working I would have let someone else have a go.

AndreasB · Oct 21, 2016

ICHAN said:
We all agree that Sisu are not the best owners ever.
But if the sky blue glasses come off (mine did years ago), would you keep investing in a business where if you look at it as a business, people don't go to watch a team they are supposed to support?
They could look at it, if the people don't care about their team by boycotting games etc (that's not showing your support for the team) then why should they show an interest?
They do fund the team regardless of what anyone says (wages, transfer fees etc), we have no divine right to expect millions to be invested into the team, and expect promotion, just because once upon a time we used to struggle in the prem.
Without Sky Blue Glasses on IF you owned CCFC would you truly keep funding something where the people who are supposed to support their local team want to boycott their team and want to constantly protest.
Maybe people should have protested a bit more a few years ago when Andy Thorn was in charge instead of saying it wasn't his fault for being shit.
I'll wait for the I'm a sisu lover etc

No , I am afraid you are mistaken. Running a football club is unpredictable and unfortunately success needs a lot of money or a lot of patience from an owner - preferably both. It is a model that requires constant investment higher than income. SISU are unwilling to provide that extra investment as they see the revenue stream situation (of which they are mainly culpable) as flogging a dead horse.
They saw last year that increased team success meant higher crowds but we were not able to capitalise on it , hence no investment this year.
Not sure you can really point the low crowds any more as anything but as a consequence of the owners actions.

clint van damme · Oct 21, 2016

investment doesn't always have to be in the form of cash though does it?
They could invest time and energy in a plan to take the club forward, to secure the academy and a place to play our games.
If they did that and had to sell to balance the books I could accept it and I think there are others that could to.
As it is they are just letting the club drift into oblivion with no strategy for taking us forward while they play out their little pissing contest with the wankers at the council.

Bob Latchford · Oct 21, 2016

ICHAN said:
We all agree that Sisu are not the best owners ever.
But if the sky blue glasses come off (mine did years ago), would you keep investing in a business where if you look at it as a business, people don't go to watch a team they are supposed to support?
They could look at it, if the people don't care about their team by boycotting games etc (that's not showing your support for the team) then why should they show an interest?
They do fund the team regardless of what anyone says (wages, transfer fees etc), we have no divine right to expect millions to be invested into the team, and expect promotion, just because once upon a time we used to struggle in the prem.
Without Sky Blue Glasses on IF you owned CCFC would you truly keep funding something where the people who are supposed to support their local team want to boycott their team and want to constantly protest.
Maybe people should have protested a bit more a few years ago when Andy Thorn was in charge instead of saying it wasn't his fault for being shit.
I'll wait for the I'm a sisu lover etc

LOL hi Tim /Nick .

rd45 · Oct 21, 2016

clint van damme said:
investment doesn't always have to be in the form of cash though does it?
They could invest time and energy in a plan to take the club forward, to secure the academy and a place to play our games.
If they did that and had to sell to balance the books I could accept it and I think there are others that could to.
As it is they are just letting the club drift into oblivion with no strategy for taking us forward while they play out their little pissing contest with the wankers at the council.

If they ever acted like they gave a shit, it would go a very long way - investment or not.

Grendel · Oct 21, 2016

Samo said:
Silly post... the boycotts are are a recent thing and are a response to years of neglect and errors by our owners.

There was a boycott about 4 years ago.

wingy · Oct 21, 2016

Bob Latchford said:
LOL hi Tim /Nick .

Nah he's an old poster and entitled to his opinions.
Nice to see you back on here Ichan
Have to say
An insightful post by AndreasB

dongonzalos · Oct 21, 2016

ICHAN said:
We all agree that Sisu are not the best owners ever.
But if the sky blue glasses come off (mine did years ago), would you keep investing in a business where if you look at it as a business, people don't go to watch a team they are supposed to support?
They could look at it, if the people don't care about their team by boycotting games etc (that's not showing your support for the team) then why should they show an interest?
They do fund the team regardless of what anyone says (wages, transfer fees etc), we have no divine right to expect millions to be invested into the team, and expect promotion, just because once upon a time we used to struggle in the prem.
Without Sky Blue Glasses on IF you owned CCFC would you truly keep funding something where the people who are supposed to support their local team want to boycott their team and want to constantly protest.
Maybe people should have protested a bit more a few years ago when Andy Thorn was in charge instead of saying it wasn't his fault for being shit.
I'll wait for the I'm a sisu lover etc

Ichan a lot of what you say should make sense.

When SISU first bought the club they made a pledge and promise that their aim was to fund the club in order to return it to the Premier League. So you are right no Devine right. However that was what the new owners promised the fans they would do. So yes the fans did actually have a right to expect the owners to do as they promised.

What year did SISU start reducing the amount of funding they provided to the club?

What year did NOMP, boycotting and protests start? For your reasoning to be correct the boycotting would have had to start first followed by SISU looking at the boycotting and deciding to start to withdraw funding.

I would suggest that SISU realised that they could not afford Operation Premiership and from that day they have gradually reduced funding aiming to get to break even point.
However a natural result of cost cutting is a downfall in results and eventually relegation. Which leads to an apathy in fans. Which leads to lower attendances which naturally leads to more cost cutting and a downward cycle begins that makes break even point unobtainable.

Interject into that cycle moving the club 35 miles away that's when on top of apathy you suddenly get protests. Add a return followed by more cuts and hitting bottom of division 3 you suddenly get to breaking points for a lot of people.

I am no doubt if we were sitting top of division 3 the campaigns would not have any momentum. Unfortunately the more you cut the less likely that is.

A lot of people are at breaking point and the strive by SISU to get to breakeven point has absolutely nothing to do with protests and boycotting. It is also in my opinion a pointless strive that is akin to a man chasing a carrot tied to a long stick he is holding out in front of him.

dongonzalos · Oct 21, 2016

Grendel said:
There was a boycott about 4 years ago.

There was budget cuts well before that

Senior Vick from Alicante · Oct 21, 2016

I think their would be an instant uplift in funds just as a reaction to them leaving. You would put 4 to 6 thousand on the gate straight away with a new start from stay away fans.

Kingokings204 · Oct 21, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Ichan a lot of what you say should make sense.

When SISU first bought the club they made a pledge and promise that their aim was to fund the club in order to return it to the Premier League. So you are right no Devine right. However that was what the new owners promised the fans they would do. So yes the fans did actually have a right to expect the owners to do as they promised.

What year did SISU start reducing the amount of funding they provided to the club?

What year did NOMP, boycotting and protests start? For your reasoning to be correct the boycotting would have had to start first followed by SISU looking at the boycotting and deciding to start to withdraw funding.

I would suggest that SISU realised that they could not afford Operation Premiership and from that day they have gradually reduced funding aiming to get to break even point.
However a natural result of cost cutting is a downfall in results and eventually relegation. Which leads to an apathy in fans. Which leads to lower attendances which naturally leads to more cost cutting and a downward cycle begins that makes break even point unobtainable.

Interject into that cycle moving the club 35 miles away that's when on top of apathy you suddenly get protests. Add a return followed by more cuts and hitting bottom of division 3 you suddenly get breaking points for a lot of people.

I am no doubt if we were sitting top of division 3 the campaigns would not have any momentum. Unfortunately the more you cut the less likely that is.

A lot of people are at breaking point and the strive by SISU to get to breakeven point has absolutely nothing to do with protests and boycotting. It also in my opinion a pointless strive that is akin to a man chasing a carrot ties to a long stick he is holding out in front of him.

Exactly this, it's a death spiral that's lasted 7 years. Budgets are cut and less fans turn up to give the club money which means shitter players are bought which means more games are lost which means less paying fans turn up to watch which means the budget is cut again and round and round we go.

There is two ways you deal with it. The first is what we are currently doing with sisu and that's cutting budgets going down the leagues and league 2 is a lot more likely than promotion. The other option is INVEST. Pump money into the club and get some good players and start winning some games and climbing the leagues. More fans will turn up to watch a good winning team meaning more money meaning then better players again to get.

We either drop to league 2 or invest. That's the choice

Tonylinc · Oct 21, 2016

Senior Vick from Alicante said:
I think their would be an instant uplift in funds just as a reaction to them leaving. You would put 4 to 6 thousand on the gate straight away with a new start from stay away fans.

I agree with that. I know that people will say that nobody will be interested in buying the club if put up for sale BUT like the Ricoh there will always be somebody interested in purchasing.

Sky Blue Kid · Oct 21, 2016

dongonzalos said:
There was budget cuts well before that

I would say around the time Westwood and Gunarsson both walked at the end of 2010-2011 season.

dongonzalos · Oct 21, 2016

Tonylinc said:
I agree with that. I know that people will say that nobody will be interested in buying the club if put up for sale BUT like the Ricoh there will always be somebody interested in purchasing.

Nobody is interested in the Ricoh it is a white elephant....

Tonylinc · Oct 21, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Nobody is interested in the Ricoh it is a white elephant....

A quote from Grendull I believe.

Grendel · Oct 21, 2016

dongonzalos said:
There was budget cuts well before that

I know - the day Jimmy hill sold Ian Wallace was deplorable.

dongonzalos · Oct 21, 2016

Sky Blue Kid said:
I would say around the time Westwood and Gunarsson both walked at the end of 2010-2011 season.

Mr Clouting refusing to discuss if Andy Thorn would have a budget 5 years ago.

Grendel · Oct 21, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Nobody is interested in the Ricoh it is a white elephant....

I was proved right.

Didn't you say even on the existing lease it was worth £60 million?

Hobo · Oct 21, 2016

ICHAN said:
We all agree that Sisu are not the best owners ever.
But if the sky blue glasses come off (mine did years ago), would you keep investing in a business where if you look at it as a business, people don't go to watch a team they are supposed to support?
They could look at it, if the people don't care about their team by boycotting games etc (that's not showing your support for the team) then why should they show an interest?
They do fund the team regardless of what anyone says (wages, transfer fees etc), we have no divine right to expect millions to be invested into the team, and expect promotion, just because once upon a time we used to struggle in the prem.
Without Sky Blue Glasses on IF you owned CCFC would you truly keep funding something where the people who are supposed to support their local team want to boycott their team and want to constantly protest.
Maybe people should have protested a bit more a few years ago when Andy Thorn was in charge instead of saying it wasn't his fault for being shit.
I'll wait for the I'm a sisu lover etc

Are you suggesting that football fans should just accept a sub standard product. Should just accept the owners cashing in any asset they can. Allowing the infrastructure of the club to erode. Offer no short, medium or long term plan to turn the club around. I am not expecting huge levels of investment. There has to be a budget....but there also needs to be a plan and some leadership, an overview. The fans have to at least feel there is something to support and there has to be a vision they conspire to.

dongonzalos · Oct 21, 2016

Grendel said:
I know - the day Jimmy hill sold Ian Wallace was deplorable.

I accept selling big stars that's a fact of life for us.

However budget cuts = less success eventually = relegation = concept of break even = more cuts = less success = less crowds = break even point further away = more cuts

There is only one ending to this story

Grendel · Oct 21, 2016

Tonylinc said:
A quote from Grendull I believe.

100% right wasn't I unless you are saying selling a £118 million stadium for (if they kept the original lease) £2 million proves otherwise.

dongonzalos · Oct 21, 2016

Grendel said:
I was proved right.

Didn't you say even on the existing lease it was worth £60 million?

So you were right that no other sporting club other than CCFC would be interested in buying ACL.
Fair enough hopefully I will wake up in a minute and realise 2014 was a very bad dream.

Tonylinc · Oct 21, 2016

For Gods sake how di

Grendel said:
100% right wasn't I unless you are saying selling a £118 million stadium for (if they kept the original lease) £2 million proves otherwise.

The point (which you have conveniently forgotten) was that NOBODY would be interested in buying it. Never mind the negotiations which subsequently took place. If Sisu had had the proper business acumen they could easily have taken the place of Wasps in those negotiations. They did not firstly because they never had any intention of seriously negotiating and secondly there only aim was to get it for free.

Grendel · Oct 21, 2016

dongonzalos said:
So you were right that no other sporting club other than CCFC would be interested in buying ACL.
Fair enough hopefully I will wake up in a minute and realise 2014 was a very bad dream.

I said no one would be interested at the price on offer. They weren't and the lease on offer had to be extended 5 fold.

Didn't you also say that Hoggs should have been paid the full £6 million or it would be akin to raping a children's charity? I think you also said if they didn't the charity commission would be involved?

Oh well.

stupot07 · Oct 21, 2016

dongonzalos said:
I accept selling big stars that's a fact of life for us.

However budget cuts = less success eventually = relegation = concept of break even = more cuts = less success = less crowds = break even point further away = more cuts

There is only one ending to this story

The problem is the starting point was an ongoing issue of making £6-8m pa losses just trying to tread water in the lower midtable in the championship.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

pastythegreat · Oct 21, 2016

AndreasB said:
No , I am afraid you are mistaken. Running a football club is unpredictable and unfortunately success needs a lot of money or a lot of patience from an owner - preferably both. It is a model that requires constant investment higher than income. SISU are unwilling to provide that extra investment as they see the revenue stream situation (of which they are mainly culpable) as flogging a dead horse.
They saw last year that increased team success meant higher crowds but we were not able to capitalise on it , hence no investment this year.
Not sure you can really point the low crowds any more as anything but as a consequence of the owners actions.

A constant investment higher than income??
Just so you're aware, as most people on here obviously aren't, you can only spend 65% of your total income on you expenditure! Also adding to people's arguments saying we have a shit budget! Our budget is all the fans allow as we only make money from ticket sales. So whilst people are boycotting games we're going nowhere!

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

dongonzalos · Oct 21, 2016

stupot07 said:
The problem is the starting point was an ongoing issue of making £6-8m pa losses just trying to tread water in the lower midtable in the championship.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Yep and on that basis SISU stated they were going to take us back to the premier league with "their" invested money.

Instead we are nearly bottom of division three trying to break even on loses of less than a million

dongonzalos · Oct 21, 2016

Grendel said:
I said no one would be interested at the price on offer. They weren't and the lease on offer had to be extended 5 fold.

Didn't you also say that Hoggs should have been paid the full £6 million or it would be akin to raping a children's charity? I think you also said if they didn't the charity commission would be involved?

Oh well.

Higgs should have got the most money possible that they should have got back no question.
Raping a children's charity is not a term I would have used no.
You suggested the council should have gave Higgs their share which I agree with. Now back to the point under discussion ......
So you never said no one else sporting franchise wise would come to the Ricoh?

stupot07 · Oct 21, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Yep and on that basis SISU stated they were going to take us back to the premier league with "their" invested money.

Instead we are nearly bottom of division three trying to break even on loses of less than a million

*Ray Ransom said they were going to take us back to the PL.

They failed, and its largely RR fault, he should have focused on securing the Ricoh and reducing costs right from the start, they simply didn't have the required resource to mount a promotion charge.

Things are shit they are shit owners, but its far too easy for you and others to say they should have just 'invested' more and not sold players to help reduce losses. Its not our money. At the minute, break even is the right thing to do.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

dongonzalos · Oct 21, 2016

stupot07 said:
*Ray Ransom said they were going to take us back to the PL.

They failed, and its largely RR fault, he should have focused on securing the Ricoh and reducing costs right from the start, they simply didn't have the required resource to mount a promotion charge.

Things are shit they are shit owners, but its far too easy for you and others to say they should have just 'invested' more and not sold players to help reduce losses. Its not our money. At the minute, break even is the right thing to do.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Did Ray Ranson own CCFC or was he employed by the owners of CCFC? Did he personally rubber stamp the statergy Operation Premier League or did he have to get that statergy agreed by SISU ad it was delivered under their name using their investors money?

stupot07 · Oct 21, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Did Ray Ranson own CCFC or was he employed by the owners of CCFC? Did he personally rubber stamp the statergy Operation Premier League or did he have to get that statergy agreed by SISU ad it was delivered under their name using their investors money?

Come on don, let not rewrite history. RR led the takeover, he was the chief strategist, he was the football man, he was the one who said going to the stadium was short termist, he was the one that sold them operation premiership, he was the public face and IIRC he also had shares and therefore some ownership. We know that sisu had little to with the running of the club in the early days and only became involved around the financial crash, which seems to have been the point that the strategy changed.

IMO RR duped sisu into making it sound like an easier win than it was, and sisu have said since that had they known it would have been this much of a ball ache they wouldn't have done it.

Not absolving sisu at all, their strategy since RR left has gone from disaster to disaster, but Uncle Ray has a lot to answer for.

I'm gonna leave it there, I really can't be arsed arguing about different shades of shit on a Friday night.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Sisu (6 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 2477

Guest

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

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

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency