The nature of a football club (1 Viewer)

Deleted member 5849 · Mar 3, 2014

So, what is a football club?

Investment opportunity? Not likely. Why should anybody have the right to make money off the back of me being cursed with a choice I certainly didn't make rationally?

Property development opportunity? Again, nope. Football clubs being used as battering rams to allow for commercial developments seems dubious pratice, too. I could have lived without a massive Tesco's tbh, and if one was needed it should be built regardless.

To me, we get bogged down in the financial far too much. By doing so we run the rules of debate exactly how SISU would wish.

A club is not about the money, it's about the people. A club *should* be central to its home, even if that knocks out the wishes of some shareholders to take a dividend, it should also be central even if, somewhere, that means a multi-purpose venue becomes single purpose as a result.

If we, the fans, can't make the club central at a time when nobody else wants to, when it becomes a sideshow in the eyes of some compared to the greater prizes, then what hope have we got?

Wycombe are trying to sort a deal where the Trust sells out to new owners. Central to that deal is the fact the Trust keep hold of the ground, the bowl, and make it a condition that Adams Park is kept for the club, by the club... the club is central to the ground.

We're so wrapped up in talk of community assets, taxpayers, and investment portfolios we risk our club not having a home even if it returns to the Ricoh...

More a place to reside.

Grendel · Mar 3, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
So, what is a football club?

Investment opportunity? Not likely. Why should anybody have the right to make money off the back of me being cursed with a choice I certainly didn't make rationally?

Property development opportunity? Again, nope. Football clubs being used as battering rams to allow for commercial developments seems dubious pratice, too. I could have lived without a massive Tesco's tbh, and if one was needed it should be built regardless.

To me, we get bogged down in the financial far too much. By doing so we run the rules of debate exactly how SISU would wish.

A club is not about the money, it's about the people. A club *should* be central to its home, even if that knocks out the wishes of some shareholders to take a dividend, it should also be central even if, somewhere, that means a multi-purpose venue becomes single purpose as a result.

If we, the fans, can't make the club central at a time when nobody else wants to, when it becomes a sideshow in the eyes of some compared to the greater prizes, then what hope have we got?

Wycombe are trying to sort a deal where the Trust sells out to new owners. Central to that deal is the fact the Trust keep hold of the ground, the bowl, and make it a condition that Adams Park is kept for the club, by the club... the club is central to the ground.

We're so wrapped up in talk of community assets, taxpayers, and investment portfolios we risk our club not having a home even if it returns to the Ricoh...

More a place to reside.

A lot of clubs actually have council owned stadiums and never seem to remotely have the issues we have. For some its clearly been an advantage.

fernandopartridge · Mar 3, 2014

It is quite sad really, most argument on here is about SISU's (lack of) business acumen whereas the it should be a complete irrelevance.

Not really sure what the answer is whilst the main focus for many clubs outside of the Premier League is to get to the Premier League for a large payday. That background clouds the whole game and has led CCFC to where it is now.

covcity4life · Mar 3, 2014

Grendel said:
A lot of clubs actually have council owned stadiums and never seem to remotely have the issues we have. For some its clearly been an advantage.

they don't have greedy ass councils.

italiahorse · Mar 3, 2014

Grendel said:
A lot of clubs actually have council owned stadiums and never seem to remotely have the issues we have. For some its clearly been an advantage.

Which ones ?

italiahorse · Mar 3, 2014

covcity4life said:
they don't have greedy ass councils.

Zero rent for this season and £100K for the next 2 ................... greedy ba$tards :thinking about:

Deleted member 5849 · Mar 3, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
Not really sure what the answer is whilst the main focus for many clubs outside of the Premier League is to get to the Premier League for a large payday. That background clouds the whole game and has led CCFC to where it is now.

That's the wider problem, isn't it.

Back in the days when a club was owned for ego/putting something back into the community (OK, mostly ego) then there was a sense of the need for competition in the rules.

Now, when convicted money launderers have a burning desire to own a club in the Midlands: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/mar/03/birmingham-city-owner-carson-yeung-guilty the rules get changed for self interest.

Before, the self interest was the competition. Now? It's the need for cash.

But we don't have to buy into that, do we?

fernandopartridge · Mar 3, 2014

italiahorse said:
Zero rent for this season and £100K for the next 2 ................... greedy ba$tards :thinking about:

Or, £1.2m for 7 years.

italiahorse · Mar 3, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
Or, £1.2m for 7 years.

Oh yea I conveniently forgot that.
I think if ACL knew what they knew now they would have managed it differently.

Grendel · Mar 3, 2014

italiahorse said:
Which ones ?

Swansea, forest, Ipswich, Doncaster, hull - that enough for you?

fernandopartridge · Mar 3, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
That's the wider problem, isn't it.

Back in the days when a club was owned for ego/putting something back into the community (OK, mostly ego) then there was a sense of the need for competition in the rules.

Now, when convicted money launderers have a burning desire to own a club in the Midlands: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/mar/03/birmingham-city-owner-carson-yeung-guilty the rules get changed for self interest.

Before, the self interest was the competition. Now? It's the need for cash.

But we don't have to buy into that, do we?

I don't buy into it, I have no desire to ever see Coventry City in the circus that is the Premier League (in its current form).

For me the status of the league is a bit of an irrelevance, going to the match and seeing your team win feels the same if you're in the Evo Stick Premier or the Barclays Premier.

italiahorse · Mar 3, 2014

Grendel said:
Swansea, forest, Ipswich, Doncaster, hull - that enough for you?

More bull$hit. You need to do your homework

Doncaster
http://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk...t-stadium-s-finances-be-made-public-1-4135658

Swansea
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-14392589

Forest
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-18852686

Hull
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/KC-S...sition-wants/story-13588806-detail/story.html

Ipswich
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15204924

Deleted member 5849 · Mar 3, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
I don't buy into it, I have no desire to ever see Coventry City in the circus that is the Premier League (in its current form).

For me the status of the league is a bit of an irrelevance, going to the match and seeing your team win feels the same if you're in the Evo Stick Premier or the Barclays Premier.

Agreed.

But then it's time to move talk away from revenue streams, pie money, property portfolios...

The club needs its home in its own city. Ideally it needs its home with a proper name rather than that of a photocopier. Ideally it needs more shows of its history, and TV cameras trained on the crowd, not on the sponsors.

It needs, without question, the club being made central however.

Let the land around the ground be used for whatever, let the casino be run by whoever.

Make the club central, and not a sideshow, to the bits that matter.

Why isn't the club central to more, among those who it should be central to?

Matty_CCFC · Mar 3, 2014

covcity4life said:
they don't have greedy ass councils.

Greedy, what wrong with making money, especially if its for the ratepayers of the City

fernandopartridge · Mar 3, 2014

italiahorse said:
More bull$hit. You need to do your homework

Doncaster
http://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk...t-stadium-s-finances-be-made-public-1-4135658

Swansea
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-14392589

Forest
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-18852686

Hull
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/KC-S...sition-wants/story-13588806-detail/story.html

Ipswich
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15204924

The issues in 3 of those stories are quite the opposite of the CCFC one, they're about the club there not paying 'enough'. If only that was CCFC's issue.

Deleted member 5849 · Mar 3, 2014

Matty_CCFC said:
what wrong with making money

...it leads an investment fund to move something that's emotional, not financial, out of its home city, that's what?

fernandopartridge · Mar 3, 2014

Matty_CCFC said:
Greedy, what wrong with making money, especially if its for the ratepayers of the City

Ratepayers are not shareholders.

Would a profitable Ricoh lead to a drop in Council Tax or Business Rates?

Would you get a payout at the end of the financial year?

italiahorse · Mar 3, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
The issues in 3 of those stories are quite the opposite of the CCFC one, they're about the club there not paying 'enough'. If only that was CCFC's issue.

Which may have become an issue if Sisu had accepted the last offer.
The point is that CCC are no angels but other councils are not always 100% behind a club as inferred.

skybluesam66 · Mar 3, 2014

1.2m for 7 years = 8.4m

The cost for CCFC to acquire half of the ricoh at the outset IIRC - around 6.5m

torchomatic · Mar 3, 2014

Funny you don't mention the millions we've paid in rent before that. Selective again, I see.

italiahorse said:
Zero rent for this season and £100K for the next 2 ................... greedy ba$tards :thinking about:

Grendel · Mar 3, 2014

italiahorse said:
More bull$hit. You need to do your homework

Doncaster
http://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk...t-stadium-s-finances-be-made-public-1-4135658

Swansea
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-14392589

Forest
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-18852686

Hull
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/KC-S...sition-wants/story-13588806-detail/story.html

Ipswich
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15204924

That's really funny actually thanks for proving my point on a of them - your not a defence barrister are you?

Deleted member 5849 · Mar 3, 2014

...and so this thread mostly tends to the financial.

Again.

bigfatronssba · Mar 3, 2014

Grendel said:
Swansea, forest, Ipswich, Doncaster, hull - that enough for you?

Do you disagree with Mark Labovitch then when he says a club has to own a freehold in order to be successful?

Grendel · Mar 3, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
...and so this thread mostly tends to the financial.

Again.

To be fair though its a determining factor in gaining an advantage.

Its unlikely the club will own a stadium again so a workable model is an advantage.

Most clubs who ended up with council owned stadiums have managed to get a good deal and even when there have been issues most have been resolved and Hull is the only real other problem and even they had a ridiculous arrangement which ended up at one stage with the council paying them.

Grendel · Mar 3, 2014

bigfatronssba said:
Do you disagree with Mark Labovitch then when he says a club has to own a freehold in order to be successful?

Yes when I have said I thought that?

blueflint · Mar 3, 2014

covcity4life said:
they don't have greedy ass councils.

neither do we been offered very cheap rent for a very good stadium wasn't council who refused that

skybluefred · Mar 3, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
That's the wider problem, isn't it.

Back in the days when a club was owned for ego/putting something back into the community (OK, mostly ego) then there was a sense of the need for competition in the rules.

Now, when convicted money launderers have a burning desire to own a club in the Midlands: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/mar/03/birmingham-city-owner-carson-yeung-guilty the rules get changed for self interest.

Before, the self interest was the competition. Now? It's the need for cash.

But we don't have to buy into that, do we?

Being one of the more intelligent posters you must surely know the root cause of the problem.
From the moment Man Utd and a few other high flying Clubs threatened to move abroad unless,
they got a premier league with virtually there own governance,and also the control of sky sports millions.

English football died on that day.The majority of T/V revenue should be shared among the four leagues,
with the residue going to non league clubs. The situation that exists is grossly unfair--ie one player can
be paid £300,000 a week whilst others in lower leagues will be lucky to receive that amount in two years.

That's why I do not have sky or BT on my T/V.

torchomatic · Mar 3, 2014

And it's ACL
A-C-L
There by far the greatest joint venture company consisting of Coventry City Council and the Alan Edward Higgs Charity the world has ever seen.

blueflint said:
neither do we been offered very cheap rent for a very good stadium wasn't council who refused that

Grendel · Mar 3, 2014

blueflint said:
neither do we been offered very cheap rent for a very good stadium wasn't council who refused that

The "deal" was £400,000 an unclear deal on f and b revenues and a very odd escalator if crowds went above a certain level wasn't it?

Deleted member 5849 · Mar 3, 2014

skybluefred said:
Being one of the more intelligent posters you must surely know the root cause of the problem.
From the moment Man Utd and a few other high flying Clubs threatened to move abroad unless,
they got a premier league with virtually there own governance,and also the control of sky sports millions.

Started before then.

Started with clubs not taking a share of away league takings anymore, accelerated with the changes in allowed constitutions of clubs, that allowed debt to be piled onto them, as much as anything else.

Needs arresting, and fast. Much as I actually quite like Moyes, I pray Man Utd's Glazer experiment in financing fails, it might wake a few fans up to the need for competition.

Sport works on faith and hope, get rid of the hope and you soon lose the faith.

And yep, no Sky here either Gets hard to avoid all Murdoch products mind you, is there a bloody media outlet he doesn't have his fingers in?!?

Deleted member 5849 · Mar 3, 2014

Grendel said:
To be fair though its a determining factor in gaining an advantage.

Its unlikely the club will own a stadium again so a workable model is an advantage.

There are different rules of debate over the workable model though.

The club go on about revenue streams etc. the council go on about property development and deals for taxpayers.

Neither take into account the importance of a club beyond that. And it transcends that, doesn't it? We don't pay our cash (or not!) to see them because of either of those reasons, we give money because of belief.

And we loosen those chains that link the identity of the club with the identity of us if we reduce it just to the numbers on a balance sheet.

wingy · Mar 3, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
There are different rules of debate over the workable model though.

The club go on about revenue streams etc. the council go on about property development and deals for taxpayers.

Neither take into account the importance of a club beyond that. And it transcends that, doesn't it? We don't pay our cash (or not!) to see them because of either of those reasons, we give money because of belief.

And we loosen those chains that link the identity of the club with the identity of us if we reduce it just to the numbers on a balance sheet.

And then it would'nt be too hard to imply from this connection that a Visit to Sixfields should be possible because of It . So I'm out as any route back is their own responsibility for attempting to play on that emotional attatchment ,Sorry NW thats how It Is for me.

Deleted member 5849 · Mar 3, 2014

wingy said:
And then it would'nt be too hard to imply from this connection that a Visit to Sixfields should be possible because of It . So I'm out as any route back is their own responsibility for attempting to play on that emotional attatchment ,Sorry NW thats how It Is for me.

A bit lost with your point tbh.

I went to Sixfields, I reported it here It also wasn't the financial that kept me away, more the uncomfortable nature of the whole situation. The same thing that had stopped me going long before that, because the profit driven owners had made me feel disenfranchised from what was and should have been my club.

Having gone... it was the very fact that it wasn't home, it wasn't part of my identity that stopped me enjoying it, and why I've had no desire to go back! The game was fine, rather good in fact, but it was an uncomfortable experience for me. I wouldn't say I... enjoyed it. I actually far preferred going to see Northampton v Cheltenham there a couple of seasons before, as a neutral! So... going validated my own feelings, made them real. But it wasn't the financial that did that, it was the essence of me, my belief in the club and how that related to me.

They started losing me when it became obvious Robinson and McGinnity were in it for the profit (and then clawing back as much of their losses as they could!) than the craic.

They lost me more when an investment fund bought us in the hope of a quick return and a quick turnaround.

They lost me even more when Ranson was hailed for good business snese, and this became the defining moment.

They lost me even more when they signed (and tacitly condoned woman beating with the manager's actions and statements) a striker because he was the financially viable option, rather than the socially viable option.

They lost me still more when the talk became of pies and revenue streams.

They lost me even more when they failed to acknowledge the importance of place, rather than space.

But there are plenty enough reasons to not want to go to Sixfields rather than the financial, and they are all perfectly valid. Focussing on the financial (a dubious premise anyway, tbh) is what causes the division, daft threads, and bitchy comments.

While all the time, ironically, buying into the SISU way!

wingy · Mar 3, 2014

Good post ,But It means i did'nt get the original.

Jack Griffin · Mar 3, 2014

Grendel said:
The "deal" was £400,000 an unclear deal on f and b revenues and a very odd escalator if crowds went above a certain level wasn't it?

As you well know there was no escalator in the last offer, as is clear in the SBT website.

The nature of a football club (1 Viewer)

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

New Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency