This episode has been painful but necessary (3 Viewers)

[James Smith]

I'm not posting to say the original thread was right or wrong, my whole use of this forum has dwindled because of reactions like this.

He makes his points & asks some questions, then the majority of what he gets back is caveman-esque feet stomping. Can you not respond in the form of debate? Just because someone has a different opinion to you doesn't make them wrong.

It's like if you don't leap two footed into a 'hate SISU' rant then your a CCFC outcast. I don't like SISU one bit but to play this out in a Disney bad guy versus charming Prince good guy is the same kind of tunnel vision that makes the protests & campaigns look amateurish & embarrassing. Could explain why barely 100/150 people showed on Saturday.

Try thinking and justifying your points before dragging your knuckles across the keyboard.

I refer you to post 29 which explains why the points the OP made are mostly wrong or one sided.
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threa...-but-necessary?p=478673&viewfull=1#post478673

and post 33
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threa...-but-necessary?p=478776&viewfull=1#post478776

 

---

[Grendel]

Interesting that out of around 20 responders all saying the same thing - some in words more vociferous than those I used - you pick my post to comment on.
Have you got a little vendetta going here Grenduffy? You truly do get more pathetic with every post you make.
By the way, I see you were wrong yet again. You claimed time and time and time again that we would be playing at the Ricoh. Would you care to comment on that position now, or are you going to again come up with some ridiculous excuse for why you are yet again not wrong even though you are wrong?

I think the vendetta is the other way round. I am told I don't debate but you only need to look at the "quality" of the debate on here to show that I discuss and debate far more than most who just chuck out stereotype sound bytes and that includes you.

 

[Grendel]

I refer you to post 29 which explains why the points the OP made are mostly wrong or one sided.
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threa...-but-necessary?p=478673&viewfull=1#post478673

and post 33
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threa...-but-necessary?p=478776&viewfull=1#post478776

When you say one sided you mean the side of an argument that differs to you I assume?

 

[CCFCSteve]

You obviously haven't worked out SISU's agenda over the last couple of seasons.

The only way they were going to get ACL was to 'financially stress' them. To do that they needed the club relegated. CCFC have amongst the wealthiest owners in UK football and they wouldn't invest a relatively small sum to keep us in the Championship. Have you ever wondered why?

Once in League 1 SISU could play the "can't afford the rent," game. They unlawfully withheld all rent (they didn't pay the figure they said was the amount they wanted to pay). An offer of substantially reduced rent was offered and rejected. As to rent negotiations I heard SISU named a figure and didn't move... Where's the 'negotiation' in that?

While all this was going on SISU were trying to acquire ACL's mortgage from the bank at a hugely discounted price... So don't ever think there was any other agenda than for SISU to acquire ACL for as little as possible. Would you trust SISU if they held the mortgage of the Arena if you were the council?

In June 2012 plan B was already in motion whereby CCFC Ltd was emptied of its assets and moved towards administration. By placing the club into administration SISU could walk away from the Ricoh. To do this they sacrificed a potential promotion campaign with a 10 point deduction. They also sacrifice any promotion campaign on exiting administration because (I guess) ACL will not agree a CVA so the club will be hit with a 15 point deduction and perhaps relegation. Do you think the squad is good enough to finish 10-15 points above the relegation zone?

Being outside of Coventry and with little support, after two years the Financial Fair Play will give a playing budget of about £1.2m and the club will go into free-fall. By the time a 'new' stadium is built we might have seen 2 relegations - I do accept that we still might be in league 1 but can't see any circumstances that we would push for promotion.

So why would SISU sacrifice £2-3m of turnover so as not to pay £400k in rent? Food and drink sales are not significant enough to off-set that at all.

We'll be renting any SISU built stadium and being charged a rent that would reflect the investment. If a stadium cost £20m with a £15m development offset then that leaves £5m. Rent on a £5m building is likely to be about in the region of £300k-£500k. Back where we started then... Except SISU will be paying themselves.

Plan C is to build a stadium in 1 year while waiting for ACL to fail for the next two years. It must be possible to build a small stadium in 1 year so SISU can sit and wait in Northampton for a couple of years.

"Painful but necessary," you have GOT TO BE JOKING. Not in the least 'necessary'.

One of the most accurate and concise assessments of the current situation I have seen.

I cannot see how this move benefits CCFC or its supporters at all. The reasons/justifications for all of the actions just dont add up. All they appear to suggest to me is that SISU were only ever interested in the Ricoh, now they cant have it they've taken their ball home (excuse the pun). They may or may not eventually build a stadium, however, I wonder whats going to be left of our club by then.

A complete and utter disgrace.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

It was never about the rent you stupid man!:facepalm:

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

I think the vendetta is the other way round. I am told I don't debate but you only need to look at the "quality" of the debate on here to show that I discuss and debate far more than most who just chuck out stereotype sound bytes and that includes you.

Please don't be silly. Why on Earth would I bother having a vendetta against you? If you look at the vast majority of the responses on this forum to your posts, you will quickly see that very few would agree that you "discuss and debate". Most agree that all you do is attack, make nasty comments and never answer a question properly.

 

[James Smith]

When you say one sided you mean the side of an argument that differs to you I assume?

If there are two sides to this then I believe those posts are the oposing side - I haven't expressed an opinion of my own on this thread yet.

 

[tippex9]

I refer you to post 29 which explains why the points the OP made are mostly wrong or one sided.
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threa...-but-necessary?p=478673&viewfull=1#post478673

and post 33
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threa...-but-necessary?p=478776&viewfull=1#post478776

Which is why I used the word 'Majority' not 'All'

 

[Jack Griffin]

A new stadium would take a lot longer than 3 years, the land for the Brentford project Fisher kept taking about as a model was purchased 5 years ago & they've only recently submitted a planning application.

http://www.brentfordcommunitystadium.com/ land bought Jan 2008
http://www.brentfordcommunitystadium.com/?p=292 planning submitted 31st May 2013

And in this case there is no opposition from fans or council or anyone significant and they've got Barratt homes backing them in a joint venture.

 

[Skybluesquirrel]

Lets not be so negative about everything at least things are now begining to move forwards!
1. This is all happening because the rent was impossibly high
2. SISU were only one side of the negotiation - both sides were equally responsible for no deal being reached.
3. It was necessary to go to these lengths before ACL could accept that they did not have a devine right to keep CCFC at the Ricoh on the previously agreed rent, they have been in denial and thought CCFC would never do it.
4. If ACL want to avoid oblivion they will now move heaven and earth to get CCFC back at the Ricoh on a sensible agreement.
5. Just because an arrangement has been made with Northampton it does not not necessarily mean that arrangement cannot end, I hope the deal will be flexible.
6. It is possible that a new deal could be brokered with ACL for the Ricoh at any time even before we ever play at Northampton.
7. We may have to actually start playing there but if we do, the choice of the way out will be down to he council, either

a. by negotiation of a revised deal to play at the Ricoh or
b. in the absence of such a deal by SISU being forced into building HR2​

Simple! the choice is yours

imp:

Is the rent too high for a club in the premiership sharing the TV rights of over £1billion a year? For example, QPR received £39.7m last season. Why is the club in the third tier? Is that because players like Westwood, Gunnarsson, Keogh, Jukebox etc have left due to improved offers elsewhere that were not offered by CCFC? None were replaced by talented players of equal ability. Are we in the third division because of a rental agreement not scoring over twenty goals a season?

ACL and SISU shook hands on an improved deal over the rent. Shaking hands has for centuries been accepted as a binding contract between parties, across many many cultures and backgrounds. SISU then went back on their word.

ACL have made profits of over £1million last year. Take out the income from the stadium and associated costs of putting on football matches and they will be close to breaking even. ACL don't need the club as much as you suggest. They have conference facilities, offices, hotels and a casino that all bring in considerable amounts of income.

'I hope the deal will be flexible'

If you were David Cardoza, would you build in a degree of flexibility into any agreement made with a company that has recently reneged on contracts that have been in place for six or seven years?

 

[James Smith]

Is the rent too high for a club in the premiership sharing the TV rights of over £1billion a year? For example, QPR received £39.7m last season. Why is the club in the third tier? Is that because players like Westwood, Gunnarsson, Keogh, Jukebox etc have left due to improved offers elsewhere that were not offered by CCFC? None were replaced by talented players of equal ability. Are we in the third division because of a rental agreement not scoring over twenty goals a season?

ACL and SISU shook hands on an improved deal over the rent. Shaking hands has for centuries been accepted as a binding contract between parties, across many many cultures and backgrounds. SISU then went back on their word.

ACL have made profits of over £1million last year. Take out the income from the stadium and associated costs of putting on football matches and they will be close to breaking even. ACL don't need the club as much as you suggest. They have conference facilities, offices, hotels and a casino that all bring in considerable amounts of income.

'I hope the deal will be flexible'

If you were David Cardoza, would you build in a degree of flexibility into any agreement made with a company that has recently reneged on contracts that have been in place for six or seven years?

If I were Mr Cardoza I'd be wanting a bond put into escrow equivilant to at least four matches worth of rent and then payment of the rent upfront preferably by bank transfer before any home match.

 

[duffer]

If I were Mr Cardoza I'd be wanting a bond put into escrow equivilant to at least four matches worth of rent and then payment of the rent upfront preferably by bank transfer before any home match.

If I was Cardoza I'd get the electricity supply switched over to a card meter and make the directors' car parking Pay & Display.

 

[James Smith]

If I was Cardoza I'd get the electricity supply switched over to a card meter and make the directors' car parking Pay & Display.

I like that!