Tim Fisher on Shane Oconnor 15 02 13 (1 Viewer)

grego_gee · Feb 16, 2013

click the URL to listen and move slider TF interview starts at 2:07:57

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0144cq2/Shane_OConnors_Breakfast_Show_15_02_2013/

my interpretation:
Its all about match day revenues! FFP directly limits salary level for the team at 65%(next season 60%) of total revenue ie ticket receipts and other match day revenues.

Match day revenues are the only way that money allowed to be spent on the team can be increased.
ACL & Council have said "Hell will freeze over before you get access to those revenues"
They might not understand it, because its very recently changed (in FL FFP regulations) but their actions are killing the club.
imp:

CCFC_GT · Feb 16, 2013

Dead right this is what it's all about - and i don't understand why some people on here can't se this - the Council / ACL are squeezing the life blood out of our club !!

rupert_bear · Feb 16, 2013

CCFC_GT said:
Dead right this is what it's all about - and i don't understand why some people on here can't se this - the Council / ACL are squeezing the life blood out of our club !!

Absolute bloody rubbish. The council have a duty to lawful council tax payers to get money owed to them. SISU are no different to anyone else.

grego_gee · Feb 16, 2013

There's a clip here on you tube that might be easier to access (I found it after the above)
imp:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X0GYpV-XmQ

coundonskyblue · Feb 16, 2013

Acl have offered access to revenues.

They have never said "hell will freeze over before ccfc get it".

Why are you making up stories?

grego_gee · Feb 16, 2013

coundonskyblue said:
Acl have offered access to revenues.

They have never said "hell will freeze over before ccfc get it".

Why are you making up stories?

listen to the link!
imp:

CCFC_GT · Feb 16, 2013

rupert_bear said:
Absolute bloody rubbish. The council have a duty to lawful council tax payers to get money owed to them. SISU are no different to anyone else.

Not rubbish at all, the rent row is only part of the full picture.

The fact is that without CCFC getting additional income streams, that the council is determined to hang on to or only sell for an extortional amount, our football club will remain an uviable business that no serious investors would be interested in, and we will be forever struggling to compete with the likes of the mighty Huddersfield. :facepalm:

mattylad · Feb 16, 2013

coundonskyblue said:
Acl have offered access to revenues.

They have never said "hell will freeze over before ccfc get it".

Why are you making up stories?

At a cost of 24m

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Feb 16, 2013

CCFC_GT said:
Not rubbish at all, the rent row is only part of the full picture.

The fact is that without CCFC getting additional income streams, that the council is determined to hang on to or only sell for an extortional amount, our football club will remain an uviable business that no serious investors would be interested in, and we will be forever struggling to compete with the likes of the mighty Huddersfield. :facepalm:

We can't compete with Huddesfield as they are a well run, well financed club. We are not. They have momentum and a Championship status. We don't. They can, and are, paying managers and players the calibre of which we can't.

If Fisher wants agreement at the table; why doesn't he get JS to attend, instead of playing around, agreeing deals and then reneging when she doesn't like them?

And why doesn't he stop moping around grounds like Hinckley or R&D, or talking in Disneyesque terms about a new 30K stadium just outside of Rugby; and get the organ grinder, not the monkeys at the table to agree a deal for all parties?

speedie87 · Feb 16, 2013

Think u will find Huddersfield have had big losses the last 3 years. Not saying the owner can't fund it but they have been overspending bigtime.

hqttp://www.fcbusiness.co.uk/news/article/newsitem=2203/title=huddersfield+post+%A35.7m+loss+despite+promotion

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Feb 16, 2013

speedie87 said:
Think u will find Huddersfield have had big losses the last 3 years. Not saying the owner can't fund it but they have been overspending bigtime.

hqttp://www.fcbusiness.co.uk/news/article/newsitem=2203/title=huddersfield+post+%A35.7m+loss+despite+promotion

Many clubs spend big; but if its within the financial means if their owners, and don't fall foul of FFP rules, then it happens. They can still be well run whilst doing so - provided the situation is sustainable. For Huddesfield, they'll have league position (relegation notwithstanding!) and crowds before FFP bites them hard. Whereas we....

ouch · Feb 16, 2013

doesnt the huddersfield owner own the ground? the council will rip this club apart for money in the same way it rips families apart for money and taxes.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Feb 16, 2013

ouch said:
doesnt the huddersfield owner own the ground? the council will rip this club apart for money in the same way it rips families apart for money and taxes.

Our owners could own the ground. If they went about it in the right way. They've gone about it in the same way a cuckoo secures a new nest though

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Feb 16, 2013

Having listened to the whole interview but by the sounds of it Fisher is happy with 400k rent but wants access to revenue

Was talking about getting access to stadium sponsorship for advertising and naming rights an other revenue from the stadium

Fisher denies that SISU went back on a deal an said those people weren't even in the meetings between ACL an SISU

Jack Griffin · Feb 16, 2013

SISU have been offered access to some part of the revenue stream, they are arguing about how much that's worth.

I think their game plan is to turn the stadium from a net cost to a net revenue stream, by whatever means.
They also want to strike off the debt they've incurred.

So in summary they want the council tax payers of coventry to enrich their multi-billionare owners.

CCFC_GT · Feb 16, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
We can't compete with Huddesfield as they are a well run, well financed club. We are not. They have momentum and a Championship status. We don't. They can, and are, paying managers and players the calibre of which we can't.

If Fisher wants agreement at the table; why doesn't he get JS to attend, instead of playing around, agreeing deals and then reneging when she doesn't like them?

And why doesn't he stop moping around grounds like Hinckley or R&D, or talking in Disneyesque terms about a new 30K stadium just outside of Rugby; and get the organ grinder, not the monkeys at the table to agree a deal for all parties?

We are not a well financed club exactly because the Council / ACL won't give CCFC access to the additional revenue streams - this is the nub of the problem.
If we want a better run club, and we believe new investors would do a better job than SISU, we need to attract new investors - for this we still need the additional revenue streams.
If we want the momentum, Chamionship status, and ability to pay players and managers more etc. that Huddersfield have - we need to first increase our revenue streams.
Under FFP rules, if we do not increase our turnover we cannot increase our wages - it's as simple as that.

RoboCCFC90 · Feb 16, 2013

Well this isn't a surprise, but ACL will look to recoup the money on the outstanding loan that they still owe CCC after being bailed out by them (Lets say 15 Mil for arguments sake), then they want the money that they bought the naming rights for so 6 Mil (21 Mil total so far) and look to make a small profit, so take away the small profit and include what CCFC/SISU owe in rent arrears (3 Mil for arguements sake) 24 Million pounds is the total, so why can't ACL accept and hand the keys over and SISU agree to keep ACL in with some revenue streams as part of the deal where they take full control (Conference hall, hotel and Casino say 33% of all yearly profits for each to ACL) Can some explain to me why this can't work? OSB?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Feb 16, 2013

CCFC_GT said:
We are not a well financed club exactly because the Council / ACL won't give CCFC access to the additional revenue streams - this is the nub of the problem.
If we want a better run club, and we believe new investors would do a better job than SISU, we need to attract new investors - for this we still need the additional revenue streams.
If we want the momentum, Chamionship status, and ability to pay players and managers more etc. that Huddersfield have - we need to first increase our revenue streams.
Under FFP rules, if we do not increase our turnover we cannot increase our wages - it's as simple as that.

I'm totally aware of FFP rules, as I've posted on here previously. Equally, SISU were aware of such, as the income streams known at the point they took over. Nothing has changed.

If they want such revenues; there's ways and means of going about it. And they've not done so correctly. In fact, a court has stated they have done so illegally

CCFC_GT · Feb 16, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Our owners could own the ground. If they went about it in the right way. They've gone about it in the same way a cuckoo secures a new nest though

I honestly don't believe that the Council would be prepared to sell any part of the Arena to CCFC at all, regardless of who owns CCFC, and certainly not at a reasonable profit. The Council has been consistent in saying that it's 50% share in the Arena is not for sale from day one, long before SISU arrived.

Southerner79 · Feb 16, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
We can't compete with Huddesfield as they are a well run, well financed club. We are not. They have momentum and a Championship status. We don't. They can, and are, paying managers and players the calibre of which we can't. 
 
If Fisher wants agreement at the table; why doesn't he get JS to attend, instead of playing around, agreeing deals and then reneging when she doesn't like them? 
 
And why doesn't he stop moping around grounds like Hinckley or R&D, or talking in Disneyesque terms about a new 30K stadium just outside of Rugby; and get the organ grinder, not the monkeys at the table to agree a deal for all parties?

Short sighted beyond belief.

Grendel · Feb 16, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I'm totally aware of FFP rules, as I've posted on here previously. Equally, SISU were aware of such, as the income streams known at the point they took over. Nothing has changed.

If they want such revenues; there's ways and means of going about it. And they've not done so correctly. In fact, a court has stated they have done so illegally

FFP rules were not in place at the time of takeover. Your statement is factually innacurate.

hutch1972 · Feb 16, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Our owners could own the ground. If they went about it in the right way. They've gone about it in the same way a cuckoo secures a new nest though

yes they could, but only if they want to be ripped off by our council and acl. People tend to forget the council were only meant to be custodians of the stadium not owners.
How many other bits and pieces of info are missing i.e the proof of funds to regenerate the area further, why the hell should anybody do the councils job for them. If you bought a house would you be happy to build kitchen extensions for your neighbours as part of the deal.

CCFC_GT · Feb 16, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I'm totally aware of FFP rules, as I've posted on here previously. Equally, SISU were aware of such, as the income streams known at the point they took over. Nothing has changed.

If they want such revenues; there's ways and means of going about it. And they've not done so correctly. In fact, a court has stated they have done so illegally

Yes of course SISU knew about the income stream and cost (rent) arrangements when they took over, but clearly they expected to negotiate a reasonable deal encompassing both cost and revenue. The good deal the Council has now offered on the rent does not solve the problem for our football club unless a reasonable deal is also offered on revenues - and on this the Council seems unwilling to negotiate.

Jack Griffin · Feb 16, 2013

Grendel said:
FFP rules were not in place at the time of takeover. Your statement is factually innacurate.

Everyone knew FFP was coming, salary caps were opertaing in league 2 since the 2004/5 season.

Also CCFC voted FOR these rules when the league voted on it & now they're using them as an excuse.

dantheman · Feb 16, 2013

rupert_bear said:
Absolute bloody rubbish. The council have a duty to lawful council tax payers to get money owed to them. SISU are no different to anyone else.

The council should sell the ground back to the Club then where it belongs!Not use more tax payers money to prop up a failing business with a cheap loan!!!

CCFC_GT · Feb 16, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Many clubs spend big; but if its within the financial means if their owners, and don't fall foul of FFP rules, then it happens. They can still be well run whilst doing so - provided the situation is sustainable. For Huddesfield, they'll have league position (relegation notwithstanding!) and crowds before FFP bites them hard. Whereas we....

Whereas we are not fortunate enough to have owners that are willing to sustain big losses year on year on a business that has virtually no assets and restricted access to revenues :facepalm:

Grendel · Feb 16, 2013

Jack Griffin said:
Everyone knew FFP was coming, salary caps were opertaing in league 2 since the 2004/5 season.

Also CCFC voted FOR these rules when the league voted on it & now they're using them as an excuse.

It's clear you are not a supporter and your agenda is club distabisation

I was very despondent yesterday as many seem to be adopted your bigotry.

Today I am pleased to see many new posters expressing intelligent probing arguments which support the correct stance.

No doubt you will continue to post little in the way of facts just negative propaganda against the club you claim to support.

Jack Griffin · Feb 16, 2013

Grendel said:
It's clear you are not a supporter and your agenda is club distabisation

I was very despondent yesterday as many seem to be adopted your bigotry.

Today I am pleased to see many new posters expressing intelligent probing arguments which support the correct stance.

No doubt you will continue to post little in the way of facts just negative propaganda against the club you claim to support.

I'm posting facts & occasionally my opinion.

Show me a post where I have posted something inaccurate or a post where I've tried to pass off my opinions as factual?

What you post is largely your opinion, I just have a different view, for me the moral issues supersede many of the financial issues & the health of the City of Coventry as a whole supersedes any temporary difficulties that the football club face.

CCFC_GT · Feb 16, 2013

Jack Griffin said:
I'm posting facts & occasionally my opinion.

Show me a post where I have posted something inaccurate or a post where I've tried to pass off my opinions as factual?

What you post is largely your opinion, I just have a different view, for me the moral issues supersede many of the financial issues & the health of the City of Coventry as a whole supersedes any temporary difficulties that the football club face.

OK, so for you the finances of the Council are more important than the future of CCFC, that's fine and you are as entilted to your opinion as the rest of us.
However, the difficulties that the football club face are not temporary, they are permanent for as long as the council maintains its present stance on the revenue streams, or until a wealthy benefactor comes forward who is prepared to buy a business with virtually no assets and limited revenue and then invest millions in a business that will lose millions year on year (as SISU has done).

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Feb 16, 2013

CCFC_GT said:
Whereas we are not fortunate enough to have owners that are willing to sustain big losses year on year on a business that has virtually no assets and restricted access to revenues :facepalm:

Their owners know what they are doing and hav the capacity to execute it. That's the difference. They have invested heavily ahead of FFP and can now adhere being in the strong position they want.

Ours on the other hand, won't invest and have steered us to huge losses. And the revenue you now claim is so critical to their success was never on the table. This isn't a new thing you know. Nothing has changed whatsoever with regards revenues since 2007.

The only thing that's changed is relegation. And since then it's seemingly everything

Stevec189 · Feb 16, 2013

dantheman said:
The council should sell the ground back to the Club then where it belongs!Not use more tax payers money to prop up a failing business with a cheap loan!!!

Only if it returns more than they have already spent on the venture - i.e. makes a profit for the council tax payers who have ultimately paid for this. That is a considerable sum - more than SISU are willing to pay I would imagine! PUSB

sky blue john · Feb 16, 2013

Why do people bang on about match day revenue streams ?
It is hardly going to make much difference !!!
we have a figure of food of 100k and then car parking which is not going to be millions !!
Its all a smoke screen to hide Sisu's deficiences and try and blame others for mistakes they have made !!!!

Sick Boy · Feb 16, 2013

grego_gee said:
click the URL to listen and move slider TF interview starts at 2:07:57

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0144cq2/Shane_OConnors_Breakfast_Show_15_02_2013/

my interpretation:
Its all about match day revenues! FFP directly limits salary level for the team at 65%(next season 60%) of total revenue ie ticket receipts and other match day revenues.

Match day revenues are the only way that money allowed to be spent on the team can be increased.
ACL & Council have said "Hell will freeze over before you get access to those revenues"
They might not understand it, because its very recently changed (in FL FFP regulations) but their actions are killing the club.
imp:

It seems that it isn't only the council who don't understand the FFP rules either, a lot on here don't.

Moscowskyblue · Feb 16, 2013

I can't fathom how anybody in their right minds can support the SISU stance in any way shape or form. Relegation and a downward spiral is a sporting possiblity that became probable due to the owners inexperience as in football and now they are using heavy handed tactics which WILL harm all parties.
ACL have moved heaven and earth, with no legal obligation, to accomodate the football club and have been vilified on here as the bad guy, unbelievable.
The council have one duty to fulfil and that is to the ratepayers not a football club owner who agreed and signed a contract on the terms layed out.
if the club goes because of this then as a lifetime supporter for 50 years then i will be angry and distraught but my anger will not be with anybody other than the legal owners of CCFC.
I support Coventry City as my hometown club and I think of George Hudson, Tommy Hutchison, Dion Dublin, Gary McAllister and the rest as creators of great memories for me and many others, the owners as the custodians of our club(some have been great, other questionable)and frankly this lot deserve everything they get and if that means we start again then so be it.

sky blue john · Feb 16, 2013

If the extra match day revenue is hypathetically 500k then the club could spend an extra 300k on wages hardly going to make a big difference !!!!

Tim Fisher on Shane Oconnor 15 02 13 (1 Viewer)

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

New Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency