Time for a trust statement (1 Viewer)

Captain Dart said:

About the only assets CCFC have left to bargain with Wasps are:
1) Presence of CCFC at Arena will make sponsorship deal bigger, if Wasps sign off on a new long term deal that is gone & can only be leveraged in a new stadium.
2) CCFC matches bring in F&B and Parking revenue to feed ACL component. Not sure how match day costs are determined.
3) It is possible for CCFC to get other revenue from the stadium if there was access outside the match window, but unless that is a good deal it does not benefit CCFC much and alternative venues could be found.

Other than that there is only the bad PR that could come from dealing with the club unfairly, but while the litigation continues I do not think the general public (and I don't mean poster this forum there are a lot more parties out there who don't see the issues in such a black and white manner as many on here do) is fully behind CCFC, rather they can say (as I do) "I'm not at all surprised Wasps do not want to deal with someone who wants to involve them in litigation".

Click to expand...

So as you say Wasps can do what they want. The way that they are doing it SISU get the blame.

Astute said:

So as you say Wasps can do what they want. The way that they are doing it SISU get the blame.

Click to expand...

But.. they were not responsible for creating the conditions which they are exploiting. That was Tim, Joy and all the other minions who got involved with SISU/ARVO.

Captain Dart said:

But.. they were not responsible for creating the conditions which they are exploiting. That was Tim, Joy and all the other minions who got involved with SISU/ARVO.

Click to expand...

They are responsible for "exploiting" them though aren't they? They knew about the legal stuff when they started the talks didn't they? Bit strange how they suddenly stop when the plans come out for the Higgs.

Nick said:

They are responsible for "exploiting" them though aren't they? They knew about the legal stuff when they started the talks didn't they?

Click to expand...

That is business, red in tooth and claw (to purloin Tennyson) don't you think Joy wouldn't do the same if the boot was on the other foot.

Captain Dart said:

That is business, red in tooth and claw (to purloin Tennyson) don't you think Joy wouldn't do the same if the boot was on the other foot.

Click to expand...

Probably, and SISU would get the blame if they were doing that too wouldn't they?

Nick said:

Probably, and SISU would get the blame if they were doing that too wouldn't they?

Click to expand...

On current evidence I'd say they are not smart or astute enough to have created the opportunity.

Another 9 pages going around and around if only if only if only.
If only people had cared enough before we might have been in a different situation.
No one cared enough before, excuses like working,times have changed no one told me why is it on a Saturday why is it on a working day.

Well if you care enough you'd find these things out yourself.

letsallsingtogether said:

Another 9 pages going around and around if only if only if only.
If only people had cared enough before we might have been in a different situation.
No one cared enough before, excuses like working,times have changed no one told me why is it on a Saturday why is it on a working day.

Well if you care enough you'd find these things out yourself.

Click to expand...

Are you still going on about the one where it was due for before the game / late afternoon but was changed that morning to during the day when most people couldn't just suddenly leave work?

Astute said:

So as you say Wasps can do what they want. The way that they are doing it SISU get the blame.

Click to expand...

Wasps wouldn't be here without Sisu. Anything that happens from Wasps being here is Sisu's fault.

shmmeee said:

Wasps wouldn't be here without Sisu. Anything that happens from Wasps being here is Sisu's fault.

Click to expand...

SISU wouldn't be here without the council preferring them because they didn't want the Ricoh and rejected other people. Anything that happens from SISU being here is the Council's fault.

Nick said:

Are you still going on about the one where it was due for before the game / late afternoon but was changed that morning to during the day when most people couldn't just suddenly leave work?

Click to expand...

I was at work too!!
No Nick not just that one.
Everytime we did a protest against anyone the league 3 times alone all we got was abuse and piss taking from posters who are now crying.
Well get over it we are where we are and it is to late to change anything.
Let's concentrate on the team and let it run its course.
We won't change anything and I believe our owners are happy were they are.
PUSB

shmmeee said:

Wasps wouldn't be here without Sisu. Anything that happens from Wasps being here is Sisu's fault.

Click to expand...

The arena wouldn't have been built if it wasn't for Richardson. How far are we allowed to go back?

Astute said:

The arena wouldn't have been built if it wasn't for Richardson. How far are we allowed to go back?

Click to expand...

Wasn't it those nice folks at ccc and higgs who bailed the club out? Otherwise the project would have collapsed? How I wish they would have let it. On another note be interesting to hear from tesco who brokered the deal. Whether it was Richardson or not?

SkyBlueZack said:

Wasn't it those nice folks at ccc and higgs who bailed the club out? Otherwise the project would have collapsed? How I wish they would have let it. On another note be interesting to hear from tesco who brokered the deal. Whether it was Richardson or not?

Click to expand...

What purpose would it serve to get these details or the details of Manhattan or Shapiro discussions other than personal interest. Sorry Zack but people should be focussing on solving the far more pressing current issues not stuff from a decade ago and that involved two companies (CCFC Ltd & CCFC (H) Ltd ) that no longer exist. We wont ever be told what really happened and there is no way of forcing the likes of Tesco, Manhattan, Shapiro to disclose confidential details

Because it would give a clearer picture as to how we got here. People say no one wants to deal with sisu. There is possibility that we ended up with sisu because no one would deal with the council. Is that not relevant? Richardson thinks he brokered the deal and we should have had the ricoh on the basis of this deal. Is that not relevant? Should we not as a football club been given the stadium as we were the only thing keeping it going? Should we not have been given the stadium as we had been paying an inflated rent? I agree the priority is the Academy. Doesn't make finding out how we got in this mess futile or unnecessary.

oldskyblue58 said:

What purpose would it serve to get these details or the details of Manhattan or Shapiro discussions other than personal interest. Sorry Zack but people should be focussing on solving the far more pressing current issues not stuff from a decade ago and that involved two companies (CCFC Ltd & CCFC (H) Ltd ) that no longer exist. We wont ever be told what really happened and there is no way of forcing the likes of Tesco, Manhattan, Shapiro to disclose confidential details

Click to expand...

because if they are saying the council or higgs were impossible to work with we can try and get an idea of things away from the pr games and public statements.

It's all well and good saying it's in the past, but people only ever seem to say that when its about something anybody other than sisu could have done isn't it?

Sorry Zack but we are going to have to differ on this

finding out all that solves what exactly? Changes what exactly? It wont get us the stadium. It wont help this club survive. So we understand he said she said a little more assuming it can be backed up and believed - bluntly so what? It wont actually change many opinions will it?

Yes I would want CCFC to be in control of the stadium - but turn it around would you "give" (and I disagree with that term) the stadium to a company that makes multi million pound losses, regularly paid out over 100% of turnover in wages, was/is massively in debt, was/is failing on the pitch, had/has no real plan to change things, had/has shown little desire for partnership. Hasn't changed a lot in the last 2 decades other than now wages are lower and the club is in a lower division with less assets

Most fans are actually only interested in what is happening on the pitch so providing the information will change what for the majority of fans?

The information you are so passionate about getting, and fair play to you for being so, will change what and how? The original deal is not going to be revisited, if it were going to be a game changer then SISU would have played that card by now. Legally it relates to Companies that no longer exist.

We have simply got to stop looking at the past as being the key to the clubs prosperity, we have to look at now and the future and deal with the cards we have available now to ensure the clubs survival.

The club has two choices
(a) it works with the devils and demons it needs to, to maximise the potential it has
(b) it goes its own way and funds an alternative

Neither choice has a solution based in what went on in 2008 or before

Plenty of other parties have had a hand in our demise but right now CCFC as owned by SISU have to take responsibility and sort their own shit out because potential partners or decision makers that could help have closed their doors.

That is a very rocky vulnerable place to be for a cash strapped, loss making, hugely in debt, negative cash flow business/football team

Nick said:

because if they are saying the council or higgs were impossible to work with we can try and get an idea of things away from the pr games and public statements.

It's all well and good saying it's in the past, but people only ever seem to say that when its about something anybody other than sisu could have done isn't it?

Click to expand...

No NIck. SISU made mistakes, CCC made mistakes, ACL made mistakes but we have to deal with what is now, we need solutions based on what is because CCFC is at risk NOW

We do disagree. The council were accused by fletcher of trying to make money out of the stadium built for the football club mainly from the tesco sale and grants. Yet this has no bearing on how we have ended up here. It might not change anything. It might show the true colours of the council though. We know sisus true colours. Driven by money and greed. On that basis it would appear the council are not too different. Yet some paint them as only part of the problem. Let's not unearth anything that might show them as the root cause. The stadium was essentially given to wasps considering they used the bond money to pay for it. Another question I would like answered is if the council knew this was wasps intention. You see I have lots of questions. Some about the past. Some about the present. All centered around getting as much information as possible. Personally can't see how getting answers and info is a bad thing.

From Sky Blue Trust Website:

Hope For Sky Blues Academy

The importance of the academy to CCFC cannot be overemphasised – it has produced a large number of very talented and successful players for the club over the years, many of whom have graced the Sky Blue shirt with distinction and some who have moved on to pastures new thus providing vital revenue for the club.

Recent developments at the Alan Edward Higgs centre, where the academy is based, have cast doubt over the future of this important component of the Coventry City infrastructure. The club have been based at the centre for a decade but in the past couple of years their relationship with the centre owners and management has been fractious and even broken when the academy left, albeit temporarily, their traditional base. On their return they did so on a finite contact that expires in July 2017 and have block booked the facilities they require on a rolling 3 month basis.

With the new centre owners stated plans to convert the vital indoor pitch into a swimming pool followed by the additional blow that Wasps were to build a training facility at the Higgs City fans were thrown into a furore. The new Wasps structure would be constructed on the site of the current outdoor pitch and Wasps would also take possession of several of the outdoor pitches.

All this news has disconcerted Sky Blues fans almost universally and the Trust immediately called upon all parties involved to put past differences aside and work together to ensure the continuation of a Sky Blue Academy.

To this end the Trust had several meetings and discussions with CSF, Wasps and CCFC to get their perspective on events and get their assurance that they were willing to enter into meaningful discussions with each other. All three parties held their own views on what had gone on previously but all indicated that they would be willing to work with the others to try and ensure a positive outcome. The Trust has even offered to host and broker the talks in necessary.

CCFC are contacting the FA to discuss exactly what they need to retain the Academy as a Category 2 status or at worst Category 3. Once this has been established there will be a framework for all parties to work around. It will mean some changes and some compromise but the over-riding aim must be the continuation of an Academy at Coventry City.

Once again this proves that on going constructive dialogue is the answer. We believe that and as long as all parties are open and willing to work together then things can be achieved. Let us hope that this isn’t all just so much hot air, that people stop using the Academy as a political football and that everyone is genuine in their desire to ensure there is an Academy for CCFC now and in the future.

SkyBlueZack said:

We do disagree. The council were accused by fletcher of trying to make money out of the stadium built for the football club mainly from the tesco sale and grants. Yet this has no bearing on how we have ended up here. It might not change anything. It might show the true colours of the council though. We know sisus true colours. Driven by money and greed. On that basis it would appear the council are not too different. Yet some paint them as only part of the problem. Let's not unearth anything that might show them as the root cause. The stadium was essentially given to wasps considering they used the bond money to pay for it. Another question I would like answered is if the council knew this was wasps intention. You see I have lots of questions. Some about the past. Some about the present. All centered around getting as much information as possible. Personally can't see how getting answers and info is a bad thing.

Click to expand...

It will be interesting for a few of us Zack, I would like to know what went on sure, but it is not high on my list of priorities for CCFC. We don't actually know there is anything to unearth. It just seems to be a search for a stick to beat CCC and perhaps others including CCFC with. As someone who has regularly posted what I think are very valid questions then I know most will not get answered. I am not saying they shouldn't be asked though if that's what you want to do. If you have questions then contact the people/organisations and ask them

I agree valid info is nearly always useful. But I still come back to right now we need info that makes a difference to now ....... not info that frankly will serve little other purpose but to fuel the ever decreasing circles of a limited number of posters on SBT

oldskyblue58 said:

What purpose would it serve to get these details or the details of Manhattan or Shapiro discussions other than personal interest.

Click to expand...

While the companies may no longer exist CCFC still does, just about at least. People are asserting that the issue lies solely with SISU and evidencing that by listing those that won't work with them. Problem is when you scratch the surface these organisations all seem to trace back to CCC.

If you then look at the history, going back to when Richardson spoke with CCC about expanding HR, you see a pattern emerging. Long before SISU appeared on the scene CCC have, for reasons unknown, been largely unsupportive of the club.

That pattern of behaviour appears to be continuing now yet there seems to be a reluctance from many to question CCC's role in this mess.

Personally I am very happy for CCC actions and decisions to be challenged or questioned, especially the recent ones. The recent ones shape the clubs future to a great degree, but equally the safety of that future is not the prime responsibility of CCC - that lies with whichever owner the club has and always has done. As much as people assert its an SISU issue there are enough people simply blaming CCC

The closed door policy has been a factor in this from all sides. CCFC desperately needs the doors open. We are at a point where all the parties CCFC needs to work with have simply said enough and closed those doors, not only that but the owners have if we are to believe it said go sort it for yourself and closed that door (if you choose to believe CCFC is separate to SISU)

The major facts in this saga have been done to death and most posters on here of any worth accept that blame such as it is lies with all parties involved. There is other data out there probably, its exposure may well be interesting , might point a finger of blame in one direction or another but we are well past historical blame, CCFC needs solutions - the clock is ticking

Trouble is if CCFC is going to remain in Coventry and be viable, no matter who the owners are, then they are going to need to form a current working relationship with CCC irrespective of the history. What we cant have is any of the parties saying we will not talk and seek solutions that will be implemented because of what went on years ago

So whilst no doubt there will be interesting little snippets of he said she said from long ago, at some point positive not negative relationships have to be forged from both sides now. Sometimes you have to deal with the devil be that CCC or CCFC and that in some sense makes the history irrelevant

To my mind our focus should be on making that positive relationship between CCC and CCFC happen not dragging up stuff from either side from 2008 and before. Make both sides see the value in having a vibrant financially sound club secure in Coventry - not continually drag up history as a reason why not. Challenge CCC to look positively at CCFC, Challenge the owners to form partnerships

You cannot change history, no matter who seeks to rewrite it, but you can help forge a future. From where I am sitting the CCFC future is looking pretty rocky just now

So going back to the 1990's, 2003, 2007, etc analysing it in fine detail, making often sweeping assumptions, pointing the finger of blame solves the current/future problems CCFC has how?

How many other councils get so involved with their football club though? To the extent where they try to oust the owners? If I was owner of CCFC and had invested millions albeit not as much as I might say I have. Then the local council started making plans to take CCFC off me because they didn't agree with my business practices, or who I chose to ran the club or didn't think I was pumping enough money in. I would be furious. Leeds have been used as an example. Was Cellino not taken to court on fraud charges? Did Leeds council try and oust him? As people have said get on with running the city. They made a cock up of running ACL like SISU made a cock up of running CCFC. They are as bad as each other.

I am sure SISU are spitting feathers over a lot of stuff, similarly there are the same reactions on other issues at CCC.

But if CCFC are to remain in Coventry or even on its borders they will need a workable relationship with CCC.

And if CCC want the City's football team they will have to have a workable relationship with the CCFC owners

that's the reality irrespective of the history. That relationship does not exist from either side - we need to make both sides need such a thing

and I agree absolutely both as bad as each other

SkyBlueZack said:

How many other councils get so involved with their football club though? To the extent where they try to oust the owners? If I was owner of CCFC and had invested millions albeit not as much as I might say I have. Then the local council started making plans to take CCFC off me because they didn't agree with my business practices, or who I chose to ran the club or didn't think I was pumping enough money in. I would be furious. Leeds have been used as an example. Was Cellino not taken to court on fraud charges? Did Leeds council try and oust him? As people have said get on with running the city. They made a cock up of running ACL like SISU made a cock up of running CCFC. They are as bad as each other.

Click to expand...

Yes they should have voted not to build the Ricoh when we had sold HR and ran out of money. The club would have been homeless in 2005 but at least the council stayed out of it. Sometimes you need to look past the end of your nose.

italiahorse said:

Yes they should have voted not to build the Ricoh when we had sold HR and ran out of money.

Click to expand...

The best thing they could have done at that point is utilised the low cost lending they accessed, or rather claimed to have accessed before it became clear it was from council reserves, and lent the club the money to buy back HR. The council could have taken ownership as security and charged us an affordable annual payment with ownership reverting to the club when the loan was repaid.

chiefdave said:

The best thing they could have done at that point is utilised the low cost lending they accessed, or rather claimed to have accessed before it became clear it was from council reserves, and lent the club the money to buy back HR. The council could have taken ownership as security and charged us an affordable annual payment with ownership reverting to the club when the loan was repaid.

Click to expand...

How could they loan a debt ridden club money ? How would they pay it back ?

italiahorse said:

How could they loan a debt ridden club money ? How would they pay it back ?

Click to expand...

So they couldn't pay back a loan but could afford £1.3m a year in rent?

chiefdave said:

So they couldn't pay back a loan but could afford £1.3m a year in rent?

Click to expand...

No because Highfield road was falling down needed millions spent on it that was the problem.

letsallsingtogether said:

I was at work too!!
No Nick not just that one.
Everytime we did a protest against anyone the league 3 times alone all we got was abuse and piss taking from posters who are now crying.
Well get over it we are where we are and it is to late to change anything.
Let's concentrate on the team and let it run its course.
We won't change anything and I believe our owners are happy were they are.
PUSB

Click to expand...

I remember the Sisu protest at the Walsgrave hotel in the early days, there was only about 6 of us there.
Can't even reminder what it was about.
Northampton I guess.

chiefdave said:

So they couldn't pay back a loan but could afford £1.3m a year in rent?

Click to expand...

Agreed it but evidently couldn't afford it.
If you are in debt what security do you give in case of default? CCC would have found themselves over a barrel if they did.
Paying monthly rental is slightly different.
£1.3M would have been cheap in the PL thats why they didn't take the sliding scale rental.
Would have been a lot cheaper in L1 but management at the time (and Sisu later) thought PL was imminent.
In fact I think Sisu went for 'Operation Premiership' instead of buying into ACL.
So many mistakes over so few years.

letsallsingtogether said:

No because Highfield road was falling down needed millions spent on it that was the problem.

Click to expand...

To be honest other than the East stand it was a dump below and behind the seats.

letsallsingtogether said:

No because Highfield road was falling down needed millions spent on it that was the problem.

Click to expand...

That's news to me. Where did that info come from?

Richardson wanted to move to maximise revenues, and get a bigger stadium, and of course for his vanity. I knew the Safety Officer at the time, and the stadium wasn't in bad shape and he certainly never mentioned it needed any works or any significant investment.

Moff said:

That's news to me. Where did that info come from?

Richardson wanted to move to maximise revenues, and get a bigger stadium, and of course for his vanity. I knew the Safety Officer at the time, and the stadium wasn't in bad shape and he certainly never mentioned it needed any works or any significant investment.

Click to expand...

Can we sub Robinson for Richardson?

Anyway, they did tbf stop spending cash on HR once they decided to move, but not sure that's the same thing.