dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
So transparent
Not at all. I had a chuckle when I read it earlier.
About 10 ten days ago my CCFC employed mate was telling me that the community branch got a little put out that suddenly Waggot was getting involved in things they normally do, taking it off them.
They asked him what was going on and he told them he was doing it to show the Council how the club can operate in the community.
I was expecting him just to use it as a bargaining tool in the boardroom , I didn't expect a full media piece on it.
We would be more than happy to be involved in any real community scheme but ask us before assuming and publicising such an association
whilst understanding these are all manoevres by sisu, i continue to be amazed that some people are taken in by the continued 'smoke & mirrors' approach
it begs the question as to why no-one has been down the route of 'real investigative journalism',
too many tame journo's perhaps
To reveal what? The disgusting rental payments this club has been subjected to for nearly a decade?
To reveal what? The disgusting rental payments this club has been subjected to for nearly a decade?
What's disgusting? It was a contract entered into freely, and affordable until our incumbent owners steered us to the third tier of football.
Although higher than others, that's life. If you take a Mercedes on HP, then through your own stupidity lose your job and struggle with the payments, it's not 'disgusting' that you're monthly instalments are higher than for Jim's Kia down the road
It is if you find the Mercedes has been charged at 500% above RRP.
What's disgusting? It was a contract entered into freely, and affordable until our incumbent owners steered us to the third tier of football.
Although higher than others, that's life. If you take a Mercedes on HP, then through your own stupidity lose your job and struggle with the payments, it's not 'disgusting' that you're monthly instalments are higher than for Jim's Kia down the road
In the article Waggott claims to have had dealings with the Sky Blue Trust and that we are founder members of his community charter. This is quite simply not true - we have had no discussions with the club on any such programme. Whilst we obviously support the sentiment behind the initiative its strange how its taken 5 years for SISU to remember the community and launch this at this opportune time. Hopefully the rest of the claims and statements in the piece are more accurate than his claims about the Trust.
Hardly freely, the club had a gun to its head. It was enter into the contract or be homeless.
stop causing trouble
No it didn't. It didn't have to leave Highfield Road. Run that one past me, can you?
At the point of contract it didn't own Highfield Rd.
Damn the council for selling Highfield Rd and then having to be bailed out by CCFC when it constantly mismanaged and ran out of money whilst building its stadium or have I got that the wrong way round?
And what about the gun to its head with regards selling Highfield Road. Explain that bit can you please?
Damn the council for selling Highfield Rd and then having to be bailed out by CCFC when it constantly mismanaged and ran out of money whilst building its stadium or have I got that the wrong way round?
What has that got to do with the current owners and their dispute?
The main thrust of the argument is something that was done way before SISU existed.
It does seen though that other council built projects where football clubs are tenants are far more lenient in the rent arrangements doesn't it?
The deal that is on the table is one that as a Trust we feel is fair to all parties. With ACL now making good profits from other parts of the operation it allows it to cover the clubs shortfall with meeting the mortgage payments and allows the club to operate at a fair rent considering the quality of the facilities offered. This will obviously go down to the wire as both sides play brinkmanship with OUR club. Hopefully sense will prevail and we can then just get back to the business of football and not finance.
But what if the reality is, that the club cannot afford to pay what is necessary for ACL to meet their mortgages?
Will the Trust then suggest the club lower the wage budget? Even if this eliminate the chance of keeping Goldie or get in a suitable replacement?
What is the Trusts stance on the rent backlog? Should it be paid in full, even if it means selling whatever player that can attract a fee?
I did start with 'what if' as nobody outside ccfc boardroom really know the reality, so please go within this scenario.
They completed due diligence before buying the club, and in so doing accepted responsibility for the contracts and liabilities if the former owners. I mean, it's not like the rentals were a secret, is it.
So, that not really...
On the face of it the rent at £1.2 m does appear high but this was set in conjunction with the club when the decision was taken to finalise the stadium by taking out the loan from Yorkshire Bank, a loan that had to be taken out as yet again the club was not in a position to do so its self. As Fisher so unprofessionally revealed that loan costs ACL £1.6m a year so the clubs original rent doesn't even cover that cost. During the original negotiations over the rent ACL actually offered McGinnity a deal based on attendances but his response was no (it was actually a lot blunter and ruder).
The deal that is on the table is one that as a Trust we feel is fair to all parties. With ACL now making good profits from other parts of the operation it allows it to cover the clubs shortfall with meeting the mortgage payments and allows the club to operate at a fair rent considering the quality of the facilities offered. This will obviously go down to the wire as both sides play brinkmanship with OUR club. Hopefully sense will prevail and we can then just get back to the business of football and not finance.
But what if the reality is, that the club cannot afford to pay what is necessary for ACL to meet their mortgages?
Will the Trust then suggest the club lower the wage budget? Even if this eliminate the chance of keeping Goldie or get in a suitable replacement?
What is the Trusts stance on the rent backlog? Should it be paid in full, even if it means selling whatever player that can attract a fee?
I did start with 'what if' as nobody outside ccfc boardroom really know the reality, so please go within this scenario.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?