We are fans of the year! (4 Viewers)

Lorksalordy · Dec 23, 2013

What I find most bizarre is these convoluted arguments about strategies behind people's actions. In my opinion, the vast majority of people who are staying away from Sixfields are not doing so with any agenda other than making a stand against what is ultimately the stupidest decision in this sorry shambles of a balls up. It is long term fans saying that the decision is wrong and they will not accept / validate it by attending. Extending the argument beyond that is ultimately futile and not the driving force behind many's (I think most) decision to stay away.

wingy · Dec 23, 2013

Lorksalordy said:
What I find most bizarre is these convoluted arguments about strategies behind people's actions. In my opinion, the vast majority of people who are staying away from Sixfields are not doing so with any agenda other than making a stand against what is ultimately the stupidest decision in this sorry shambles of a balls up. It is long term fans saying that the decision is wrong and they will not accept / validate it by attending. Extending the argument beyond that is ultimately futile and not the driving force behind many's (I think most) decision to stay away.

You articulated It much better than my attempt ,I completely agree .

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Dec 23, 2013

theferret said:
OK, if your stance is purely a moral one and you care not of the consequences of it then fair enough. For others though, the boycott is a means to an end, and that I have some difficulty with because I do not see how it can achieve the desired aim.

All been done to death I guess so I won't bore people any more, and I don't pretend to have all (or any) answers. My preferred option would be that SISU buy the Ricoh and a fair price, bring in AEG to run it and look to offload the whole thing at the earliest available opportunity. Naive? Perhaps, although I know some people would rather we stayed in Northampton than SISU get hold of the Ricoh (that I don't get). All very depressing.

I wouldn't argue much with your desired end-game. From my perspective I'm just sick and tired with the actions of our club's owners. Think it through; we've discussed in this thread if layers will be sold in January - which shouldn't happen given Fisher's promises to the FL. But - quite rightly - there are very few who believe what he's said. Same as the stadium plans. You don't believe them, I don't believe them. The national press laughs at our Walter Mitty style of operation. Or the Judicial Review at a time when the club's 'moved on'. When would a private investment outfit like SISU have any interest in the legality of investments made with the public purse?

You, I and everyone knows the end-game that's being sought. What I can't stand is the casual way the very existence of our cub is being used as a bargaining chip in this charade.

What do SISU want? The Ricoh. What don't they want? To pay a fair market rice for it. Everything else, is a pantomime orbiting this central ambition

grego_gee · Dec 23, 2013

Snozz_is_god said:
But you are not financially supporting the team, you are financially supporting SISU.

That's just wrong too!
If the "supporters" are not financially supporting the team, they are relying on the money of SISU to support it for them.
Apart from the fact that the boycott would not effect them (arguably at all but certainly not before CCFC) isn't it a bit hypocritical for people who claim SISU are all bad to be relying on SISU to pay for them?
SISU have already stated that they are able to fund the losses of playing at Sixfields but CCFC are not in a position to do that without SISU.
Any loss of revenue to CCFC is going to directly effect the team under FFP.
SISU are blamed for moving us to Northampton but do you really think would have done it if there was any other choice.
But the immediate issue is proclaiming "non-supporters" as supporters of the year.
This is an "alternative award", a nonsense dreamed up by the press who are just stirring up the situation!
Hard fact is they will sell more newspapers out of Coventry collapsing than surviving!

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Dec 23, 2013

grego_gee said:
That's just wrong too!
If the "supporters" are not financially supporting the team, they are relying on the generosity of SISU to support it for them.
Apart from the fact that the boycott would not effect them (arguably at all but certainly not before CCFC) isn't it a bit hypocritical for people who claim SISU are all bad to be relying on SISU to pay for them?
SISU have already stated that they are able to fund the losses of playing at Sixfields but CCFC are not in a position to do that without SISU.
Any loss of revenue to CCFC is going to directly effect the team under FFP.
SISU are blamed for moving us to Northampton but do you really think would have done it if there was any other choice.
But the immediate issue is proclaiming "non-supporters" as supporters of the year.
This is an "alternative award", a nonsense dreamed up by the press who are just stirring up the situation!
Hard fact is they will sell more newspapers out of Coventry collapsing than surviving!

I can think of no more erudite a way of putting this; so I'll run with the précis: you're feckin' bananas

SIR ERNIE · Dec 23, 2013

grego_gee said:
That's just wrong too!
If the "supporters" are not financially supporting the team, they are relying on the generosity of SISU to support it for them.

Generosity of SISU? Generosity has got nothing to do with it. If you own a business you need to recognise the importance of your paying customers. You alienate them at your peril.

_brian_ · Dec 23, 2013

Were there any fans from here that got a personal mention?!?! Got to be a fair few on here that are better than others and deserve the accolade, surely!!!

grego_gee · Dec 23, 2013

SIR ERNIE said:
Generosity of SISU? Generosity has got nothing to do with it. If you own a business you need to recognise the importance of your paying customers. You alienate them at your peril.

I agree with that but I also think SISU would agree too, I don't think they did it with the aim of alienating their customers
perhaps "generosity" was too inflammatory a term to use, lets just say
If the "supporters" are not financially supporting the team, they are relying on the money of SISU to support it for them.

DazzleTommyDazzle · Dec 23, 2013

grego_gee said:
perhaps "generosity" was too inflammatory a term to use, lets just say
If the "supporters" are not financially supporting the team, they are relying on the money of SISU to support it for them.

SISU made the decision to move the club to Northampton.

The result was not difficult to forecast.

If they are genuinely surprised by the financial impact, they should accept the offer to move back to he Ricoh.

Unless they have a different agenda.....

shmmeee · Dec 23, 2013

theferret said:
Given what you know about SISU and how they operate, what do you think is more likely: a. they give in, put their tale between their legs and take us home; b. they just wind the whole thing up and walk away?

Genuine question.

Wind the whole thing up.

shmmeee · Dec 23, 2013

theferret said:
None of that matters. Tim Fisher in calculated bluff shocker.

Do you believe him? If yes, then what is the point of the boycott? If no, then you must understand and accept that they have the option of decimating this squad of players if they need to.

Again, if you genuinely believe the boycott will force a return to the Ricoh then fine, the logic is sound enough. If you don't believe that, then starving them of cash will not end well for anybody, least of all Coventry City Football Club, but it might make some people feel better I guess.

Think of it like the Marlon King thing. People weren't boycotting so that we had to sell him, or in fact for any particular specified action, merely to show their disgust at the actions of the club. This is the same.

theferret · Dec 23, 2013

shmmeee said:
Think of it like the Marlon King thing. People weren't boycotting so that we had to sell him, or in fact for any particular specified action, merely to show their disgust at the actions of the club. This is the same.

For some yes, but others seem to be clinging on to the idea the boycott will force the club into a u-turn. Just now someone has posted this on another thread:

"How to get cov back in cov.stop fooling yourself and stop going to sixfeilds.it is the only way"

I think that is nonsense, it isn't the only way at all.

Anyhow, looks like be a 'bumper' gate on Thursday (if such a thing is possible), with P'boro set to bring 2000+. Might even be 5000, massive

grego_gee · Dec 23, 2013

_brian_ said:
Were there any fans from here that got a personal mention?!?! Got to be a fair few on here that are better than others and deserve the accolade, surely!!!

there is no accolade, its a wind-up!
our attendances are the lowest in the league.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Dec 23, 2013

grego_gee said:
there is no accolade, its a wind-up!
our attendances are the lowest in the league.

The difference between our 'home' and away gates is the strongest message in the league; and it's being noted on a stage that's embarrassing your friends at SISU. That must trouble you...

wingy · Dec 23, 2013

theferret said:
For some yes, but others seem to be clinging on to the idea the boycott will force the club into a u-turn. Just now someone has posted this on another thread:

"How to get cov back in cov.stop fooling yourself and stop going to sixfeilds.it is the only way"

I think that is nonsense, it isn't the only way at all.

Anyhow, looks like be a 'bumper' gate on Thursday (if such a thing is possible), with P'boro set to bring 2000+. Might even be 5000, massive

Is there a game??

Jack Griffin · Dec 23, 2013

theferret said:
Given that a return to the Ricoh looks less likely than ever, the 'cashing in' option seems the most likely out of the two scenarios you describe. That being the case, why are you trying so hard to ensure we do not get promoted this season? No doubt you'll also be amongst the most vocal when SISU offload players in January to make up the cash shortfall - and I do not see how you can reconcile those positions. I'd quite like SISU to sell up too (just a bit), but understand that if that is to happen they need something to actually sell on. As it stands the club is practically worthless.

SISU just need to pump £2M in to guarantee promotion, what's their problem?

PS I'm being sarcastic & do not advocate any owner building up massive losses on the back of the club.

grego_gee · Dec 23, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
The difference between our 'home' and away gates is the strongest message in the league; and it's being noted on a stage that's embarrassing your friends at SISU. That must trouble you...

SISU are not my friends, I have no connection to them at all.
I am just expressing my own impartial views,
Of course SISU don't like the fans staying away and I am sure that it does trouble them,
but I think it troubles you more to think anyone else can have a view contrary to yours.

Jack Griffin · Dec 23, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
If players are to be sold to cover slight-of-hand or overly optimistic forecasting; then that's reprehensible.

I don't see they have any alternative.. and I'm pretty sure that was always going to be in the plan.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Dec 23, 2013

grego_gee said:
SISU are not my friends, I have no connection to them at all.
I am just expressing my own impartial views,
Of course SISU don't like the fans staying away and I am sure that it does trouble them,
but I think it troubles you more to think anyone else can have a view contrary to yours.

You can have whatever view you wish. It's when it's perverse I have issues with it. Like lauding SISU's 'generosity' as something we should be thankful of. That's either a wind up, or insanity. If the latter, you need institutionalised help. If the former, I pity you for having nothing better to do with yourself

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Dec 23, 2013

Jack Griffin said:
I don't see they have any alternative.. and I'm pretty sure that was always going to be in the plan.

The alternative would be to cover any losses as they promised the FL. If not, and selling players was always the plan, then what were the 'promises' made to the league?

Jack Griffin · Dec 23, 2013

Lorksalordy said:
What I find most bizarre is these convoluted arguments about strategies behind people's actions. In my opinion, the vast majority of people who are staying away from Sixfields are not doing so with any agenda other than making a stand against what is ultimately the stupidest decision in this sorry shambles of a balls up. It is long term fans saying that the decision is wrong and they will not accept / validate it by attending. Extending the argument beyond that is ultimately futile and not the driving force behind many's (I think most) decision to stay away.

If I thought the move was absolutely justified, I would support it by attending Sixfields..
As I actually think it is unjustifiable then I've made the decision to never attend..

Then there is a huge grey area in between which is influenced by other factors like comfort, expense, travel time, lack of atmosphere, inferior sauce stations etc.. I think a large number of fans fall into this zone..

But in the end it is a huge miscalculation by SISU.

grego_gee · Dec 23, 2013

theferret said:
Given that a return to the Ricoh looks less likely than ever, the 'cashing in' option seems the most likely out of the two scenarios you describe. That being the case, why are you trying so hard to ensure we do not get promoted this season? No doubt you'll also be amongst the most vocal when SISU offload players in January to make up the cash shortfall - and I do not see how you can reconcile those positions. I'd quite like SISU to sell up too (just a bit), but understand that if that is to happen they need something to actually sell on. As it stands the club is practically worthless.

Your last statement is very true.
The same can also be said of the Ricoh arena without the regular income from the team!
Bring them together and the value of both will go up.
The problem is the council feel they have some right over this increase in value and are sticking out to get some of it.
My viewpoint is that they already took too much advantage of the club and the added value is "owned" by the club alone.
Others look at it differently.

Jack Griffin · Dec 23, 2013

grego_gee said:
Your last statement is very true.
The same can also be said of the Ricoh arena without the regular income from the team!
Bring them together and the value of both will go up.
The problem is the council feel they have some right over this increase in value and are sticking out to get some of it.
My viewpoint is that they already took too much advantage of the club and the added value is "owned" by the club alone.
Others look at it differently.

ACL never got more than 10-15% of their turnover from the club.. anyway, their next accounting year ends in Feb, probably be published in March if last year is anything to go by.. you will be able to see what the reality is then..

DazzleTommyDazzle · Dec 23, 2013

Jack Griffin said:
If I thought the move was absolutely justified, I would support it by attending Sixfields..
As I actually think it is unjustifiable then I've made the decision to never attend..

Then there is a huge grey area in between which is influenced by other factors like comfort, expense, travel time, lack of atmosphere, inferior sauce stations etc.. I think a large number of fans fall into this zone..

But in the end it is a huge miscalculation by SISU.

Couldn't argue with any of that.

magic82ball · Dec 23, 2013

theferret said:
Given what you know about SISU and how they operate, what do you think is more likely: a. they give in, put their tale between their legs and take us home; b. they just wind the whole thing up and walk away?

Genuine question.

Either is preferable.

theferret · Dec 23, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
The alternative would be to cover any losses as they promised the FL. If not, and selling players was always the plan, then what were the 'promises' made to the league?

I am not sure where you are going with this. Any assurances would presumably have been based on projected income. Nothing is guaranteed, and stupid as the FL are, they are not THAT stupid. If income has fallen way short of what they projected then of course the club may exercise their right to sell players to balance the books. To describe the actions of a lower league football club selling players to cover losses 'reprehensible' is a bit silly tbh.

Granted, there is much they have done over the years that could justifiable be described thus, but not in this case.

wingy · Dec 23, 2013

theferret said:
I am not sure where you are going with this. Any assurances would presumably have been based on projected income. Nothing is guaranteed, and stupid as the FL are, they are not THAT stupid. If income has fallen way short of what they projected then of course the club may exercise their right to sell players to balance the books. To describe the actions of a lower league football club selling players to cover losses 'reprehensible' is a bit silly tbh.

Granted, there is much they have done over the years that could justifiable be described thus, but not in this case.

That's why they suppressed there own Data for So long ,there was no Ignorance involved here and they made the Pledge to fund the losses ,even gregg clarke commented how loaded they Were/Are they can't have It both ways with their Bullshit.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Dec 23, 2013

theferret said:
I am not sure where you are going with this. Any assurances would presumably have been based on projected income. Nothing is guaranteed, and stupid as the FL are, they are not THAT stupid. If income has fallen way short of what they projected then of course the club may exercise their right to sell players to balance the books. To describe the actions of a lower league football club selling players to cover losses 'reprehensible' is a bit silly tbh.

Granted, there is much they have done over the years that could justifiable be described thus, but not in this case.

Simple. In order for the Football League to sanction the Sixfieds move; Greg Clarke claimed he'd seen evidence that Otium had sufficient to cover all losses and 'run the club for years'. If that is not the case, and the club needs to sell it's own players to balance the books barely 6 months after the move was sanctioned, then the basis for the move could surely be questioned; if not challenged. So, I'm not being 'silly', if you don't mind; I'm expecting SISU to honour the promises it appears it made to the game's regulatory authorities.

As far as I see it, if players are sold, the legal basis for the move could be questioned

Monners · Dec 23, 2013

It's and interesting point MMM, but it wuld be easy for Sisu/FL to merely state the offers on the table for certain players sold were just too good to refuse. Arguably, this could be a reason for some players singin new contract - although that would be normal practice for any lower division club.

Lorksalordy · Dec 23, 2013

Jack Griffin said:
If I thought the move was absolutely justified, I would support it by attending Sixfields..
As I actually think it is unjustifiable then I've made the decision to never attend..

Then there is a huge grey area in between which is influenced by other factors like comfort, expense, travel time, lack of atmosphere, inferior sauce stations etc.. I think a large number of fans fall into this zone..

But in the end it is a huge miscalculation by SISU.

Think we are broadly saying the same thing. Not sure how many actually falling into the grey area section (apart from the sauce stations which is beyond doubt). Also think Sixfields installing a cashless system for food and drink could be the trump card that SISU are waiting to play to boost attendances.

RoboCCFC90 · Dec 23, 2013

Jack Griffin said:
I don't see they have any alternative.. and I'm pretty sure that was always going to be in the plan.

The same as it was always going to be the plan in the summer?

shmmeee · Dec 23, 2013

grego_gee said:
Your last statement is very true.
The same can also be said of the Ricoh arena without the regular income from the team!
Bring them together and the value of both will go up.
The problem is the council feel they have some right over this increase in value and are sticking out to get some of it.
My viewpoint is that they already took too much advantage of the club and the added value is "owned" by the club alone.
Others look at it differently.

I assume you think they took "advantage" by charging rent?

If so, do you not think ARVO are taking advantage by taking the same amount in interest payments?

theferret · Dec 23, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Simple. In order for the Football League to sanction the Sixfieds move; Greg Clarke claimed he'd seen evidence that Otium had sufficient to cover all losses and 'run the club for years'. If that is not the case, and the club needs to sell it's own players to balance the books barely 6 months after the move was sanctioned, then the basis for the move could surely be questioned; if not challenged. So, I'm not being 'silly', if you don't mind; I'm expecting SISU to honour the promises it appears it made to the game's regulatory authorities.

As far as I see it, if players are sold, the legal basis for the move could be questioned

You're just being your usual obtuse self

The club might well have demonstrated that they can fund losses for a specified period time based on average gates of 4000 (neither of us know the basis of this so-called 'promise', but it would be absurd to suggest that this notional agreement would have involved some sort of self-imposed embargo on the sale of players), but given that gates have actually fallen below most people's expectations then I don't believe that offloading a play or two in January would be seen as 'reprehensible' for all but the most entrenched.

So far of course they have demonstrated that they are willing to continue to subsidise our football club so that we can sustain a squad way beyond our current means. Will that be the case in January? Who knows, although I fully expect one player to go, probably Christie.

covkid53 · Dec 23, 2013

No we're not..... 90% staying away (rightly so too)

magic82ball · Dec 23, 2013

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Simple. In order for the Football League to sanction the Sixfieds move; Greg Clarke claimed he'd seen evidence that Otium had sufficient to cover all losses and 'run the club for years'. If that is not the case, and the club needs to sell it's own players to balance the books barely 6 months after the move was sanctioned, then the basis for the move could surely be questioned; if not challenged. So, I'm not being 'silly', if you don't mind; I'm expecting SISU to honour the promises it appears it made to the game's regulatory authorities.

As far as I see it, if players are sold, the legal basis for the move could be questioned

That's ludicrous, players are always sold every year to "balance the books" and with the low income from gates you can not realistically expect it to be any different this year. I think the remit handed down from the FL was more a case of not paying player wages etc. not what calibre of player has to be on the books.

We are fans of the year! (4 Viewers)

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

New Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

New Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency