'We'd be better off owning the Ricoh but sisu can't be trusted'? (1 Viewer)

MichaelCCFC · Apr 25, 2014

kcic’s approach of saying acl have questions to answer but sisu are primarily responsible for moving us to NTFC reflects mainstream opinion and it is those who are only concerned with being pro/anti acl/sisu that are at the extremes (is anyone really going to try arguing that kcic having a petition calling to account all parties and selling t-shirts which say ‘keep cov in cov’ is militant and extremist?!)

Also seems that mainstream opinion is running along the lines of: ‘we know we would be better off owning the Ricoh but we also know that sisu can’t be trusted – they are only interested in their own profit'.

Does that sound right or is it wide of the mark?

covcity4life · Apr 25, 2014

i guess so

i would much rather we owned ricoh without sisu

but i would prefer sisu owned ricoh to no ccfc at ricoh full stop

thats because i support ccfc though.

alot of the extremists on here are interested in council business and politics and not the football club.

rondog1973 · Apr 25, 2014

My sentiments entirely.

ccfcway · Apr 25, 2014

i would suggest the vast majority would agree with that. If fans trusted SISU, many more (me included) would be turning up at Sixfields, believing it was only a temporary arrangement

mrbluesky87 · Apr 25, 2014

MichaelCCFC said:
Also seems that mainstream opinion is running along the lines of: ‘we know we would be better off owning the Ricoh but we also know that sisu can’t be trusted – they are only interested in their own profit'.

Absolutely, I want CCFC back at the Ricoh but not with the ground in SISU's hands and thats one reason why I wont be backing Brian Patton.

I also have no doubt that a lot of potential investors in CCFC would be crooks in some form or another but a hedge fund, really?

chiefdave · Apr 25, 2014

For me the middle ground is for SISU to own the lease (essentially own ACL) and CCC to retain ownership of the freehold. Put clauses in the lease that revert the lease back to CCC if there's anything dodgy attempted by SISU. Best of both worlds, club has all the benefit of owning the ground but for CCC there is some security.

lordsummerisle · Apr 25, 2014

MichaelCCFC said:
kcic’s approach of saying acl have questions to answer but sisu are primarily responsible for moving us to NTFC reflects mainstream opinion and it is those who are only concerned with being pro/anti acl/sisu that are at the extremes (is anyone really going to try arguing that kcic having a petition calling to account all parties and selling t-shirts which say ‘keep cov in cov’ is militant and extremist?!)

Also seems that mainstream opinion is running along the lines of: ‘we know we would be better off owning the Ricoh but we also know that sisu can’t be trusted – they are only interested in their own profit'.

Does that sound right or is it wide of the mark?

To be fair Michael whoever it was from the SCG who had a pop at you the other day was well out of order.

If anything i think that lately you've looked at things a bit more dispassionately from both sides and not just been putting blame one way.

You've had had more impact than anybody since the march last summer with the Arsenal protest as well so should be applauded for it.

italiahorse · Apr 25, 2014

covcity4life said:
i guess so

i would much rather we owned ricoh without sisu

but i would prefer sisu owned ricoh to no ccfc at ricoh full stop

thats because i support ccfc though.

alot of the extremists on here are interested in council business and politics and not the football club.

I think it's more about safe hands.

RFC · Apr 25, 2014

MichaelCCFC said:
kcic’s approach of saying acl have questions to answer but sisu are primarily responsible for moving us to NTFC reflects mainstream opinion and it is those who are only concerned with being pro/anti acl/sisu that are at the extremes (is anyone really going to try arguing that kcic having a petition calling to account all parties and selling t-shirts which say ‘keep cov in cov’ is militant and extremist?!)

Also seems that mainstream opinion is running along the lines of: ‘we know we would be better off owning the Ricoh but we also know that sisu can’t be trusted – they are only interested in their own profit'.

Does that sound right or is it wide of the mark?

And at a guess you trust Coventry City Council & ACL?

italiahorse · Apr 25, 2014

RFC said:
And at a guess you trust Coventry City Council & ACL?

In a straight choice between CCC/ACL and Sisu they come first.

Ian1779 · Apr 25, 2014

chiefdave said:
For me the middle ground is for SISU to own the lease (essentially own ACL) and CCC to retain ownership of the freehold. Put clauses in the lease that revert the lease back to CCC if there's anything dodgy attempted by SISU. Best of both worlds, club has all the benefit of owning the ground but for CCC there is some security.

I don't think there is much evidence that either party can be trusted on their own. So this suggestion is probably the best option. I guess it would only work by SISU buying out ACL and probably shutting it down or encompassing it into their group of companies.

skybluetony176 · Apr 25, 2014

The problem is that "we" wouldn't own the ricoh, a company in the sisu group would. If that company was to be SBS&L or Otium ML would have been shouting it from the roof tops because we'd all be right behind them and the council would really be in trouble. So we'll still be in a tenant/landlord situation and as our landlord is also our owners you would think that the details of any tenancy arrangements would be easy to nail down yet they are unable to tell us what this will be. If anyone can explain another reason for not doing this other than "we're not going to like it" im all ears.

diggerdaley · Apr 25, 2014

Only a naive gullible idiot would trust Sisu...

Colin1883 · Apr 25, 2014

Would sisu/otium regain the fans /community trust if they made a decent offer for something (the Ricoh) which belongs to the people of Coventry?

Sky Blue Kid · Apr 25, 2014

@ Colin1883............No mate.

Jack Griffin · Apr 25, 2014

Never mind trust, I don't wish the club to be saddled with the £45M debt SISU racked up in 7 years of mismanaging the club and crippling interest payments to ARVO, £1.8M in year to end May 2013.

bigfatronssba · Apr 25, 2014

Apparently (according to some) ACL have done a poor job of running the Ricoh.

A question to ask is: What evidence is there to suggest Sisu would do a better job?

If were using their football club management skills as an example, it doesn't look like they can be trusted with the Ricoh either.

Bennets Afro · Apr 25, 2014

The question is what could SISU do if they got the lease of the Ricoh? Could they borrow monies against it???

I am no expert on these things, but if SISU owned the lease, the council would still own the freehold so the options must be limited if very few????

Maybe someone could explain what they know SISU will do with the Ricoh if they got the lease as we all know that is the only way the team would be playing back there. The council would never sell the Ricoh freehold.

chiefdave · Apr 25, 2014

Bennets Afro said:
The question is what could SISU do if they got the lease of the Ricoh? Could they borrow monies against it???

That's exactly why I'd have the council retain the freehold with certain events causing the lease to revert to them. If SISU lost the lease if they attempted to borrow against it they wouldn't be able to secure any debt against our ground.

Cheshire Sky Blue · Apr 25, 2014

RFC said:
And at a guess you trust Coventry City Council & ACL?

RFC you are a Real Feckin Clown

Cheshire Sky Blue · Apr 25, 2014

MichaelCCFC said:
kcic’s approach of saying acl have questions to answer but sisu are primarily responsible for moving us to NTFC reflects mainstream opinion and it is those who are only concerned with being pro/anti acl/sisu that are at the extremes (is anyone really going to try arguing that kcic having a petition calling to account all parties and selling t-shirts which say ‘keep cov in cov’ is militant and extremist?!)

Also seems that mainstream opinion is running along the lines of: ‘we know we would be better off owning the Ricoh but we also know that sisu can’t be trusted – they are only interested in their own profit'.

Does that sound right or is it wide of the mark?

Sounds bang on the money for me. Only the truly naive, ignorant or in the pay of SISU would find issue.

blueflint · Apr 25, 2014

RFC said:
And at a guess you trust Coventry City Council & ACL?

why don't you? can we have an answer please

Paxman II · Apr 25, 2014

It's true to say we all want our club back in Coventry...goes without saying really. However it's not all about trust in SISU. The fact we all seem to ignore conveniently is that the Ricoh Arena was never our stadium in the first place was it? We have no home. We rented the pitch for match days and when we wanted more the troubles started. SISU eventually pulling the rent and the plug in a hissy fit in an attempt to bully others into submission. But that still does not obscure the fact the Ricoh was never the clubs in any shape or form and can be argued we have been homeless since leaving Highfield Road and messing up the original plan to build our own stadium. It's for this reason I would not be bothered if we built (fat chance really) another stadium we could genuinely call home.
So we are stuck in no mans land and really need to either make good on the promises of a new stadium or somehow have ownership of the aforementioned Ricoh Arena. If Coventry really want their football club back and a stadium used for what it was built for there will need to be huge compromises from both sides. That means the past put to bed and starting fresh with a new perspective. It's not so much about trust between both sides now but both sides starting to realise the arguments can't go on forever, there is too much to lose for both of them and our fair city.

bigfatronssba · Apr 25, 2014

Paxman II said:
It's true to say we all want our club back in Coventry...goes without saying really. However it's not all about trust in SISU. The fact we all seem to ignore conveniently is that the Ricoh Arena was never our stadium in the first place was it? We have no home. We rented the pitch for match days and when we wanted more the troubles started. SISU eventually pulling the rent and the plug in a hissy fit in an attempt to bully others into submission. But that still does not obscure the fact the Ricoh was never the clubs in any shape or form and can be argued we have been homeless since leaving Highfield Road and messing up the original plan to build our own stadium. It's for this reason I would not be bothered if we built (fat chance really) another stadium we could genuinely call home.
So we are stuck in no mans land and really need to either make good on the promises of a new stadium or somehow have ownership of the aforementioned Ricoh Arena. If Coventry really want their football club back and a stadium used for what it was built for there will need to be huge compromises from both sides. That means the past put to bed and starting fresh with a new perspective. It's not so much about trust between both sides now but both sides starting to realise the arguments can't go on forever, there is too much to lose for both of them and our fair city.

I don't hold with this whole "the Ricoh was never home" because it was rented argument.

Was HR not our home once it was sold off to the builders and rented back?

martcov · Apr 25, 2014

Paxman II said:
It's true to say we all want our club back in Coventry...goes without saying really. However it's not all about trust in SISU. The fact we all seem to ignore conveniently is that the Ricoh Arena was never our stadium in the first place was it? We have no home. We rented the pitch for match days and when we wanted more the troubles started. SISU eventually pulling the rent and the plug in a hissy fit in an attempt to bully others into submission. But that still does not obscure the fact the Ricoh was never the clubs in any shape or form and can be argued we have been homeless since leaving Highfield Road and messing up the original plan to build our own stadium. It's for this reason I would not be bothered if we built (fat chance really) another stadium we could genuinely call home.
So we are stuck in no mans land and really need to either make good on the promises of a new stadium or somehow have ownership of the aforementioned Ricoh Arena. If Coventry really want their football club back and a stadium used for what it was built for there will need to be huge compromises from both sides. That means the past put to bed and starting fresh with a new perspective. It's not so much about trust between both sides now but both sides starting to realise the arguments can't go on forever, there is too much to lose for both of them and our fair city.

It would help if SISU stated exactly what they want and asked for negotiations. Until they do that we can only speculate. Joy has said she doesn't negotiate and until that changes we are stuck where we are. The council have repeatedly said that the door is open and Higgs have repeated that although their relationship to SISU is very bad, they would be obliged to listen to a serious offer. SISU should drop the JR as it will probably bring them nothing apart from the pleasure of seeing people they don't like squirming.
With the JR out of the way and the will to give it another go from SISU, the council would have to reciprocate and we could move forward. ( I'm dreaming of course )

Grendel · Apr 25, 2014

bigfatronssba said:
I don't hold with this whole "the Ricoh was never home" because it was rented argument.

Was HR not our home once it was sold off to the builders and rented back?

No it definitely wasn't and that was always the problem or we'd have stayed.

Ian1779 · Apr 25, 2014

martcov said:
It would help if SISU stated exactly what they want and asked for negotiations. Until they do that we can only speculate. Joy has said she doesn't negotiate and until that changes we are stuck where we are. The council have repeatedly said that the door is open and Higgs have repeated that although their relationship to SISU is very bad, they would be obliged to listen to a serious offer. SISU should drop the JR as it will probably bring them nothing apart from the pleasure of seeing people they don't like squirming.
With the JR out of the way and the will to give it another go from SISU, the council would have to reciprocate and we could move forward. ( I'm dreaming of course )

If SISU and ACL could do a deal on the basis of the JR being dropped then that could be a win win for everyone.

The council are not going to give an uncumbered freehold. SISU will not be tenants in the same way they were before. They could have a long term lease with full control of ACL and all revenue for the right price, which is a reasonable midway point.

This is probably the best way forward...whether they can achieve it is another thing.

martcov · Apr 25, 2014

Ian1779 said:
If SISU and ACL could do a deal on the basis of the JR being dropped then that could be a win win for everyone.

The council are not going to give an uncumbered freehold. SISU will not be tenants in the same way they were before. They could have a long term lease with full control of ACL and all revenue for the right price, which is a reasonable midway point.

This is probably the best way forward...whether they can achieve it is another thing.

Stressing at the right price... I agree with you on this.

Ian1779 · Apr 25, 2014

martcov said:
Stressing at the right price... I agree with you on this.

FWIW I have never said that SISU should get anything on the cheap. They should pay the going rate.

No doubt if the parties did their own valuations they would be light years apart. I would like to see an independent party do a valuation if this was possible.

martcov · Apr 25, 2014

Ian1779 said:
FWIW I have never said that SISU should get anything on the cheap. They should pay the going rate.

No doubt if the parties did their own valuations they would be light years apart. I would like to see an independent party do a valuation if this was possible.

Both sides need one another - no matter what they claim. There is a deal to be done and the price has to suit both sides. Even if their own valuations are light years apart, neither side can carry on in a state of war. Apart from the money, the publicity is destroying both sides reputations. Both sides will have to concede something at some time. The main thing is SISU defining what it is they want and saying they will sit down at the table. Dropping the JR as part of an offer would put them in good stead for starting to negotiate. The council cannot refuse to talk in these circumstances.

Ian1779 · Apr 25, 2014

martcov said:
Both sides need one another - no matter what they claim. There is a deal to be done and the price has to suit both sides. Even if their own valuations are light years apart, neither side can carry on in a state of war. Apart from the money, the publicity is destroying both sides reputations. Both sides will have to concede something at some time. The main thing is SISU defining what it is they want and saying they will sit down at the table. Dropping the JR as part of an offer would put them in good stead for starting to negotiate. The council cannot refuse to talk in these circumstances.

Agreed - I think SISU have to sacrifice the idea of a freehold and accept a leasehold, the council have to hand over the revenues. How much of the revenues will obviously drive the price. It has to be such that the club can sustain itself without the current and future owners subsidising it.

Astute · Apr 26, 2014

Bennets Afro said:
The question is what could SISU do if they got the lease of the Ricoh? Could they borrow monies against it???

I am no expert on these things, but if SISU owned the lease, the council would still own the freehold so the options must be limited if very few????

Maybe someone could explain what they know SISU will do with the Ricoh if they got the lease as we all know that is the only way the team would be playing back there. The council would never sell the Ricoh freehold.

Having a long lease is more or less the same as having ownership. If they got a 125 year lease it would be longer than the lifespan of the arena.

SISU are good at working different numbers between their different companies. Now the arena is up and running it makes money. They could charge our club say 2m a year rent. They could keep the F+B money, all car park income, hotel income, conference money and whatever else comes in. This would amount to a lot of income. Then yes they would be able to get a massive loan put against the arena. This would get them their money back plus more which would be their profit. Then they could toss our club aside and go whilst leaving us in a poor state without a home.

On the other hand they could have all this income whilst charging our club a massive rent and keep our club whilst milking it for years. No investment in our club as Joy wants money for her investors.

There would always be the chance of putting a small amount of the income into our club. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

Bennets Afro · Apr 26, 2014

It's all if's, buts and maybe's though with no proof SISU will do any of that

Rusty Trombone · Apr 26, 2014

Bennets Afro said:
It's all if's, buts and maybe's though with no proof SISU will do any of that

Yep, all guesswork because for some reason SISU have no interest in telling or explaining to people what their plans are.

skybluetony176 · Apr 26, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
Yep, all guesswork because for some reason SISU have no interest in telling or explaining to people what their plans are.

Anybody would think we're not going to like what their plans are. If someone else can come up with another reason why they don't want to tell us I'm all ears.

'We'd be better off owning the Ricoh but sisu can't be trusted'? (1 Viewer)

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency