DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
Isn't that what ACL/Council did?
If you were attacked by someone wishing to take away your interest wouldn't you fight back with every avenue at your disposal?
Sorry Dongo! I neglected this thread with other distractions.
My op was not suggesting they had managed any improvement!
so I never said it and am not defending it or them!
I am trying to get over my viewpoint that the owner of a club only has certain things within their power.
eg Joy Sepela can't score goals! (but there again nor can our strikers half the time!)
Nor can she stop McGoldrick or Robbins leaving when then are offered more money elsewhere!
Basically the owner is responsible for funding, (full stop!).
Ok they also have some control over the management structure and how the funding is spent, but in an ideal situation once they have chosen their management team they would then leave all other decisions to them.
On funding there is now a ceiling (FFP) and any new owner could not do more than fund us to the full extent of FFP - which SISU already do and have said they can (and will) continue to do.
On control over the management team - they stink!
but they are still in there batting and there are signs of improvement (? ok queue chorus from the out-louts.)
I'll put forward another premise...
One of the biggest areas that they can be justifiably critisised is being late with the accounts - resulting in transfer embargoes!
Has anyone wondered why they have been persistently late? is it two or three end of year account that have been late?
I suggest one possible reason.
They may have been flirting with the "rent" problem for some time!
It is always a tricky question and they may have been facing it about accounts time for several years - do we go into admin and take the 10pt hit or do we just carry on?
If that is the reason, maybe when we are free of the £1.2m millstone it won't happen again
So SISU in or SISU out, things might be better either way.
imp:
Without doubt the supporters who have constantly tried every angle to justify ACL and the councils approach have contributed to the sad and sorry demise.
Most clubs supporters would have backed the clubs stance at the outset. It's cost us big time.
Without doubt the supporters who have constantly tried every angle to justify ACL and the councils approach have contributed to the sad and sorry demise.
Most clubs supporters would have backed the clubs stance at the outset. It's cost us big time.
So it's the fans fault?
To an extent yes. Ranson was clear when they took over they needed I average 22k to break even, in Sisu's first full season with investment in the squad we only averaged just one 17k. We then sold fox and Dann and people wondered why..
Without doubt the supporters who have constantly tried every angle to justify ACL and the councils approach have contributed to the sad and sorry demise.
Most clubs supporters would have backed the clubs stance at the outset. It's cost us big time.
Surely the fans get the playing team they deserve?
Why then in 2012 did we finish 23rd despite being around 14th in attendances?
Why in 2013 did the 3rd best supported team finish 15th?
To an extent yes. Ranson was clear when they took over they needed I average 22k to break even, in Sisu's first full season with investment in the squad we only averaged just one 17k. We then sold fox and Dann and people wondered why..
Because we were paying over the odds for rent and getting feck all match day or other income from renting the Ricoh.
When was the last time city averaged 22k?
I agree. But my point was Ranson made it clear from the start, we needed 22k to break even. We didnt manage it so we had to sell our best players to try and minimise losses.That's nothing to do with the fans though.
Its poor management of the club from top to bottom for the last 20 years.
To an extent yes. Ranson was clear when they took over they needed I average 22k to break even, in Sisu's first full season with investment in the squad we only averaged just one 17k. We then sold fox and Dann and people wondered why..
I agree. But my point was Ranson made it clear from the start, we needed 22k to break even. We didnt manage it so we had to sell our best players to try and minimise losses.
We can't have our cake and eat it.
Why would more fans come and watch just because we have to pay the rent?
Its the clubs responsibility to put a decent team on the pitch, not ours.
As Sisu keep telling us, its a business remember.
The owner of a business is solely responsible for its fate.
Why would more fans come and watch just because we have to pay the rent?
Its the clubs responsibility to put a decent team on the pitch, not ours.
As Sisu keep telling us, its a business remember.
The owner of a business is solely responsible for its fate.
I agree. But my point was Ranson made it clear from the start, we needed 22k to break even. We didnt manage it so we had to sell our best players to try and minimise losses.
We can't have our cake and eat it.
So ranson misjudged the support of the club? ...
That doesn't make it the fans fault...
Why would more fans come and watch just because we have to pay the rent?
Its the clubs responsibility to put a decent team on the pitch, not ours.
As Sisu keep telling us, its a business remember.
The owner of a business is solely responsible for its fate.
No the clubs responsibility is to put a team on the pitch. Nowhere does it specify the word 'decent'.
I disagree that that an owner is solely responsible for its businesses fate, you only have to look at the high street and pubs to see that external forces have significant impacts on the success or failure of a business.
Ok, if they want to be successful then they have to put a decent team out.
Its a balancing act, most of the clubs promoted ahead of us in the Championship years done it on smaller crowds. The reason being they were better run.
Business is about survival. You adapt to external forces or die. Were the public at fault for the shite being sold in M&S before they got their act together?
If you apply that logic if the owner feels moving ground is a better approach you support it.
Fans are rightly up in arms about it. Many were silent when the rent dispute started. If sisu had broken ACL and took the ground on their terms the club would be in a far healthier state.
Many of our fans did not want that. They had other priorities.
Clubs may have done it with smaller grounds but the revenue against costs may have been better. We were losing money with 21,000 averages. Why is that do you think?
Because a succession of owners were piling debt onto the club, not by buying players but by charging management fees and the like?Clubs may have done it with smaller grounds but the revenue against costs may have been better. We were losing money with 21,000 averages. Why is that do you think?
20 years of mismanagement by the Club.
Because a succession of owners were piling debt onto the club, not by buying players but by charging management fees and the like?
The bottom line is that CCFC have had a big enough income over the last 10 years to pay the rent and break even and be moderately successful, ie. Still mid table championship.
The fact that we haven't been is due to management incompetence.
Time for new owners. With some we might turn the corner. Without the downward spiral will accelerate.
Why would I support that? I don't want to move grounds. As a customer I like going and watching at the Ricoh.
As CEO its up to Tim Fisher to mould the club into what its paying customers want.
Sisu 'breaking' ACL might well have been good for Sisu, but I don't trust them enough to consider it good for the club. Also if you consider it morally right for Sisu to do that, then surely the Council are equally right in bailing out ACL?
Or rather the people that actually built the ground...
SISU inherited this mess - continuing the decline and decay of CCFC - but because we had to pay rent, an absurd 1.28m, even worse, we got no revenue from our own events, it increased the number of fans that needed to turn up to break-even. We've lost c. £1.5-1.7m (very rough estimates) p/a from rent + missed monies from F&B and other streams, that isn't sustainable and of course we would've made money from keeping HR - a tragic decision.
Ok, if they want to be successful then they have to put a decent team out.
Its a balancing act, most of the clubs promoted ahead of us in the Championship years done it on smaller crowds. The reason being they were better run.
Business is about survival. You adapt to external forces or die. Were the public at fault for the shite being sold in M&S before they got their act together?
Grendel, this has been explained before.The point I am making is most supporters of most clubs would not give a stuff about ACL or the council. One thing would be on their agenda and that is the club. If they felt the club was being ripped off they would have took the council on and backed the club. Ours haven't. Some have desperately tried to justify the councils stance. Why? Why would they actually care about the council - why would anyone care about ACL?
When people say they wouldn't trust sisu with the ground it is ironic when you consider the present landlord has charged its tenant 8 times the average value and gets away with it. Oh and before people start blathering on about the world class venue so what? The club get nothing from that and for nearly a decade have had nothing from food revenues. It's been an absolute disgrace and yet still the same people will drag out the same arguments defending some institution that has nothing to do with the club they profess to support.
The point I am making is most supporters of most clubs would not give a stuff about ACL or the council. One thing would be on their agenda and that is the club. If they felt the club was being ripped off they would have took the council on and backed the club. Ours haven't. Some have desperately tried to justify the councils stance. Why? Why would they actually care about the council - why would anyone care about ACL?
When people say they wouldn't trust sisu with the ground it is ironic when you consider the present landlord has charged its tenant 8 times the average value and gets away with it. Oh and before people start blathering on about the world class venue so what? The club get nothing from that and for nearly a decade have had nothing from food revenues. It's been an absolute disgrace and yet still the same people will drag out the same arguments defending some institution that has nothing to do with the club they profess to support.
Grendel, this has been explained before.
Some people object on moral grounds to defaulting on a legal debt.
Other people object because they don't see how it can work without lots of trouble.
You disagree, presumably because you think it is moral to break an "unfair" rental agreement AND you think the club can win this fight without killing the club they are custodians of.
Most, I think, disagree with you.
Time will tell.
With fans who take the approach of the above two we frankly deserve all we get. Unless the attitude changes we will never improve regardless of ownership.
That is why many supporters (not people with my thought processes) have to accept some responsibility for the current plight.
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?