Will the Football League condone SISU's actions ? (1 Viewer)

Voice_of_Reason · Jun 1, 2013

The Club has a legal agreement to play it's fixtures at the Ricoh.. the fact SISU can't afford to pay the rent does not make the lease agreement illegal. Should the Football League sanction a move away it would be condoning SISU's actions in not paying the rent it is legally obliged to do so. There is a legally agreement in place for the club to play at the Ricoh.

I have emailed the Football League to this effect.

The Football League Board meets on Wednesday, 5th June -- you have just 3 days left to contact the Football League expressing you concerns. enquiries@football-league.co.uk

Grendel · Jun 1, 2013

I believe they will support the move away providing it means fixtures are fulfilled.

SkyblueBazza · Jun 1, 2013

I agree Grendel :-o
The FL set certain rules. if they go any way past them it could be percieved as meddling in affairs of business, & put off potential investors from bringing money into any club in the future.

simple_simon · Jun 1, 2013

Lets go down to the FL offices at the FA and ask them face to face?

dadgad · Jun 1, 2013

That's merely putting vested interests above a deeper imperative which is to have well run clubs which benefit the local community. Sisu has a deplorable record and Fit & Proper couldn't even identify who they are.
Should the FL condone what has happened and further endorse a move away from Coventry with no binding commitment to return then they will have utterly failed not only the club but the wider footballing community.
They have a responsibility to get this right otherwise political interference into the affairs if football will be justified.

Paxman II · Jun 1, 2013

Any agreement with the football league merely concentrates on fulfilment of fixtures and that they will be played at a given stadium for a given period of time.
The Ricoh and the rent thereof has no connection with the football league and is a matter between the parties concerned.

Samo · Jun 1, 2013

dadgad said:
That's merely putting vested interests above a deeper imperative which is to have well run clubs which benefit the local community. Sisu has a deplorable record and Fit & Proper couldn't even identify who they are.
Should the FL condone what has happened and further endorse a move away from Coventry with no binding commitment to return then they will have utterly failed not only the club but the wider footballing community.
They have a responsibility to get this right otherwise political interference into the affairs if football will be justified.

Completely agree. They'd be condoning that and much more. They'd be saying 'ok you've made an utter arse of everything, failed the club in just about every way and used administration to dump your debts but never mind, here's the share, have another go!' I'm increasingly of the opinion that the FL can not go down that route.

covmark · Jun 1, 2013

Samo said:
Completely agree. They'd be condoning that and much more. They'd be saying 'ok you've made an utter arse of everything, failed the club in just about every way and used administration to dump your debts but never mind, here's the share, have another go!' I'm increasingly of the opinion that the FL can not go down that route.

Do you really think they give a shit?

ajsccfc · Jun 1, 2013

They wouldn't be 'condoning' anything so much as having the regulations they've set out adhered to agreeably, so let's stop short of calling them evil cancers or whatever people resort to about SISU.

Paxman II · Jun 1, 2013

dadgad said:
That's merely putting vested interests above a deeper imperative which is to have well run clubs which benefit the local community. Sisu has a deplorable record and Fit & Proper couldn't even identify who they are.
Should the FL condone what has happened and further endorse a move away from Coventry with no binding commitment to return then they will have utterly failed not only the club but the wider footballing community.
They have a responsibility to get this right otherwise political interference into the affairs if football will be justified.

Why would the FL have failed the community if they allowed CCFC to move to a temporary ground while building a new stadium it would own within the Coventry area? Brighton did it and won't be the last.
The Ricoh is not the home of CCFC while it merely has a sub lease from ACL without anything but match day ticket income? That's not what I would call a home stadium?

dongonzalos · Jun 1, 2013

Paxman II said:
Why would the FL have failed the community if they allowed CCFC to move to a temporary ground while building a new stadium it would own within the Coventry area? Brighton did it and won't be the last.
The Ricoh is not the home of CCFC while it merely has a sub lease from ACL without anything but match day ticket income? That's not what I would call a home stadium?

They got planning permission in 2002 it was built in 2011

It cost 93 million

It has a capacity of 32 k

The club were allowed to play in Brighton whilst they waited.

stupot07 · Jun 1, 2013

Grendel said:
I believe they will support the move away providing it means fixtures are fulfilled.

Yes, I also expect them to do this. The football community are only interested in themselves, that why football creditors come above HMRC.

dadgad · Jun 1, 2013

Paxman II said:
Why would the FL have failed the community if they allowed CCFC to move to a temporary ground while building a new stadium it would own within the Coventry area? Brighton did it and won't be the last.
The Ricoh is not the home of CCFC while it merely has a sub lease from ACL without anything but match day ticket income? That's not what I would call a home stadium?

I was personally involved in Brighton and know just exactly why the planning and execution of the Falmer site took so long. The situation at the Ricoh - based on Sisu's expectations ( 3 years!) and what happened at Brighton is utterly ludicrous. It is a lie - or a ploy - and nobody should be under any illusion about this.
Anybody who thinks that three years is feasible given the historical issues isn't dry behind the ears.

oakey · Jun 1, 2013

stupot07 said:
Yes, I also expect them to do this. The football community are only interested in themselves, that why football creditors come above HMRC.

FL: defending the indefensible.
Parliament has threatened to take a closer look if the football authorities don't get their house in order. That time is now.
Supporting CCFC is like supporting an old relative who is accused of being a dirty old man. Other people shout at or shun you.

stupot07 · Jun 1, 2013

oakey said:
FL: defending the indefensible.
Parliament has threatened to take a closer look if the football authorities don't get their house in order. That time is now.
Supporting CCFC is like supporting an old relative who is accused of being a dirty old man. Other people shout at or shun you.

Do they? Most non cov fans I know don't give a shit.

Tonylinc · Jun 1, 2013

Does anyone on here really think that the Sisu plan of building a new stadium within Coventry is either feasible or serious???

oakey · Jun 1, 2013

Tonylinc said:
Does anyone on here really think that the Sisu plan of building a new stadium within Coventry is either feasible or serious???

They may be serious but it is madness which will pile tens of millions in more debt onto the club.
They underestimate the huge section of our fan base which is 45+ many of whom will not follow the club by the time the new stadium is in use.

Tonylinc · Jun 1, 2013

I'll answer my own question by saying that it is a ploy to convince any interested parties ie. bidders for the business, that they (Sisu) are prepared to stay for the long term, when in reality, they can't wait to get the hell out! How can they justify spending some 20-30 mill. on a failing business? a few pies and lagers ain't going to make that much difference.

Bluegloucester · Jun 1, 2013

Tonylinc said:
Does anyone on here really think that the Sisu plan of building a new stadium within Coventry is either feasible or serious???

No Tony, not on any level.

Mucca Mad Boys · Jun 1, 2013

Tonylinc said:
Does anyone on here really think that the Sisu plan of building a new stadium within Coventry is either feasible or serious???

They'll have to prove it to the FL.

In the long-term, it is undisputible that building a new stadium would be more sustainable than renting a stadium. But I'd rather us purchase the RICOH 100%, whoever the owner, but at least one of the 50% shares will be difficult to obtain.

oakey · Jun 1, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
They'll have to prove it to the FL.

In the long-term, it is undisputible that building a new stadium would be more sustainable than renting a stadium. But I'd rather us purchase the RICOH 100%, whoever the owner, but at least one of the 50% shares will be difficult to obtain.

It is indisputable only to those who have already decided to take a stance and stick to it come what may.

Grendel · Jun 1, 2013

oakey said:
It is indisputable only to those who have already decided to take a stance and stick to it come what may.

Be under no illusion the fl are interested only in fixture fulfilment and image. If they get a sniff of legal action sisu will be the preferred owner regardless of what they plan to do.

Bluegloucester · Jun 1, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
They'll have to prove it to the FL.

In the long-term, it is undisputible that building a new stadium would be more sustainable than renting a stadium. But I'd rather us purchase the RICOH 100%, whoever the owner, but at least one of the 50% shares will be difficult to obtain.

If we build a cheap stadium, all we get is the football for 20 odd days per year, how does that make sense?

Tonylinc · Jun 1, 2013

Grendel said:
Be under no illusion the fl are interested only in fixture fulfilment and image. If they get a sniff of legal action sisu will be the preferred owner regardless of what they plan to do.

However, at this point in time Sisu are not in a position to fulfil their fixtures are they?

Grendel · Jun 1, 2013

Tonylinc said:
However, at this point in time Sisu are not in a position to fulfil their fixtures are they?

How do we know? The league will bend over backwards to accommodate.

Mucca Mad Boys · Jun 1, 2013

Bluegloucester said:
If we build a cheap stadium, all we get is the football for 20 odd days per year, how does that make sense?

Why? Because you make money off your stadium, now we only make ticket sales off match day, if we owned our own stadium, we'd get that + revenues, we'll have to pay for maintainence, yes, but if well run, the stadium on the whole would make profit, we'll be able to pay off money lent for new stadium and in the long, long term, after we've paid off that debt, you'd have a stadium that is making £££, with rent, with no revenue, you make jackshit - short term better because it costs less but over time, owning your stadium is better.

To put it into a real-life situation, all the home-owners on here, if you rent, you always have to pay that rent, when you purchase your home, you may finish off paying your mortgage in old age, but when you pay that off, it is 'happy-days', better than renting.

bigfatronssba · Jun 1, 2013

The extra pittance/revenue gained (F&b's) from this new stadium will just be lost on maintenance.

Remember there will be no concerts, no conferences.

Highfield 2 will be more antiquated than Highfield 1.

Mucca Mad Boys · Jun 1, 2013

bigfatronssba said:
The extra pittance/revenue gained (F&b's) from this new stadium will just be lost on maintenance.

Remember there will be no concerts, no conferences.

Highfield 2 will be more antiquated than Highfield 1.

There may be conferences, Walsall have that and other stuff, So we could still get money from that, we don't have the plans for the stadium so you can't make assumptions presumptions. Besides, we get nothing from that anyway so I don't your point.

Even if F&B was neutralised (which I don't know if it would be or not), we'd make that up by not paying rent...

Grendel · Jun 1, 2013

bigfatronssba said:
The extra pittance/revenue gained (F&b's) from this new stadium will just be lost on maintenance.

Remember there will be no concerts, no conferences.

Highfield 2 will be more antiquated than Highfield 1.

How do conferences and concerts benefit the club now? There is no economic argument that would suggest the club would not be better off owning a stadium.

bigfatronssba · Jun 1, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
There may be conferences, Walsall have that and other stuff, So we could still get money from that, we don't have the plans for the stadium so you can't make assumptions presumptions. Besides, we get nothing from that anyway so I don't your point.
 
Even if F&B was neutralised (which I don't know if it would be or not), we'd make that up by not paying rent...

The Ricoh will become available 365 days a year, when a dedicated conference venue like that exists in the area everything else will struggle.

lifelongcityfan · Jun 1, 2013

btw, at the thursday forum, TF maintained the FL are working with the club on groundshare...difficult to know what that working relationship is made up of, but timmy was maintaining they were supportive

Mucca Mad Boys · Jun 1, 2013

bigfatronssba said:


The Ricoh will become available 365 days a year, when a dedicated conference venue like that exists in the area everything else will struggle.

Point being? We don't get anything of it anyway.

bigfatronssba · Jun 1, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
Point being? We don't get anything of it anyway.

So why spend £30m on a new ground, lose 70% of our support, and still be no better off?

Wouldn't it be more useful to start mending bridges and buy the Ricoh (in a professional way, not by trying to bankrupt it)?

Mucca Mad Boys · Jun 1, 2013

oakey said:
It is indisputable only to those who have already decided to take a stance and stick to it come what may.

Hang on, are you saying we wouldn't be better off owning are own ground, even if it were some basic 20-25k stadium? If so, no wonder people like yourself are opposed to CCFC!

Look, when renting the RICOH, we get nothing from stadium events nor match day revenue, but if we owned our stadium we'd get that, that profit would pay off debt, and after the mortgage is paid, like if it were a house, it'd be 'happy days', pure profit to go on the club, I do mean the long term, maybe even a whole generation, but long-term, it's way more beneficial.

Obviously, in an ideal world, that will be the RICOH, but the CCC won't sell in the foreseeable future, whoever owns us - especially if Cllor Maton is in the majority.

Big_Ben · Jun 1, 2013

bigfatronssba said:


The Ricoh will become available 365 days a year, when a dedicated conference venue like that exists in the area everything else will struggle.

I don't subscribe to the argument that just because the Ricoh has conference facilities, nobody will ever go anywhere else.
Another choice of venue within striking distance of Cov in a new, more modern, and possibly better value for money facility could easily end up taking conference business away from the Ricoh.

Will the Football League condone SISU's actions ? (1 Viewer)

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known 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

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