Fisher also said they would pay a reasonable rent. They were offered the Ricoh for £400,000 a season. Was the rent paid?
It has all been about trying to send ACL to the wall. When the loan got refinanced SISU threatened them with court as they could survive without rent money, although this was done so they could offer a much reduced rent. They will do what they can to get the ground. They don't give a shit about our club.
Do you want our club to own the Ricoh? If so then why does anyone want SISU to get it? It would belong to them and not our club. They would just start off yet another branch of SISU and put the ownership of the ground in it. Then there is a good chance they would get rid of our club in the way that would make them the most money whilst keeping ownership of the ground. This is why I am against them getting it.
Agree with what you say. A lot of their word/actions dont add up.
The all important revenue from burgers and beers is significantly less than the impact of the reduced revenue from a lower crowd in the short term (at another ground) and longer term (as we may well end up in a lower league). Thats not even taking into consideration the indirect cost to the club/SISU (professional fees etc) of the club ending up in Administration.
£400k is pretty reasonable rent for the facility and I understand that ACL were willing to write off some of the rental arrears debt. I also thought there would be some kind of share in the revenues.
I understand that this is the deal that was agreed/shook hands on...only for the club to renege on the agreement.
Whether its correct or not, I can only come to the same assumption that they were seeking to distress ACL in an attempt to get their hands on the ground. A hardball game that didnt end up as expected.