Sounds exciting
It woke a few people up but I think they thought the session was over and were ready to jump up for the judge's exit. 5 mins to go...
The value goes up and down according to who you believe. The figure was considerably more though if CCFC paid rent, hence the pie in the sky stadium to make the value of ACL go down. It will go up as soon as CCFC return as a paying customer ( if they do ).
I think you'll have to spend the weekend in the pub after the borefest you've had to sit through pal.
This isn't about 'us' and never has been. Greedy hedge fund using us to try and make more money, yes. Council trying to protect an investment, yes. Where CCFC come into this I'm not sure.
Yet YB were willing to loan £15.5m at a higher interest rate.......:thinking about:
So if you lent me say £14,400 over 41 years and I paid you £19,500 in interest alone (so a grand total of £34,300) you wouldn't bite my hand off?
I don't think the club is even being considered here - apart from as an asset or rent paying tenant. Acheiving sporting success as originally planned by the founders is the least important factor in this court room.
Yes it should have been good for ccfc aswell, because it allowed ACL to offer a substantially better rent deal to ccfc, which if you remember, SISU turned down.
Valued by Who?
Was it a bit like when Ford give Jaguar employees £8.00 a share for a struggling company that was making shit cars then closed the local factories making over 2000 redundant. Made a bigger hash of it then sold he lot to a Indian value car maker who in turn made it stronger. Maybe Sisu should sell thier shares to a local conveneance store I'm sure they could make a better go at it.......
Was it a bit like when Ford give Jaguar employees £8.00 a share for a struggling company that was making shit cars then closed the local factories making over 2000 redundant. Made a bigger hash of it then sold he lot to a Indian value car maker who in turn made it stronger. Maybe Sisu should sell thier shares to a local conveneance store I'm sure they could make a better go at it.......
Is that the 400k for 3 years and then back to 1.2m. Genuine question, I have cotton wool brain atm.
No, that was pre-Loan (I think). The "better" deal was the £150k one (or the rent free one - that's not actually rent free (for Torchy))
My take on things...SISU took too long playing hardball over ricoh value and were subsequently out witted. CCC will happily hold ccfc by the short and curlies to make ACL more profitable.
@TheSimonGilbert: Council QC says Sisu have taken blinkered approach. Ignored other ACL revenue streams and a potential return to the Ricoh to play in Nham
Overall summary...
TBH, it all comes down to how convinced the judge is at the end of submissions. No point in any second guessing or analysis really.
Interesting potential blows landed on both sides but wait until the final call.
No fun things released...
Negotiations to follow...PLEASE!
TBH, it all comes down to how convinced the judge is at the end of submissions. No point in any second guessing or analysis really.
Interesting potential blows landed on both sides but wait until the final call.
No fun things released...
Negotiations to follow...PLEASE!
What I don't understand (amongst many other things...) is this £400K deal that they now say was agreed. I know there was a £400K deal discussed, and everyone shook hands to say goodbye, but that can't be it surely?
Don't get me wrong - you're absolutely right, but surely the evidence of it being a sound investment lends weight to whether the public funds were misused? The SISU argument has had elements of "they did it to stop us getting it!" whereas the return on investment gives credence to a wise investment being the reason the deal happened (although the reality of it stopping SISU crippling ACL will surely come into it).
but wasnt this done so all the fans could judge once everything was out in the open ?