italiahorse
Well-Known Member
However, the deal that was also considered derisory was the one that wasn't playing hardball, and was going in with the Wasps offer.
It's an uncomfortable truth that the (immoral? unethical?) recent practices have been the only things to change the council's mind on being flexible with their requests for ACL. It's worth noting that *nobody* has seen the ground on original lease terms worth buying.
To head off the accusations from the start...
the problem with an investment fund buying a football club has always been investors will want a return and, without the emotional investment in the club of an owner-fan, what do they do if it goes wrong? Now personally I thought we'd have been wound up by now. Nt sure which is better...
The other problem is an investment fund wants a quick return, so doesn't invest in the foundations of a club (i.e. players ahead of ground) which leaves the club in danger if player investment goes wrong.
However...
It's the council's inflexibility that encourages such practices too, as it leaves the field open for solely SISU-esque bidders, who play fast and loose. It's making such investments on commercial terms that turns this into a commercial dispute, and that is unedifying from both perspectives, but sadly inevitable when there are divergent aims from both partners.
Now, this probably isn't local government's fault. Blame national (and EU) policy that means state aid is not allowed in the traditional sense. Just what is wrong with state aid as a concept?
But, if it's to be a commercial battle, then I can't take sides as I find the very concept of making money from a social entity distateful in the extreme. I don't necessarily think the council's opening position can be excused or explained by SISU's actions - it was this hardball action that *encouraged* the likes of SISU.
And the likes of SISU are very bad news indeed.
So, we are where we are. Blame as to who started it can go round and round and round. It's naive to think this particular court case will resolve things too, but it has at least shone a light on both parties, and enquiring about practices is no bad thing. It might also be a stage in allowing all parties to move forward, instead of the circular arguments.
These circular arguments need to take place however, rather than blind acceptance and polarisation.
It's very simple to me.
CCFC messed up on the stadium finances and the council finished off the stadium.
CCFC obtained half of ACL prior to the stadium opening.
CCFC messed up on cash flow and so sold their share in ACL to Higgs with a promise to pay back later at effectively the same price.
CCFC/SISU messed up and CCFC got relegated.
CCFC/SISU could not survive financially in League 1 and approached ACL for help with the rent.
CCC/ACL played hard ball and refused to help. (10% blame)
SISU made a play for ACL but never made an sensible offer, if any. (10%)
CCC/ACL played hard ball and refused to deal with SISU on any sale, including Higgs veto. (5%)
SISU moved us to Northampton and made a play for ACL/Ricoh freehold. (75%)
WASPS moved in, saved CCC/ACL skin and effectively stopped SISU obtaining the stadium. (Blameless)