I am not on anyone's side, I only want whats best for OUR club.
The reality is, both equally SISU AND the local Council could contribute towards the clubs downfall.
That said, since we have been relegated from the Championship, there has been a hell of a lot of effort in making amends by SISU's part, namely 20+ signings (loan or permanent), two really credible manager appointments, and upgrade of our youth academy.
Whereas the Council/ACL, what have they done for OUR club, offer to reduce the to an amount that is double the League One standard? and not forth coming on match day revenues which may I add, is money we all pay to go and see OUR football club.
I fully endorse your first comment. just a couple of queries if i may
What was the biggest single factors in us getting relegated from the Championship? ......... lack of investment and the appointment of the cheapest option as manager perhaps?
Have all of our signings been successful or even actually achieved anything yet ? ....... do we have one of the biggest squads and wage bills in the division? ...... is that wage bill commensurate with available turnover/income?
Did SISU appoint all managers in the last year or just the good ones?
Has there been any upgrade in facilities or staff at the academy or is it clever use of figures to get a £500k grant?
Could the directors of CCFC taken different decisions since 2008 that acquired rights to income, that reduced reliance on SISU funding, reduced losses and left something to sell on?
who made those decisions CCFC/SISU or ACL ?
What would you describe as a L1 standard ground to go with this L1 standard rent ?
The lease CCFC have at the Ricoh carries with it 900 car parking spaces on match days, CCFC sell match day experience packages that include food and parking, CCFC sell the pitchside advertising, CCFC sell the programs, CCFC sell all matchday tickets, CCFC sell vice pres, VIP, premier club etc tickets, CCFC receive the shirt sponsorship, CCFC sold the rights to the profits from matchday hospitality for £6m or around £125k per year over the period of the licence ........ just how does the lack of F&B income on the concourse hold us back significantly?
We pay to sit in the stadium, we choose whether to have food or a drink, most choose not to ....... if CCFC didnt want to provide ACL with that income they could just say dont open the outlets on the concourse couldnt they ?
Who picks up the cost of providing the F&B's on the concourse?
Would you agree that the primary duty of any director is to act in the best interests of the company they serve?
If you agree why is it right to expect CCFC to do that but the directors of ACL to roll over and accept anything CCFC wants ?
If the primary duty of a director is to protect the company he/she serves then they are primarily responsible for the decisions they take for that company so that it operates with in the means at its disposal, the rest is secondary when it comes to apportioning blame would you not agree?
If a decision is bad for a company whose fault is it for making the decision and accepting those consequences, those charged with safeguarding the company or the third party that is the otherside of the decision?
Is five years long enough for the performance of any company to be attributable to its owners?
Not really expecting answers, more making the point that these things have not been clear cut and remain far from transparent. Above all decisions made by CCFC are the responsibility of its directors and owners. They have not got everything wrong but they have got an awful lot wrong ......... no one to blame but themselves. The same applies to ACL for that matter.
One of the things that really pisses me off about this whole dispute is the way no one accepts any responsibility
....