ACL Shoot themselves in the foot & The Fans in the Head (15 Viewers)

[Spencer]

Apologies for being facetious, but...go and support Forest, then!

But, if I did that I'd have to forego your scintillating humour!

 

---

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I think you'll find I was right on all counts.

Wish I hadn't bothered...

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

But, if I did that I'd have to forego your scintillating humour!

But I wouldn't have to put up with your smug sense of superiority!

 

[Spencer]

But I wouldn't have to put up with your smug sense of superiority!

You really should re-read some of your posts!!

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

He was responded to a comment by our Latin expert who claimed the Ricoh a better football venue than the city ground. It isn't and its certainly not worth £1.1 million a year extra in rent.

I'm afraid within one context it is. If you do the maths on building a stadium, including interest payments over a reasonable term, the cost is in excess of £1m a year.

You expect it to be less than this. As such, you expect a club that couldn't afford to build it's own stadium to have one built for it which is then rented at a value lower than the cost incurred to make the stadium.

Would you care to explain why?

 

[James Smith]

He was right on one count though-why on Earth the Ricoh still hasn't got a train station when the tracks go right past it has never made any sense. It'd almost certainly give a small boost to crowds for one thing and would majorly ease up on the nightmare of parking.

I've heard several rumours about the lack of a train station from a lack of the right rolling stock, through to building it would have caused too much disruption on the line, to the DfT didn't think there was a good enough passenger supply outside of Matchdays to make it economic. I heard a rumour that the money to build it was in the stadium budget so would have been no cost to central government/railtrack/network rail. The Nuneaton line wasn't used at weekends for at least the first few years we were at the Ricoh due to long term engineering works which goes against the disruption idea somewhat.

No idea what the truth is but I agree it is lacking a train station. Oh and I agree about the position of the City Ground within the city, just not the stadium itself, or the fact that it's in Nottingham. The only Latin I remember was that by the adding of two horizontal lines to the L and a G at the end it spelled EatinG. Was originally going to do it in Klingon or Morse but Google don't translate those.

 

[Spencer]

I'm afraid within one context it is. If you do the maths on building a stadium, including interest payments over a reasonable term, the cost is in excess of £1m a year.

You expect it to be less than this. As such, you expect a club that couldn't afford to build it's own stadium to have one built for it which is then rented at a value lower than the cost incurred to make the stadium.

Would you care to explain why?

I guess that all depends upon your definition of a reasonable time period for pay back on the project - although I think that is an issue for the landlord and not the tenant. The going rate for a stadium so the going rate for a stadium regardless of how much it cost to build.

But, in order to avoid this issue, perhaps ACL should be looking to do what most property developers do - look to sell to a pension fund who are after smaller yearly, but
longer term, returns?

 

[Grendel]

I'm afraid within one context it is. If you do the maths on building a stadium, including interest payments over a reasonable term, the cost is in excess of £1m a year.

You expect it to be less than this. As such, you expect a club that couldn't afford to build it's own stadium to have one built for it which is then rented at a value lower than the cost incurred to make the stadium.

Would you care to explain why?

Your argument suggests the club should pay the building costs yet have very restricted benefits.

Why?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Your argument suggests the club should pay the building costs yet have very restricted benefits.

Why?

No. It is based on the fact that if you can't afford to build it yourself, you can't call all the shots

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I guess that all depends upon your definition of a reasonable time period for pay back on the project - although I think that is an issue for the landlord and not the tenant. The going rate for a stadium so the going rate for a stadium regardless of how much it cost to build.

But, in order to avoid this issue, perhaps ACL should be looking to do what most property developers do - look to sell to a pension fund who are after smaller yearly, but
longer term, returns?

Perhaps so. But not hedge fund looking for a quick return

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I guess that all depends upon your definition of a reasonable time period for pay back on the project - although I think that is an issue for the landlord and not the tenant. The going rate for a stadium so the going rate for a stadium regardless of how much it cost to build.

But, in order to avoid this issue, perhaps ACL should be looking to do what most property developers do - look to sell to a pension fund who are after smaller yearly, but
longer term, returns?

What sort of term do you consider reasonable, by the way? Grendel advocates a rent valued at less than £500K. A stadium like Leicesters for example, costs some £35m to build. That's one he'll of a break even, allowing for financing costs.

Sure, if it was the club's own stadium, there's scope for sponsorship and other incomes. I see that. But that's for investment in the playing side, isn't it?

Or is it loss mitigation, if the £60m figure is to be believed?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Your argument suggests the club should pay the building costs yet have very restricted benefits.

Why?

Ultimately this is a dated argument-ACL offered a rent the club were satisfied with and threw in all the revenue and profit they could legitimately offer. They also wrote off a chunk of the rent arrears and a reduced escrow obligation (which was emptied using money not put there by the club). In my eyes that shows one party making very large concessions and another stubbornly refusing for no valid reason.

It now lies in the hands of the administrator making this irrelevant and will end with the outcome 99% of posters crave; SISU's departure. In some bizarre, roundabout way, CJ's demands for the book to be thrown at the club to get SISU out will probably do just that.

 

[James Smith]

I've heard several rumours about the lack of a train station from a lack of the right rolling stock, through to building it would have caused too much disruption on the line, to the DfT didn't think there was a good enough passenger supply outside of Matchdays to make it economic. I heard a rumour that the money to build it was in the stadium budget so would have been no cost to central government/railtrack/network rail. The Nuneaton line wasn't used at weekends for at least the first few years we were at the Ricoh due to long term engineering works which goes against the disruption idea somewhat.

No idea what the truth is but I agree it is lacking a train station. Oh and I agree about the position of the City Ground within the city, just not the stadium itself, or the fact that it's in Nottingham. The only Latin I remember was that by the adding of two horizontal lines to the L and a G at the end it spelled EatinG. Was originally going to do it in Klingon or Morse but Google don't translate those.

To add to my post above, the Ricoh is in the position it is (geographically) because it was supposed to be helping to regenerate that part of the city.

 

[James Smith]

Ultimately this is a dated argument-ACL offered a rent the club were satisfied with and threw in all the revenue and profit they could legitimately offer. They also wrote off a chunk of the rent arrears and a reduced escrow obligation (which was emptied using money not put there by the club). In my eyes that shows one party making very large concessions and another stubbornly refusing for no valid reason.

It now lies in the hands of the administrator making this irrelevant and will end with the outcome 99% of posters crave; SISU's departure. In some bizarre, roundabout way, CJ's demands for the book to be thrown at the club to get SISU out will probably do just that.

Had a customer this morning who was annoyed that the price of a product had gone up since he had last come in. I explained that the price we paid for it at the wholesaler had gone up and we had to pass that price rise on. I then pointed out other products that had gone downhill in price because they were either cheaper now or on special offer when we bought them. We pass these reductions on to our customers but he wasn't impressed as he said he didn't buy those ones, however he could see that we couldn't sell stuff at a loss, or we'd go out of business.

 

[Big_Ben]

Had a customer this morning who was annoyed that the price of a product had gone up since he had last come in. I explained that the price we paid for it at the wholesaler had gone up and we had to pass that price rise on. I then pointed out other products that had gone downhill in price because they were either cheaper now or on special offer when we bought them. We pass these reductions on to our customers but he wasn't impressed as he said he did buy those ones, however he could see that we couldn't sell stuff at a loss, or we'd go out of business.

It's a bit like saying how long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door you are.
I see many people voicing the opinion that SISU/CCFC should stump up a high rent to ACL because the stadium and facilities are far superior to most out side the Premier, but then if they are asked to pay higher ticket prices in order to raise the cash to pay the higher rent, they squeal that it is unfair to the fans and threaten to boycott and stay away in droves. Can't have the penny and the bun.

 

[James Smith]

It's a bit like saying how long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door you are.
I see many people voicing the opinion that SISU/CCFC should stump up a high rent to ACL because the stadium and facilities are far superior to most out side the Premier, but then if they are asked to pay higher ticket prices in order to raise the cash to pay the higher rent, they squeal that it is unfair to the fans and threaten to boycott and stay away in droves. Can't have the penny and the bun.

Yeah but SISU were getting offered the price reduced product and rejecting it for reasons unknown walking out of the shop muttering about starting their own one.

 

[wingy]

It's a bit like saying how long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door you are.
I see many people voicing the opinion that SISU/CCFC should stump up a high rent to ACL because the stadium and facilities are far superior to most out side the Premier, but then if they are asked to pay higher ticket prices in order to raise the cash to pay the higher rent, they squeal that it is unfair to the fans and threaten to boycott and stay away in droves. Can't have the penny and the bun.

SISU for what can only be strategic reasons cut the price of a season ticket IIRC the season we got relegated or the one before .They then proceeded to mortgage against those sales leaving less revenue for running the club.
Many of us queried the logic of doing this and suggested we would/should be paying more to stay competitive with our rivals.

 

[James Smith]

Extracting the first page on a google site and typing verbatim is not exactly extracting facts.

The Doncaster non payment is in an article in a football magazine somewhere which I suppose I will have to find when I am back from holiday.

The Ipswich £30,000 actually was from another poster which again I will try and find. The article dug up was again the first in a google search. Interestingly even if that us correct its £1 million less than we were paying over the same period so I'm not quite sure the myth is exposed.

As for Hull it doesn't prove anything does it?

In all examples the rent is substantially less and access to revenues significantly better. In all examples the club was perceived to have won.

Forest apparently is another one. A five live presenter (mark chapman?) said when discussing Coventry that even a club like forest pay minuscule rent so how can the council justify what they are doing to Coventry? He fails to realise out fans want the council to do it to Coventry.

Are you back from holiday yet, if so I hope you had a good time. If you are have you found anything to back up your (in at least one case borderline defamatory) claims?

 

[James Smith]

Extracting the first page on a google site and typing verbatim is not exactly extracting facts.

The Doncaster non payment is in an article in a football magazine somewhere which I suppose I will have to find when I am back from holiday.

The Ipswich £30,000 actually was from another poster which again I will try and find. The article dug up was again the first in a google search. Interestingly even if that us correct its £1 million less than we were paying over the same period so I'm not quite sure the myth is exposed.

As for Hull it doesn't prove anything does it?

In all examples the rent is substantially less and access to revenues significantly better. In all examples the club was perceived to have won.

Forest apparently is another one. A five live presenter (mark chapman?) said when discussing Coventry that even a club like forest pay minuscule rent so how can the council justify what they are doing to Coventry? He fails to realise out fans want the council to do it to Coventry.

Are you back from holiday yet, if so I hope you had a good time. If you are, have you found anything to back up your (in at least one case borderline defamatory) claims?

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Shhhhh, it's not Grendel who's on holiday, it's us

 

[James Smith]

Shhhhh, it's not Grendel who's on holiday, it's us

As much as I'd love to, I must insist that he backs up his statements, especially the Doncaster one.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

As much as I'd love to, I must insist that he backs up his statements, especially the Doncaster one.

I admire your persistence but he ducks his head in like a turtle when he's lost. That or changes the subject. You'll probably just get that eventually.

 

[James Smith]

Extracting the first page on a google site and typing verbatim is not exactly extracting facts.

The Doncaster non payment is in an article in a football magazine somewhere which I suppose I will have to find when I am back from holiday.

The Ipswich £30,000 actually was from another poster which again I will try and find. The article dug up was again the first in a google search. Interestingly even if that us correct its £1 million less than we were paying over the same period so I'm not quite sure the myth is exposed.

As for Hull it doesn't prove anything does it?

In all examples the rent is substantially less and access to revenues significantly better. In all examples the club was perceived to have won.

Forest apparently is another one. A five live presenter (mark chapman?) said when discussing Coventry that even a club like forest pay minuscule rent so how can the council justify what they are doing to Coventry? He fails to realise out fans want the council to do it to Coventry.

Are you back from holiday yet, if so I hope you had a good time. If you are, have you found anything to back up your (in at least one case borderline defamatory) claims?

 

[torchomatic]

You'll be making a lot of friends on here. Keep it up.

Are you back from holiday yet, if so I hope you had a good time. If you are, have you found anything to back up your (in at least one case borderline defamatory) claims?

 

[wingy]

You'll be making a lot of friends on here. Keep it up.

Are'nt we all friends torch
All City Fans:thinking about:

 

[torchomatic]

All City fans. And a few SHITSU apologists/worshippers/lovers, etc.

Are'nt we all friends torch
All City Fans:thinking about:

 

[WillieStanley]

All City fans. And a few SHITSU apologists/worshippers/lovers, etc.

Don't forget rent boys!! That's my favourite!!

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Don't forget rent boys!! That's my favourite!!

This is almost like deciding which was the best Mackem pun username for Jimmy Hill last year. My favourite was 'Chinja'.

 

[Grendel]

Are you back from holiday yet, if so I hope you had a good time. If you are, have you found anything to back up your (in at least one case borderline defamatory) claims?

Yes thanks. Been working abroad as well and just got back. Please let me know what defamatory claim I made. My lawyer has been phoning me saying he is really concerned.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Yes thanks. Been working abroad as well and just got back. Please let me know what defamatory claim I made. My lawyer has been phoning me saying he is really concerned.

Made me smile the lawyer part

 

[Grendel]

I now see where you got the £1 million rental amount for Doncaster James -- interestingly you did not mention the cheque that the club received back from the council as part of the new deal which meant the net amount was indeed significantly less. Care to share?

 

[wingy]

Made me smile the lawyer part

HMMM,an Americanism ,wonder if Old Grendy has been Stateside lately ??

 

[James Smith]

Yes thanks. Been working abroad as well and just got back. Please let me know what defamatory claim I made. My lawyer has been phoning me saying he is really concerned.

Well the comments you made in post 46 regarding a football club (I won't name them here so as not to be seen as repeating the defamatory statement) and their situation before they were offered the new long lease are what I'm referring to. You implied that a football club had refused to pay their rent and had "taken on" the management company of the stadium at which they were tenants. This could be seen as you suggesting that this club had deliberately decided not to pay their rent and to force their landlord to agree to their terms. This could be seen as defamatory because and I defer to the BBC for a good description of this.

Any living individual or company can sue as long as they are reasonably identifiable from what is said and the material is defamatory of them.* This means that it would tend to lower them in the estimation of right-thinking people generally.*

The claimant (or pursuer in Scotland) does not need to show that they suffered any actual damage, nor that what was said was false.* On the contrary, the defendant (or defender in Scotland) generally has to prove that it was true.in the eyes of the average person.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-law-defamation/

I'm sure that you will have something to back the statement up in post #46 because otherwise it could be seen as defamatory. If I was looking to do business with a firm and read that the firm was refusing or had in the past refused to pay their debts, I might get a negative image of that firm and decide not to trade with them. Do you see what I'm getting at? Oh and by the way that something you hope to use as evidence doesn't include someone's post on this website unless it contains a link to something written by the Stadium Management company, Doncaster Rovers, Doncaster Council or someone writing on their behalf. There is a real danger that if you quote someone else who hasn't referenced their statements and those turn out to be defamatory, that you will just be repeating the defamatory statement which isn't a good thing. Was your lawyer concerned that your post contained potentially defamatory statements and wanted me to back this legal eagle up? Or was she or he concerned that they couldn't see what was potentially defamatory in what you wrote?

I would hope that you have at least been advised of the definition of defamation by them, as it would be prudent for them to do so if they are supposed to be helping you understand the legal implications of your actions. I won't need to explain the potential ramifications for certain other people of your post, as your lawyer will be able to do that far better than me. Of course if you have evidence to back up your claims then this is all academic and you won't hesitate to post that or at the very least a link to it on here.

I'm not a lawyer and I've never claimed to be one, but as part of my degree I studied Media Law* and worked in the media for a few years. I may be a bit rusty on all this and if there is a solicitor or more likely a barrister who would like to correct me on any of this please feel free.

*combined studies degree which allowed you to choose the modules you wished to study.

I now see where you got the £1 million rental amount for Doncaster James -- interestingly you did not mention the cheque that the club received back from the council as part of the new deal which meant the net amount was indeed significantly less. Care to share?

Ah so I see you've looked at my references, would you care as the person who made the claim of a cheque like to back up the statement with some evidence of this please?

It's not unknown for football fans to be on the receiving end of a solicitors letter when they post something about directors or officials of their club that they can't substantiate. Didn't a former CCFC director and chairman in the guise of Mike McGinnity do just that for a comment that was only on a message board for a few hours.
http://coventrycity.rivals.net/default.asp?sid=885&p=2&stid=8366059

Sheffield Wednesday fans and their message board made it as far as the high court in an attempt to unmask the identities of those who had posted potentially defamatory statements. The owner of the website was the one who was hauled into court to be made to reveal the identities of the posters.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/oct/22/news.blogging

Ultimately the case was dropped but I don't know why.
http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=67950

 

[grego_gee]

Well the comments you made in post 46 regarding a football club (I won't name them here so as not to be seen as repeating the defamatory statement) and their situation before they were offered the new long lease are what I'm referring to. You implied that a football club had refused to pay their rent and had "taken on" the management company of the stadium at which they were tenants. This could be seen as you suggesting that this club had deliberately decided not to pay their rent and to force their landlord to agree to their terms. This could be seen as defamatory because and I defer to the BBC for a good description of this.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-law-defamation/

I'm sure that you will have something to back the statement up in post #46 because otherwise it could be seen as defamatory. If I was looking to do business with a firm and read that the firm was refusing or had in the past refused to pay their debts, I might get a negative image of that firm and decide not to trade with them. Do you see what I'm getting at? Oh and by the way that something you hope to use as evidence doesn't include someone's post on this website unless it contains a link to something written by the Stadium Management company, Doncaster Rovers, Doncaster Council or someone writing on their behalf. There is a real danger that if you quote someone else who hasn't referenced their statements and those turn out to be defamatory, that you will just be repeating the defamatory statement which isn't a good thing. Was your lawyer concerned that your post contained potentially defamatory statements and wanted me to back this legal eagle up? Or was she or he concerned that they couldn't see what was potentially defamatory in what you wrote?

I would hope that you have at least been advised of the definition of defamation by them, as it would be prudent for them to do so if they are supposed to be helping you understand the legal implications of your actions. I won't need to explain the potential ramifications for certain other people of your post, as your lawyer will be able to do that far better than me. Of course if you have evidence to back up your claims then this is all academic and you won't hesitate to post that or at the very least a link to it on here.

I'm not a lawyer and I've never claimed to be one, but as part of my degree I studied Media Law* and worked in the media for a few years. I may be a bit rusty on all this and if there is a solicitor or more likely a barrister who would like to correct me on any of this please feel free.

*combined studies degree which allowed you to choose the modules you wished to study.

Ah so I see you've looked at my references, would you care as the person who made the claim of a cheque like to back up the statement with some evidence of this please?

It's not unknown for football fans to be on the receiving end of a solicitors letter when they post something about directors or officials of their club that they can't substantiate. Didn't a former CCFC director and chairman in the guise of Mike McGinnity do just that for a comment that was only on a message board for a few hours.
http://coventrycity.rivals.net/default.asp?sid=885&p=2&stid=8366059

Sheffield Wednesday fans and their message board made it as far as the high court in an attempt to unmask the identities of those who had posted potentially defamatory statements. The owner of the website was the one who was hauled into court to be made to reveal the identities of the posters.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/oct/22/news.blogging

Ultimately the case was dropped but I don't know why.
http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=67950

Get a life!

imp:

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Get a life!

imp:

Somebody needs to try taking their own advice.