shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Having let the club rent a ground outside of Coventry for 3-5 years, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to have the same deal agreed within Coventry...
10 years totally irrelevant, it'd only be relevant if the club had a ground lined up for the next 10 years anyway. If they're building a new one in the right place, then renting AN Other ground in the city that bears the club's name is hardly going to be rejected by the football league, so a short term temporary agreement can be continued elsewhere.
But the FL say they only agreed to the groundshare because a new stadium is planned and there is no stadium in Coventry suitable.
The entire justification for the move is the Ricoh isn't available. The FL said they only agreed to Northampton because otherwise the club couldn't fulfil their fixtures.
Besides, this point was couched in "if this is a new co". And like everything else ACL had to assume the FL would follow their own rules, they didn't, you can't blame ACL for that.
And like everything else: why couldn't this be a starting point for negotiations rather than dismissing it out of hand? Oh yeah, because rent was never the issue. FFS I can't believe some (not you) are still talking in these terms. You'd have to be simple to not see that none of the justifications from Sisu stand up to even a five year olds scrutiny.