Firstly the OP is spot on, I have a seen a couple of comments that I want to clarify though.
Ron I picked your quote above as you mentioned that ACL offered a lower rent 3 or 4 times which is correct but if they were able to offer the lowest offer available and acceptable why not do this to begin with and save any hassle of conflict?
I am sure that there will be information that comes to light in the JR that many of us were not aware of and I must insist I believe this will be on both sides, problem is I think it will have more impact on ACL/CCC.
Abdul CCFC went to ACL before Sisu came in and asked for a reduction in the rent, ACL knew the Club was struggling even more so when the Club then decided to sell it's share of ACL.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It has to be remembered that ACL had to pay the Council £900k rent when we moved In ,so were only supplementing that by £300k,maybe Machday costs,while there was no other business going on at that point .
However,around 6 months in the Lease was taken out along with the loan ,Still very little other business going on @ the Arena plus interest to pay.
So should the Club pay a Premium for being the sole user of the Facility and pay such a rate to enable ACL to paydown the rate at double the requirement ?
IMO yes and No .
If the lease was over 50 yrs then the paydown should have been ,ACL CCC must have made a Political /Business decision to accelerate ( Wrong)!!
Should the Club have paid a premium If It prevented other events from going ahead ,potentially yes,However as other business supported the Arena that premium should have been reduced /rescinded.