One thing about 'offers' is that normally proof of substantial funds are required within your offer so the receiving offer can be substantiated and then taken seriously. Has that been done?
Also about returning to the Ricoh while these negotiations are in play as a sign of good faith perhaps?
While I accept that would be nice from a fans point of view, it's a non starter. The stance SISU have made can not be broken in any way which would benefit ACL. Returning under such temporary status would be a benefit to the stadium. So unfortunately SISU can't accept that idea can they?
Besides, importantly ACL are the lease holders and not the owners of the stadium which SISU require some ownership of. The negotiation SISU require is with first and foremost the owners, who will in turn need inventive ways of creating ownership of the stadium that ACL have a lease on for some 40 years!
The only reason that has legs in the consideration process is because ACL are indeed the owners (Council) puppet and are still themselves half owned by the council. So the council hold the strings in the first step of negotiations for the stadium ownership if they so wish it.
This whole thing about free rent with ACL that Michael is espousing is simply a red hearing that can at best only be based on trying to get two sides to a table. The underbelly of the problem is that which I outlined above. Perhaps Michael and his 'investors' should seek to approach the council with a view to ownership of the stadium for the football club and check on the response he gets there?