It was up to the club to negotiate the deal, why do you (and others) constantly imply it was up to ACL/CCC/Higgs to make an offer to CCFC, previous attempts failed miserably.Why was the football club not offered a similar deal to a club from London? If it had been a football team moving into the city would you feel the same way?
So if say Belfast invited to sisu to move there and the FL sanctioned it and they start getting crowds of 20,000 plus you’d be getting the champagne out again.
After all there is clearly in your eyes nothing morally wrong with that.
The club wasn't bankrupted by the Ricoh deal. With a rent if just over £1m a year, club was making losses of over £6m a year. The rent deal was fair and reasonable. Sisu tore up a valid lease and the deserve all the consequences they get for that unforgivable act.
Two the council WANTED them here - Gidney introduced Ranson as the preferred bidder
None of that is ccfc bias - it’s just bullshit.
Just think if we'd seen out the contract and taken up the offer to buy access to matchday only revenue we'd have paid out £74m to take us up to 2055. Wasps paid £7m and have it until 2255. How anyone can claim that is fair or the football club got similar treatment to Wasps is beyond me.The rent deal was not fair and reasonable.
Jesus christ, so you were perfectly happy with us going to Sixfields and would have no problem if SISU moved us away permanently I assume.but there was definitely nothing morally wrong with Wasps moving to the Ricoh.
The rent deal was not fair and reasonable.
It was not based on any averages at all - or was based on paying a mortgage so the council could play business games.
Fair and reasonable implies a similar rent to competitors
Here are some examples of competitors at the time
Swansea - nil
Hull -£54,000
Ipswich - £115,000
Forest - I believe similar to Ipswich
At the time these were all council owned grounds
Despite having one of the highest average crowds we had the lowest revenues. We weren’t allowed even access to train on it.
So how do you calculate it to be fair and reasonable?
Not sure i understand that analogy.....but there was definitely nothing morally wrong with Wasps moving to the Ricoh. It was the only realistic solution to keep the Ricoh out of Sisu's hands which, after they reneged on the lease, was exactly what they deserved.
A) that's complete crap, the rent should be set at a fair level not some arbitrary figure dreamt up by the council.Competitors rent is irrelevant. The rent had to take account of what it cost the council to finish the Ricoh.
This is the sort of weird shit that trips you up. Will await your view if we ever get moved.
Go on about you having no links and priorities yet being the only one to go on about cracking open bubbly about a court case.
It's strange you have such strong feelings for a city you keep saying you have no links to?
A) that's complete crap, the rent should be set at a fair level not some arbitrary figure dreamt up by the council.
B) how does the amount payable in rent over the term of the contract compare to the amount put in to the project by CCC?
So you celebrate all court cases then? There must be lots of bubbly opened.I have strong feelings about right and wrong, that's all. Just because i am Cov fan doesn't mean i don't want to see Sisu get their just desserts from the actions they have taken.
That's like saying payday loans to a single mum with no other option is fair.The rent WAS set at a fair level. With the mortgage interest and other charges to take into account over the payback period, the rent was commercially reasonable.
To be honest, it seems like you're tryong to imply the breaking the lease, which kicled off the whole thing, was justifiable. It wasn't.
The rent WAS set at a fair level. With the mortgage interest and other charges to take into account over the payback period, the rent was commercially reasonable.
To be honest, it seems like you're tryong to imply the breaking the lease, which kicled off the whole thing, was justifiable. It wasn't.
Do people still think it was about the rent level?
A long term rent deal was never going to be agreed upon abd still won’t be any time soon.
Only short term deals at a level that would put financial pressure on a ACL.
Or even better we move out abd pay not rent at all to ACL.
That was what was happening. Getting a better rent deal was not the agenda.
You’ve totally ignored my point and fact that ACL wanted sisu here as sisu only wanted to be here for a short term period.
You’ve totally ignored my point and fact that ACL wanted sisu here as sisu only wanted to be here for a short term period.
You are totally ignoring the point that the rent strike and breaking the lease was never truely about the rent level.
but there was definitely nothing morally wrong with Wasps moving to the Ricoh.
No, that was Sisu's fault. We weren't kicked out of the Ricoh, we brought it all on ourselves by trying to vankrupt ACL
It is irrelevant whether the rent was "fair" or not. CCFC signed the agreed terms and should have negotiated an escape clause or relegation clause or whatever at the beginning of the deal.
It should have included car parking, pie money etc etc
Blame who you like, McGinnty, Ranson etc but SISU should have done proper due diligence when they bought CCFC
Whatever it is in life, don't agree or sign something if you cannot afford to pay it back.
To compare the deal to a "pay day loan" is nonsense.
If a company cannot afford to pay - and as a stand alone company ccfc could not then going into administration is perfectly legitimate. Many companies can’t afford to pay either people or goods and services.
Also this is not a normal business consideration - most councils would not from the outset looked to recoup every last penny.
Also the council put huge pressure on the club to go through with the deal and then actively sought a partner like sisu as sisu only wanted the club on a short term basis.
There's a word for this, what is it now?.......
If a company cannot afford to pay - and as a stand alone company ccfc could not then going into administration is perfectly legitimate. Many companies can’t afford to pay either people or goods and services.
Also this is not a normal business consideration - most councils would not from the outset looked to recoup every last penny.
Also the council put huge pressure on the club to go through with the deal and then actively sought a partner like sisu as sisu only wanted the club on a short term basis.
It’s called insolvency where outgoings exceed incomings.
If a company cannot afford to pay - and as a stand alone company ccfc could not then going into administration is perfectly legitimate. Many companies can’t afford to pay either people or goods and services.
Also this is not a normal business consideration - most councils would not from the outset looked to recoup every last penny.
Also the council put huge pressure on the club to go through with the deal and then actively sought a partner like sisu as sisu only wanted the club on a short term basis.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?