Sorry, not being obtuse, really not sure what you're asking here.
You mean distressing ACL won't work? I agree (pending crazy JR decision).
You mean CCFC as leaseholders won't work? I couldn't disagree more. I still think the original deal was worthwhile. I can't see City getting a free/cheap stadium anywhere else and certainly not one with the income streams that the Ricoh has available. If the club said tomorrow they want a 100 year lease for free, I'd back them. Is 150k/season with no revenues viable? Not in a million years. But as had been stated many times, there's a way in there.
And you believe that? You think they're unable to overcome their trust issues even though it costs them millions per year? It's not like they wouldn't have a contract, that if broken, they could sue over.
I find it more incredible that ACL are willing to trust a company like SISU, who do you trust more?
I think it speaks for itself, if they wanted to return to the Ricoh with all the public pressure and huge deduction in rent it could have easily happened.
I don't trust either side more, I don't favour either side more.
Sorry, not being obtuse, really not sure what you're asking here.
You mean distressing ACL won't work? I agree (pending crazy JR decision).
You mean CCFC as leaseholders won't work? I couldn't disagree more. I still think the original deal was worthwhile. I can't see City getting a free/cheap stadium anywhere else and certainly not one with the income streams that the Ricoh has available. If the club said tomorrow they want a 100 year lease for free, I'd back them. Is 150k/season with no revenues viable? Not in a million years. But as had been stated many times, there's a way in there.