There are no signs to me SISU are desperate ..
However they do need to carry the fans with them whichever route they go ..
The only significant sign of anything extraordinary going on has been the fact that SHE has revealed /Indentified herself ,albeit limitedly.
Apparently it's worth £600,000 a year to rent so no.
Where did you pluck that figure from?
Where did you pluck that figure from?
Aren't they all either owners or part owners of their respective stadium management companies, something that we aren't anymore? Given we have had the chance to buy back our share (which the previous board couldn't afford financially) and neither Sisu (or the Higgs)It is irrelevant - it's down to supply and demand. I repeat Swansea, Ipswich and the City Ground have less rental costs than £175,000. I think you will find they match the Ricoh for concerts and are easily impressive enough for sponsors. Without the club it seems there will be no sponsor and that revenue will be pocketed by ACL.
for the reasons mentioned in both court cases. We have had the chance to get back on a somewhat level playing field (pun not intended) and become part owners of the stadium management company but someone screwed it up.Mr Justice Leggatt said:"had any appetite to seek to pursue negotiations or seek to conclude such a deal"
If it had been any other team rather than Rangers or Celtic they wouldn't. Do you really think we would be looked at in the same way I doubt it!
Anyone feel like all this is just pointless?
Just going round and round discussing the same shite day after day?
SBT is getting predictable and boring. So sad its come to this.
They should continue with The JR because appeal is a corner stone in the legal system. The appeal mechanism is there to protect you and me - everyone. To deprive sisu their right to appeal is simply wrong.
If they are granted right to appeal soon it could potentially benefit the club, but if they have to go to the EU commission it might just take too long. Still they have the right to do it - and they should.
Similarly, what ACL are asking for is also quite proper and within the law that protects me and you and everyone. They're asking that a case that will specifically damage their business, and which has already incurred significant costs to them (and has been lost), be dropped.
There's nothing illegal about that request. No one is depriving SISU of their legal right to appeal - all ACL are saying is that we can't do business with you whilst you're holding that over us.
And apologies, but you're making this out to be a quest for justice, when in fact it looks to most people (including a neutral arbiter of law, the Judge) that SISU's primary motive was to distress another business in order to pick it up on the cheap. So your suggestion that SISU should appeal seems based on your opinion, that they've got a case, when a judge has clearly stated that they haven't.
So forgive me, but what it seems you're saying is that SISU should have the right to appeal, but ACL should not have the right to refuse to negotiate if SISU choose to do so. Apologies if I've misunderstood, but I couldn't agree with that.
I fully agree both have rights. ACL have the right to issue their ultimatum. Sisu have rights to appeal.
Now how do we get them to the table without taking away their rights?
It can't work. Something have to give.
So the next question - can the club play at the Ricoh while sisu pursue their appeals?
Maybe the judge got it wrong? It does happen, you know. His remarks were opinions, not quotes of the laws.
Let's wait until the appeals have been exhausted before we take a decision as gospel.
In the end the winner writes the history.
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?