Sorry don't buy it. The argument is all ifs buts and maybes.
The long and the short is that most landlords would've told them to fuck off when asked for a new deal and certainly wouldn't be keeping the door open.
They restructured their entire business to allow a lower rent than the one agreed.
The fact is that rent was never the issue. That's been shown by their actions since. Frankly if you believe rent was ever the issue you're very naive IMO.
Wouldn't have it any other way though Geez
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is your dad going Brentford?
He is indeed fella, he won't stop again now
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not just McGinnity but every board member who had the chance to buy them back but didn't.
At least we all now that the council never cared about the club at all and just wanted to exploit it. If it had a shred of dignity given the give these back given the exploitation over the years.
Still lets all wait for the JR and see what it says about the council and in particular its past and present leaders of the council.
At least we all now that the council never cared about the club at all and just wanted to exploit it. If it had a shred of dignity given the give these back given the exploitation over the years.
Still lets all wait for the JR and see what it says about the council and in particular its past and present leaders of the council.
Im not having my council tax money going to some daft cow who cant run a hedge fund properly.
What I've read is that when we moved to the Ricoh the club did ask for a reduction in the rent because other costs were so high that the gates needed were unlikely to be achieved. ACL rejected this perhaps because as a new business they couldn't afford to or because they were out to get the club financially.
Then up pop Sisu who acquire our club and do nothing to try and renegotiate the rent level at that time. Then after relegation Sisu decided to boycott the rent payments before attempting any serious negotiations. When deals were offered involving reduced rent these were either rejected as being inadequate or agreed and then subsequently denied (handshakes etc.). ACL either attempting to collect the outstanding rent or to punish Sisu - took court action and then later on after no movement from Sisu, applied for Administration.
Against the wishes of the paying customers which is us the supporters, we were moved to groundshare at NTFC. Since then the rent has been the least of our financial worries, given the attendances at "home" matches and knock on effects on the Pie money.
This is the thing. As much as we like to look on the whole issue with sky blue tinted glasses, there's clearly 340,000 citizens who don't care about CCFC.
The city no longer affiliates with the club, and the majority of citizens don't have any history in supporting CCFC
Further to this is the share that the club sold to the Higgs, why did Sisu not make this a top priority? I mean the Higgs aren't making any money from having their money tied up in ACL, but would I assume need to get at least the amount they paid to satisfy the Charity Commission. There was an option to buy it back (at a price determined by a formula) which is now null and void?
Had they purchased that then we would have had 2 seats on the ACL board and a chance to change the deal about rent and revenues - not just the Pie money. Would probably (although I don't know for a fact) have cost least than the amounts we are likely to lose by our self imposed exile in Northampton. Will be interested to see the outcome of the court case over the non payment of lawyers fees.
Those same citizens also couldn't give a fuck about the Ricoh arena and who owns it.
Those same citizens also couldn't give a fuck about the Ricoh arena and who owns it.
You can say that Noggin but would you say that paying £1.2M is fair considering that you have also just said that £400K is a fair compromise? As I have said previously on this forum the Ricoh Arena was doomed to fail for CCFC and CCC from day 1.
CCFC to some extent had no choice but to go with it as there was no other options out there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The club were offered a sliding scale rent and rejected it as they thought they were coming straight back up.
This is exactly why we as fans need facts given to us. earlier in this thread, there are posts stating the rent was not questioned etc...
The club were offered a sliding scale rent and rejected it as they thought they were coming straight back up.
Like has been said before people only post the bits they want to win their argument?
Yet again endless conjecture and hypothesising about what may have happened, may have been agreed, may have been offered etc which is all fundamentally futile in regards to moving anything forward. This all being obviously to provide context and maintain a sense of balance which seems to be the virtue that trumps all.
Whilst everyone ignores the glaringly obvious fact that by far the single biggest mistake in the club's history was made in moving out of the city. The decision was taken solely by the clubs owners who have in the year following not made a single tangible attempt to rectify the situation other than insulting it's ever dwindling customer base by providing a half arsed story about a new stadium.
This is not to say that no mistakes have been made elsewhere in the last 15 years but it would be nice if perhaps we have a little less point scoring on things that are old news, can't be changed and almost without fail cannot be proved.
You have proof of that Don?
Again the sliding rent 'looks good' but we have absolutely no detail on what it looked like and judging by the q and a it still would have been £1.2m in the championship. All for 23-25 days use per annum.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Nobody has ever suggested that the rent figure was acceptable. But 0 rent and all the pies in the world wouldn't leave the club in a fit state according to accounts would it??
Wouldn't it be nice to have all the facts so we could all make educated decisions about who's right and wrong, within any spin applied.Again the sliding rent 'looks good' but we have absolutely no detail on what it looked like and judging by the q and a it still would have been £1.2m in the championship. All for 23-25 days use per annum.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Wouldn't it be nice to have all the facts so we could all make educated decisions about who's right and wrong, within any spin applied.
It would help to improve the situation, gradually season after season.
Definitely, in meantime - trust no one. suspect everyone.
Is losing £6m a year rather than £7m a year improving the situation? I don't think so, it's just a worsening situation, but at a slower rate.
Never going to happen. Said this from the start how people can take such definite postions on the issues without having all the facts amazes me.Wouldn't it be nice to have all the facts so we could all make educated decisions about who's right and wrong.
You been watching the x-files again?
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?