Do ACL need us or not? (4 Viewers)

[stupot07]

Then negotiations should have continued. To break the contract for as long as they have is farcical and shouldn't endear them to anyone-but the likes of Torch and Grendel seem to be tipping their hat at such a manoeuvre.

To be honest Brighton for every Torch and Duffy there have been x3-4 times as many willing ACL to pull the plug on the club just to get rid of Sisu

 

---

[Black6Osprey]

Yep, I'm pretty certain that the council were paid back by the upfront rent ACL paid, and that ACL took a mortgage to loan the £20m for this.

Thats what I thought, thanks. So as a limited company all the risk is with ACL and not with the council and any taxpayer money has been repayed and probably now blown by the council on a minor roundabout or a few council lunches.

 

[wingy]

ACL was set up as a vehicle to complete the construction shortfall of aorund £27M. .If it was so easy to raise capitol why cound'nt Richardson or Robinson raise their own money on the markets?

 

[torchomatic]

I agree, they shouldn't have broken the contract. However ACLs rent is unaffordable and tantamount to daylight robbery. We should have paid the rent and sold everyone and had a load of kids playing then, shouldn't we? I'm sure no one on here would have moaned as long as ACL had their pound of flesh.

All those who were having a go at the club and moaning that we had to sell players, pick up cheap free transfers will maybe now understand why. It is the rent that will ultimately put our club out of business. All those people from previous regimes who spent all the money and lost the Ricoh for us; who negotiated the rent in the first place. They are the ones most culpable in this.

As I have stated, I'm on the clubs' side and not ACLs. There are loads of posters on here who were cheering when ACL took the action they did, I'm not and never will be one of them. There have been countless threads calling for the club to go into admin (or worse) just to get rid of SISU. There were those who were righting to the Council begging them not to sell half of the stadium to the Club. Don't get that.

The Club comes first for me every time. Disagree, if you wish.

Then negotiations should have continued. To break the contract for as long as they have is farcical and shouldn't endear them to anyone-but the likes of Torch and Grendel seem to be tipping their hat at such a manoeuvre.

 

[Black6Osprey]

ACL was set up as a vehicle to complete the construction shortfall of aorund £27M. .If it was so easy to raise capitol why cound'nt Richardson or Robinson raise their own money on the markets?

Yes I understand that and the council loan was needed. The point is the council were payed back when the ACL mortgage was taken out and so all this talk of protecting the taxpayer is just BS.

As people keep pointing out that I need to keep to the facts I just needed this fact clarifying.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I agree, they shouldn't have broken the contract. However ACLs rent is unaffordable and tantamount to daylight robbery. We should have paid the rent and sold everyone and had a load of kids playing then, shouldn't we? I'm sure no one on here would have moaned as long as ACL had their pound of flesh.

All those who were having a go at the club and moaning that we had to sell players, pick up cheap free transfers will maybe now understand why. It is the rent that will ultimately put our club out of business. All those people from previous regimes who spent all the money and lost the Ricoh for us; who negotiated the rent in the first place. They are the ones most culpable in this.

As I have stated, I'm on the clubs' side and not ACLs. There are loads of posters on here who were cheering when ACL took the action they did, I'm not and never will be one of them. There have been countless threads calling for the club to go into admin (or worse) just to get rid of SISU. There were those who were righting to the Council begging them not to sell half of the stadium to the Club. Don't get that.

The Club comes first for me every time. Disagree, if you wish.

You're failing to grasp the point Torch-which is that we wanted a fair rent to be secured without resorting to such cavalier tactics. An extra 800k per year plus revenue was turned down-ACL have made a big concession there but the club flat out rejects it in hope of meeting the L1 average. That is a gap of what £200k; could we not meet that through shedding David Bell alone?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

But some do, there the ones who attitude pisses me off. I can understand the opinion of those who are criticising the way Fisher and SISU have acted but there are quite a few people actually who genuinely don't seem to want the rent reduced, just saying things along the lines of rent shouldn't be reduced because it is SISU's fault and they should pay for it, or they should continue paying 1.2 million pound rent because they knew about it when they bought the club and they hope ACL make a stand and make them pay the rent an other stuff when it is totally killing the club

Some peoples attitude it seems they would rather see SISU fail than CCFC succeed

In my book that simply comes more from pure ignorance/lack of understanding rather than a genuine wish to see the club fail. A few here have said 'Well SISU signed the agreement didn't they'-which is entirely false, but because the situation is hideously complex it's easy for people to get their facts muddled. Perhaps it's me clinging to this belief that nobody genuinely wants the club to go bust.

 

[torchomatic]

Here's just a recent example

Taxpayers must not line SISU's pockets. I'd rather see the club go bust.

In my book that simply comes more from pure ignorance/lack of understanding rather than a genuine wish to see the club fail. A few here have said 'Well SISU signed the agreement didn't they'-which is entirely false, but because the situation is hideously complex it's easy for people to get their facts muddled. Perhaps it's me clinging to this belief that nobody genuinely wants the club to go bust.

 

[wingy]

What drives this fear that the club may go bust? They can clearly find this amount .If they don't meet it it is their own choice leading to Admin or if they really want to wreck the club as they leave yes our doomsday scenario ,most of the emotions around this on here are based around fear.Drop your fear and look hard ,should we be affraid of what the owners of our club may do to it in a final act of vandalism