skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
how do you ever expect to be taken seriously when you make stupid comments like that, that is clearly the complete opposite of what was said.
all you have is smoke and mirrors, just like timmy and shitsu.
So you'd rather we moved to Northampton 5 years ago - why?
So you'd rather we moved to Northampton 5 years ago - why?
Why do you even make such stupid comments?
Are you talking about the original rent or the 400K offer? Man City pay around £3m I think, West Ham £2m, Peterborough were paying £500K but that's been dropped to £300K whilst building work is carried out, Walsall pay £360K. They're the only ones I happen to know. The problem with asking a question like that is your average supporter is going to have no idea which clubs are renting their grounds let alone what they're paying for them. If SISU don't want to pay rent why don't they make an offer, at market value, to buy the stadium?
that information isn't publically available is it although it has been stated that it's now at a lower interest rate than previously under Yorkshire Bank.
Clearly its the original deal
Are west ham paying £2 million at upton park to the council
Again Walsall is privately owed by the same owner as the club.
Were man city when we kicked off a the Ricoh.
For the record hull pay a nominal sum, forest and Ipswich around £100k Swansea a nominal amount (still) as do hull city. Strange you can't find any of these - they are in the public domain. Swansea own a third of the management company as well by the way.
All those clubs play in grounds with a smaller capacity and poorer facilities than the Ricoh so not really comparable.
The breath taking irony of that comment will not be lost on most posters.
Anyway, as expected you can't answer my question and provide any facts to substantiate your false claims but instead try to change the subject.. yawn...
All those clubs play in grounds with a smaller capacity and poorer facilities than the Ricoh so not really comparable.
Smaller grounds yes, but poor facilities? The casino, jaguar exhibition hall and hotel, etc have nothing to do with the bowl, they should be self fund generating al we shouldn't be paying a premium because they're on the same site.
The bowl is the same as any others - seats, concourse with F&B outlets, toilets, boxes, and grass.
How on earth are the areas that the club actually benefit from poorer? Please expand on that. Compare Swansea and please explain what they receive compared to us and how we benefit more.
So tell us buying half share - the Higgs share - entitled them to how much revenue exactly?
The fact that they have taken some years and several change of directors to realise the rip off changes nothing.
Better facilities equal better image for the club and potentially encourage more to attend games.
How much do you think?
It is the first step to 'legitimately' gaining control of the stadium. One that they have never taken.
Funny how you don't apply this logic to Joe Elliott - apparently he should have known SISU's future plans before even they did!
So you have actually done someday key research on this? Wow I'm impressed can you share it? Is it worth paying 1000% more do you think than those mentioned above.
I am surprised because the above clubs seem to now attract more people than we did when the Ricoh opened - you know when we were already losing money from day one.
Still you must have done the research I suppose...otherwise you'd just be frantically finding anything to defend the council and their initial pricing policy and for a supporter only interested in the football club that would make you very strange indeed.
Elliot? What are you taking about? Evidence suggests he will side with anyone who gives him a seat on the board.
Hahahaha SOME do..... you all fucking do!! Hense moving round 2nd half!!!
Clearly its the original deal
Are west ham paying £2 million at upton park to the council
Again Walsall is privately owed by the same owner as the club.
Were man city when we kicked off a the Ricoh.
For the record hull pay a nominal sum, forest and Ipswich around £100k Swansea a nominal amount (still) as do hull city. Strange you can't find any of these - they are in the public domain. Swansea own a third of the management company as well by the way.
Supporters of SISU keep trying to find teams who are paying no rent or a small amount of rent.They put their figures on here with no reference to the financial set up of the club or ground. Example leicester, King power pay £17m for the ground. The SISU supporters say they brought the stadium for £17m, when in fact it was the loan still outstanding from when the stadium was built. The interest cost each year was £1.2m and it is not owned by LCFC.
With respect I am not taking about sisu or privately owned stadiums.
My question remains - which council owned stadium offered its football club a worse deal than the one we originally signed?
Why will no one just answer a question I have posed for many months on here ?
Are you seriously suggesting a cut throat corporate enterprise such as Sisu bought in to CCFC without knowing what revenues they were going to be entitled to?The comment isn't stupid.
The initial comment that sisu signed up to the deal was stupid. The point if the remark is that no one else wanted to buy the club and we were a last resort to those that did. The club would have been liquidated if they had not done so.
The fact that they have taken some years and several change of directors to realise the rip off changes nothing.
So what is Tony's point. They should have delayed the takeover to study the small print - decided they didn't like the arrangement walked away and the club was liquidated 5 years ago - where is the sense in that?
Clearly its the original deal
Are west ham paying £2 million at upton park to the council
Again Walsall is privately owed by the same owner as the club.
Were man city when we kicked off a the Ricoh.
For the record hull pay a nominal sum, forest and Ipswich around £100k Swansea a nominal amount (still) as do hull city. Strange you can't find any of these - they are in the public domain. Swansea own a third of the management company as well by the way.
The lurker is here
It seems that nobody has a clue about Hull City and their ground.
I used to live on the other side of the Humber bridge to Hull. Worked with lots of Hull fans. What happened was the council owned Kingston Communications. BT didn't have any business in Hull. All of the phone boxes were painted white. KC were floated. This raised a massive amount of money. It was whilst these types of companies were still on the up. The money belonged to the people of Hull. They had a choice of where the money went. Some of this money went to build the stadium. It belongs to the people of Hull. The football club pays a peppercorn rent. The council actually rents a part of the ground. Can't remember what for though. More of the money from the sale of KC went to other projects for the people of Hull.
Hull is still a shithole though.
There is and always has been an option for the half share. Why has it not been taken up by SISU?
The rent was also not disputed for a long time until it suddenly wasnt paid.
100%? I'm not going to take that one seriously.
The rent was also not disputed for a long time until it suddenly wasnt paid.
The same story keeps getting trotted out that nobody tried to negotiate on the rent until they stopped paying it.
It is true that ACL only started to negotiate on the rent once it wasn't being paid, but been a few attempts to negotiate the rent by the club prior to that(at least once before Sisu took over), and a few attempts since then.
It's not like it hasn't been mentioned on here several times before.
This is an absolute lie which you and others keep peddling as truth.
We moved into the Ricoh in August 2005 and we tried to renegotiate the rent in December 2005. Well before SISU were here. Even in the halcyon days of the new Arena with large crowds the Club knew the rent was excessive and were struggling to pay it.
The same story keeps getting trotted out that nobody tried to negotiate on the rent until they stopped paying it.
It is true that ACL only started to negotiate on the rent once it wasn't being paid, but been a few attempts to negotiate the rent by the club prior to that(at least once before Sisu took over), and a few attempts since then.
It's not like it hasn't been mentioned on here several times before.
Nothing is going to change the past and we need to move forward. In the present it seems ACL have offered a huge reduction and SISU aren't interested, for me that's the only really important thing.
The comment isn't stupid.
The initial comment that sisu signed up to the deal was stupid. The point if the remark is that no one else wanted to buy the club and we were a last resort to those that did. The club would have been liquidated if they had not done so.
The fact that they have taken some years and several change of directors to realise the rip off changes nothing.
So what is Tony's point. They should have delayed the takeover to study the small print - decided they didn't like the arrangement walked away and the club was liquidated 5 years ago - where is the sense in that?
My view is the council are 100% responsible as they created a model of destruction. They have made significant profit fro the ground and revenue through the management company
This is an absolute lie which you and others keep peddling as truth.
We moved into the Ricoh in August 2005 and we tried to renegotiate the rent in December 2005. Well before SISU were here. Even in the halcyon days of the new Arena with large crowds the Club knew the rent was excessive and were struggling to pay it.
Its all a can of worms really.
The rent agreement then was to include a flexible rent depending which league we were in.
The club declined the offer and preferred a fixed rent. I guess the rent in the premiership was where they thought we were heading. Unfortunately we dropped down the league so it became a problem.
"You can't have your cake and eat it"
SISU had an opportunity to leverage a deal but strangely didn't bother. They also had a chance to buy the stadium at a preferential rate but again, strangely didn't bother.
Even stranger they now want both of these options.
The comment isn't stupid.
The initial comment that sisu signed up to the deal was stupid. The point if the remark is that no one else wanted to buy the club and we were a last resort to those that did. The club would have been liquidated if they had not done so.
The fact that they have taken some years and several change of directors to realise the rip off changes nothing.
So what is Tony's point. They should have delayed the takeover to study the small print - decided they didn't like the arrangement walked away and the club was liquidated 5 years ago - where is the sense in that?
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?