Gillingham offer support to SISU (1 Viewer)

Sick Boy said:

If ACL have gone from strength to strength, then why did they need to be bailed out by the council? Surely is CCFC only account for a sixth of their turnover, they shouldn't really be affected by the club not paying rent?

Click to expand...

ACL are a relatively fledgling business, yet have posted rising profits over the last few years (from strength to strength) - these profits however are small (£>1m) when stood against the mortgage with Yorkshire Bank.

SISU withdrew rent (£1.3/annum on a long lease) in the hope of distressing ACL - CCCouncil simply decided to protect their asset and call SISU's bluff.

Disclaimer from TRS: Please don't think I'm ignoring replies to any of my posts - I'm off down the Town Wall Tavern now for some liquid refreshment!:guitar2:

TheRoyalScam said:

Disclaimer from TRS: Please don't think I'm ignoring replies to any of my posts - I'm off down the Town Wall Tavern now for some liquid refreshment!:guitar2:

Click to expand...

Enjoy.............

TheRoyalScam said:

Disclaimer from TRS: Please don't think I'm ignoring replies to any of my posts - I'm off down the Town Wall Tavern now for some liquid refreshment!:guitar2:

Click to expand...

The pub for Agoraphobics!

SkyBlue_Taylor said:

Well said, that's 2 clubs who have spoke against ACL, now it's time for our fans to rally behind not SISU, but CCFC to get a better rent agreement.

Click to expand...

are you being serious ffs? so you'd rather SISU stay, and ccfc rent the ricoh. rather than a takeover and ccfc own the ricoh?

TheRoyalScam said:

Disclaimer from TRS: Please don't think I'm ignoring replies to any of my posts - I'm off down the Town Wall Tavern now for some liquid refreshment!:guitar2:

Click to expand...

Much the same, off to The Clarendon in Leam for the quiz.

ccfc92 said:

are you being serious ffs? so you'd rather SISU stay, and ccfc rent the ricoh. rather than a takeover and ccfc own the ricoh?

Click to expand...

2 out of 71 clubs offer 'support' to sisu and we're expected to be onside again!

bigfatronssba said:

2 out of 71 clubs offer 'support' to sisu and we're expected to be onside again!

Click to expand...

i think your agreeing lol? but exactly, it's all PR bullshit from SISU

Sispin... If only 2 clubs replied...

That's 100% backing from the league!

SISU negotiated a better deal, agreed on it, then wanted to use that as a starting point for a better deal. In the meantime refusing to pay anything. Everything they do is full of deceit, check their history folks. They have inflated our debt, not submitted accounts, make up what they want about what is in holdings and what isn't, got rid of Ranson who I think wanted to develop the club, have sold anybody they can......do I have to go on?

ccfc92 said:

i think your agreeing lol? but exactly, it's all PR bullshit from SISU

Click to expand...

Well it's not PR BS by SISU, another club has spoken out against the rent agreement, which was, in my opinion, too high, but it's a 'propaganda coup' for SISU.

In reply to you previous post:

No, that's not what I said.

Hobo said:

SISU negotiated a better deal, agreed on it, then wanted to use that as a starting point for a better deal. In the meantime refusing to pay anything. Everything they do is full of deceit, check their history folks. They have inflated our debt, not submitted accounts, make up what they want about what is in holdings and what isn't, got rid of Ranson who I think wanted to develop the club, have sold anybody they can......do I have to go on?

Click to expand...

Where is this documented? Other than someone from ACL saying so?

Same people who brought this are the same people saying I'm spouting rubbish when quoting Fisher saying ACL refused an offer to renegotiate rent.

TheRoyalScam said:

.......
If only SISU had proved themselves trustworthy (and able to run a football club without blundering from regular cock-ups to crisis to relegation), then we could be in the Premier League, own at least 50% of ACL (if not 100%), and be in a position to eventually own the stadium and much of the infrastructure.

Click to expand...

Agreed wholeheartedly. Less than a year after these sharks took over, they started to deviate from the plan and do everything on the cheap. They had the opportunity to buy into the stadium well before things turned sour with ACL and the council. But hounds that they are, they thought we would get promotion on the cheap and hey ho £50M plus, thank you very much Mr Murdoch. But it didn't work and belatedly they thought they could put some money into the coffers and get us back on track - failed miserably when yet again they got cold feet. Wouldn't gamble and invest some money in King, or McG, or give Robbins some assurances. So now they are trying any trick in the book to try and claw some money back. Too late they realise in football you simply can't cut costs to the bone, you have to speculate to accumulate - ie. invest to gain reward.