Golden Share Could Be In Holdings After All (2 Viewers)

[Brighton Sky Blue]

What is called "rent" is not rent. It is the sum of the rent that should be paid under the lease and the fees that should be paid under the licence. The significance of this is that much of the licence fee covers direct costs. Thus if the Club doesn't play much of the cost is not incurred and thus the reduction in revenue is matched in part by a reduction in cost.

Godiva says "So far I haven't heard the mortgage terms have changed ... only that the mortgage is now owned by CCC and not Yorkshire Bank. There are no words that the conditions have been changed, as CCC haven't yet refinanced it. So ACL continue to pay exactly the same as before." It would seem to say that because he hasn't heard that there is any change there can't be. The first part of his statement is presumably fact. He doesn't know. How then can he make a firm statement that there is no change in what ACL pay?
If Godiva is Fisher I don't have a problem because I can simply ignore it, if Godiva isn't Fisher why is he making unsupportable statements that he wishes people to see as fact?

Did Reeves/Mutton not openly say that the council were putting a lighter interest rate on the mortgage than the bank?

 

---

[skyblue2k]

Thank you yet again for giving me a laugh, got 2 spare sisu out balloons if you want them?

 

[skyblue2k]

@PWKH have you heard when the administrator is returning to court?

 

[lordsummerisle]

What is called "rent" is not rent. It is the sum of the rent that should be paid under the lease and the fees that should be paid under the licence. The significance of this is that much of the licence fee covers direct costs. Thus if the Club doesn't play much of the cost is not incurred and thus the reduction in revenue is matched in part by a reduction in cost.

Godiva says "So far I haven't heard the mortgage terms have changed ... only that the mortgage is now owned by CCC and not Yorkshire Bank. There are no words that the conditions have been changed, as CCC haven't yet refinanced it. So ACL continue to pay exactly the same as before." It would seem to say that because he hasn't heard that there is any change there can't be. The first part of his statement is presumably fact. He doesn't know. How then can he make a firm statement that there is no change in what ACL pay?
If Godiva is Fisher I don't have a problem because I can simply ignore it, if Godiva isn't Fisher why is he making unsupportable statements that he wishes people to see as fact?

Apart from the paranoia about who or who isn't a Sisu plant, have the terms been changed?

Lots of people have been stating as "fact" that the council will be making money on the new loan deal to ACL, so is ACL paying considerably less than they would have done with the existing mortgage and is the council making more with it's £14million than it would have done elsewhere?

 

[RPHunt]

What is called "rent" is not rent. It is the sum of the rent that should be paid under the lease and the fees that should be paid under the licence. The significance of this is that much of the licence fee covers direct costs. Thus if the Club doesn't play much of the cost is not incurred and thus the reduction in revenue is matched in part by a reduction in cost.

Godiva says "So far I haven't heard the mortgage terms have changed ... only that the mortgage is now owned by CCC and not Yorkshire Bank. There are no words that the conditions have been changed, as CCC haven't yet refinanced it. So ACL continue to pay exactly the same as before." It would seem to say that because he hasn't heard that there is any change there can't be. The first part of his statement is presumably fact. He doesn't know. How then can he make a firm statement that there is no change in what ACL pay?
If Godiva is Fisher I don't have a problem because I can simply ignore it, if Godiva isn't Fisher why is he making unsupportable statements that he wishes people to see as fact?

Thank you and I must apologise for describing the charges as rent earlier.

As to your last question, I think it is a sad fact of life that some people do adopt unsustainable arguments and to back up those arguments they will obfuscate and invent 'facts'. In life outside of the internet, they can be (and are) generally ignored, so I would suggest it is nothing sinister. Just someone who goes through life in the 'real' world being avoided by anyone that desires sensible conversation.

 

[Godiva]

Godiva says "So far I haven't heard the mortgage terms have changed ... only that the mortgage is now owned by CCC and not Yorkshire Bank. There are no words that the conditions have been changed, as CCC haven't yet refinanced it. So ACL continue to pay exactly the same as before." It would seem to say that because he hasn't heard that there is any change there can't be. The first part of his statement is presumably fact. He doesn't know. How then can he make a firm statement that there is no change in what ACL pay?
If Godiva is Fisher I don't have a problem because I can simply ignore it, if Godiva isn't Fisher why is he making unsupportable statements that he wishes people to see as fact?

You have the facts, so why don't you simply set the records straight?

Your analysis of my sentence is nothing but spin - instead of correcting my assumption you play 'the Fisher card' to rally those posters who believe that those with a different view are sisu plants.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

You have the facts, so why don't you simply set the records straight?

Your analysis of my sentence is nothing but spin - instead of correcting my assumption you play 'the Fisher card' to rally those posters who believe that those with a different view are sisu plants.

Sounds like you have the 'inside track'

 

[bigfatronssba]

Why is it that certain posters come out with the line of "I dont care about ACL, all I care about is city", then when Acl agree a loan arrangement they are all over them?

If you are only interested in the football club then where Acl borrows its money from is nothing to do with you.