Oh, and as for the initial article. I've only read half of it so far. It's well written, it offers an intelligent argument, although I personally have some issues with a couple of the assertions (ultimately nobody was willing to pay for a percentage of ACL under the terms originally set out. It fails to acknowledge repeated attempts to renegotiate on the part of boards pre SISU, let alone the current lot - it doesn't point out the 'negotiations are at an end' line actually came from ACL'). It does, however, pose an interesting and illuminating comment about the situation at the time of Wasps buying it with respect to offers to talk, which offers a rather good insight. Now I'm fairly sure there was an alternative view to that, where it was argued this was empty rhetoric, and there was no actual desire to talk. Ultimately, we're talking rhetoric on both sides however.
The issue has always been opposing perspectives and, ignoring the current crisis(!) that's always going to be the issue while the stadium is owned by a profit-oriented entity that isn't the football club. The deal as originally constituted was necvessary to enable ACL to exist, but it didn't help the club. Ultimately, any deal for CCFC to play at the Ricoh will either end up subsidising themselves, or Wasps - there's a very small area where a deal can be found that benefits all parties sufficiently. Ironically, it may be easier for Wasps and CCFC to make a deal than when it was CCC and CCFC. There won't be the cultural differences between city council and ruthless investment fund there was then... although there will be two ruthless investment funds duking it out instead!
