As Holdings' statements become increasingly ludicrous I think that they're accepting that the game is up and this self inflicted administration has backfired. All it will take is for the League to give the GS back to Ltd and that will finish them off.
Nearer to the city centre than ricoh yet outside city boundaries.
Ansty?
With this in mind, maybe we should be doing our best to convince the Football League that SISU aren't 'fit and proper' owners - rather than petitioning about the stadium location?
If we could can stop the Football League transferring the golden share to CCFC Holdings it gives us a much better chance of getting rid of SISU.
Don't submit accounts as they are legaly required too making long periods under transfer embargo frequent and regular.It may actually be a good idea.
But I think the burden of proof will be sitting by the complainant, so what would the argument be?
- Don't provide funding?
- Got us relegated to L1?
- Excessive hiring/firing of managers (is it 8 or 9 in 6½ years)?
- Don't pay rent and got us kicked out of home?
- Want to build a new stadium?
- Never speaks to us, leaves the communications to the CEO?
I hardly think any of the above will prove the owners unfit in the eyes of FA/FL.
What else can be argued?
It may actually be a good idea.
But I think the burden of proof will be sitting by the complainant, so what would the argument be?
- Don't provide funding?
- Got us relegated to L1?
- Excessive hiring/firing of managers (is it 8 or 9 in 6½ years)?
- Don't pay rent and got us kicked out of home?
- Want to build a new stadium?
- Never speaks to us, leaves the communications to the CEO?
I hardly think any of the above will prove the owners unfit in the eyes of FA/FL.
What else can be argued?
Don't submit accounts as they are legaly required too making long periods under transfer embargo frequent and regular.
Set up complex series of companies in order to prevent them being liable for debts.
The club believes paying back over many years a private developer who would build the stadium would be cheaper than the £1.2m-a-year Ricoh rent.
What! Paying back the loan would be cheaper than the 1.2 million?
They were offered 400k weren't they?
I'm really annoyed with the telegraph letting them get this massive piece of spin in.
They were offered rent of 400k and it's simply impossible for them to build a stadium for less than that per year.
A £20 mill stadium at 4% interest over 40 years costs a touch over £1mill a year to repay. Total cost a touch over £40mill
Over a more reasonable 25 years the cost is £1.28mill a year with a total cost of £32 million.
Also what makes them think they can do it quicker and in real money terms cheaper than Rotherham? Not to mention it's a league 1 stadium and so they are basically saying this year is as good as its going to get for us.
They can say its modular but it would still cost millions to increase the size and capacity would drop from it's already pathetic level while it's done.
This makes no financial sence even without having to move out for years, when you take that into account too this is suicide financially and in football terms.
As for the name PATHETIC!
You have said it yourself in one line why the Telegrph has mentioned the £1.2m-a-year figure, simply because that is the figure they were supposed to be paying, the offer of £400K was never accepted and was never contractually obliged so means diddly squat.
You have said it yourself in one line why the Telegrph has mentioned the £1.2m-a-year figure, simply because that is the figure they were supposed to be paying, the offer of £400K was never accepted and was never contractually obliged so means diddly squat.
You have said it yourself in one line why the Telegrph has mentioned the £1.2m-a-year figure, simply because that is the figure they were supposed to be paying, the offer of £400K was never accepted and was never contractually obliged so means diddly squat.
Well it does have a relevance. It's the reported cost of playing moving forward. So, any cost analysis made at this point would have to weigh up the cost to play at the Ricoh moving forward against the cost of building this farce.
As such, it's a value that should be out there
That is a very one-sided and biased way of presenting the matter.
The truth of the matter is that they had the opportunity to pay only 400k instead of 1.2 million. They agreed that the 400k was an acceptable rent, and then turned the offer down.
Please stop trying to spin this into anything else. It could have been 400k if they had accepted what they themselves agreed was reasonable. To then say that because they turned down the offer the only figure that matters in this discussion is the original 1.2 million that is due because they in fact turned down the offer of 400k is disingenuous at best.
Also comparing building to renting isn't that fair either.
Otherwise everybody would rent their houses cheaper, and never bother with mortgages.
It doesn't mean diddly squat that was the final offer to them at it was at that point they said they were going to build their own stadium, so thats the number they should have been comparing against when making a plan before announcing this ridiculous idea.
By using the 1.2 mill figure the telegraph make it look like the idea is more valid than it is and thus influencing the minds of those people who haven't properly followed what's going on.
When the stadium is built, even if they max the capacity and get food and drink revenues, they will significantly worse off than they would have been accepting the 400k rent and getting similar crowds at the ricoh. Not to mention they won't be able to have the big game crowds like the jpt "final" again.
That base case scenario (which is still really bad) ignores the massive losses they will make over the next 3-5 years, the fact they will likely lower crowds for many years longer with this idea and the fact that 3-5 years playing away from home means almost certain relegation due to ffp rules. Perhaps even falling out of the league and it ignores the fact that walsall will want paying too, even if the walsall rent was free will be losing a massive amount each month over just accepting the 400k.
Not going to comment on "highfield road 2", or playing at walsall, as my views are the same as most here and its already been said.
I would only comment now on the folly of all this. How the hell has it come to all this bluster and nonsense?
Why Fisher? Why did you just not agree the cheaper rent deal and agree to pay back the £1.3M over x amount of years, instead of trying to force ACL out of business. You could have picked up the Higgs share cheaply and got what PH4 is after. by playing it straight. Why have you put all that at risk, SISU could lose millions by you playing hardball. Seppia should sack you, potentially you've thrown her money away.
It might have relevance, but to SISU they were contractually obliged to pay the £1.2m-a-year figure that was agreed when we moved to the Ricoh, yes a reduced offer was discussed and in some aspects agreed with a new rent agreement, but have they been paying that figure? No, They did reach that agreement? No, Was the offer signed off by all parties? No. They (SISU) have too look at the agreement that they are currently obliged to pay and see if they can do better than that, holding onto "Well they were offered £400K" means jack..
A final offer that was never accepted, SISU are comparing their options to what they are currently paying. Not offered.
They do have to look at the 1.2mill they are currently obliged to pay and see if they can do better, oh yes they can 400k, no instead of taking the heads of terms and turning it into a contract, best to start planning a stadium that will be terrible worse for the next 3-5 years but after that perhaps it's slightly better than we are currently obliged to pay, but still massively worse than the deal we have just agreed.
I can't understand where you are coming from at all, they spent a year negotiating a better deal, they get to the point that they have a great one and you think its ok to say, oh we can build a tiny stadium for less than we are currently contractually obliged to pay (but not paying) and while its a much much stupider idea than the deal we just spent a year negotiating lets go with that, sorry acl we're moving out.
But thats stupid! when they started blowing the new stadium bluster they had just agreed a deal. Why would you pull out on that in order to start planning a much worse deal.
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?