Grendel
Well-Known Member
The additional losses are minimal in comparison to the whole.
If they sell one player in January, either for a fee or a big wage earner, that will mitigate the shortfall.
We all know that they thought the attendances would be much higher than the highest so far at the worst. So they are having to find more money each week. If they want to hold out for a few years they will have to find a lot more money than expected. This gives us a much better chance of them coming to some sort of agreement.
The additional losses are minimal in comparison to the whole.
If they sell one player in January, either for a fee or a big wage earner, that will mitigate the shortfall.
The additional losses are minimal in comparison to the whole.
If they sell one player in January, either for a fee or a big wage earner, that will mitigate the shortfall.
I disagree. Why do you think that zero attendance would be any different to 1,000? From a publicity standpoint certainly it would be a big news item. Emotionally too for the fans.
However I don't believe that either of these things would influence SISU at all. Their only driver is money, and the difference between £10k and £0 for an attendance is small potatoes compared to the £30mm they hope to get by getting the Ricoh and land.
The problem is, the sign of absence can be interpreted as apathy...
The problem is, the sign of absence can be interpreted as apathy...
The problem is, the sign of absence can be interpreted as apathy...
Which is why the away following at MK - which I know you were uncomfortable with for very valid reasons - was such an important statement.
Why it'd have been better targeted somewhere other than MK however, as you hint at!
Combine the two together, and the messages sent out are dangerously closeto encouraging a path of total destruction.
Why it'd have been better targeted somewhere other than MK however, as you hint at!
Combine the two together, and the messages sent out are dangerously closeto encouraging a path of total destruction.
The problem is, the sign of absence can be interpreted as apathy...
The problem is, the sign of absence can be interpreted as apathy...
I disagree. Why do you think that zero attendance would be any different to 1,000? From a publicity standpoint certainly it would be a big news item. Emotionally too for the fans.
However I don't believe that either of these things would influence SISU at all. Their only driver is money, and the difference between £10k and £0 for an attendance is small potatoes compared to the £30mm they hope to get by getting the Ricoh and land.
Just because it's football doesn't mean a fan can't vote with their feet! That is not apathy it's freedom of choice, the right to be to have value for money and receive a certain level of entertainment.
Why it'd have been better targeted somewhere other than MK however, as you hint at!
Combine the two together, and the messages sent out are dangerously closeto encouraging a path of total destruction.
Where else gives out a 7k allocation?
...so it's all about the numbers?
It is, but to just look at the messages sent out from a desired viewpoint, as opposed to messages received elsewhere, is a dangerous game.
Plurality of meaning, and all that.
Does anyone else find it ironic that in the FA Cup this season, the majority of money sisu have made from it come from AFC Wimbledon fans?
Yet we're supposed to feel guilty about giving MK Dons money?
Does anyone else find it ironic that in the FA Cup this season, the majority of money sisu have made from it come from AFC Wimbledon fans?
Yet we're supposed to feel guilty about giving MK Dons money?
I can understand why people object to giving MK Dons money. However it comes down to personal choice. I know Wimbledon fans wouldn't boycott Sixfields on mass, much as I would love them too. I certainly wouldn't go on their fans forum calling them a hypercritical fan.
Not really no. The FA cup was a randomly drawn tie, the MK dons game was purely fans choice to go in numbers despite moaning about covhampton franchise. afc Wimbledon is purely coincidental.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Nothing unusual about it no. But to say CCFC will own a new ground is a lie that needs to be exposed.
Yep, as has been admitted by Fisher himself in his own words, CCFC will not own any new ground. They will pay rent.
So then. Who owns the ground if and when we get taken over? Let's say PH4 buys the club tomorrow. Who owns the ground? The club or the property developer? A clue might be how he makes his living...
You over analyse the intentions
That is why there are so many divisions on how to protest...not apathy.
The property developer.
Whats your point?
Mine was RFC stated the club needs to own its ground to survive. I was pointing out that the club wont under sisu, (or PH4 as you've rightly pointed out), therefore the club is doomed is it not?
The property developer.
Whats your point?
Mine was RFC stated the club needs to own its ground to survive. I was pointing out that the club wont under sisu, (or PH4 as you've rightly pointed out), therefore the club is doomed is it not?
My point is that so many people make A point out of the fact that CCFC won't own any new stadium (or the Ricoh for that matter if they got it) SISU or one of their companies would. Similar story with ANY new owner. Chances of the club actually owning anything disappeared with Highfield Road.
No, I don't think the club is doomed.
Either your stupid or being obtuse and I think its the latter.
A holding company under the same umberella will own the property and the club will be linked.
The arrangement is bery different than being under third party ownership and would be better than the club actually owning it anyway.
But in reality it makes no difference to the club if a related company or CCC own the freehold does it?
Of course it does. Rent can be set at 1 pence a year if it wants of £1 million if it suits. Most business separate assets. The terms in terms of revenue would mean the club benefit from everything that is operated in the stadium and the club os far more attractive as a going concern. There would be no chance we would get separated again as we would be the main asset. If you can't see that, well....
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?