Of course ACL will struggle without CCFC BUT no more so than CCFC will struggle without ACL. They need each other and till they both realise that there can be no going forward.
Of course ACL will struggle without CCFC BUT no more so than CCFC will struggle without ACL. They need each other and till they both realise that there can be no going forward.
But that situation is born out of spite. The real agenda is to get both parties talking about a return to the Ricoh. Nobody believes that this other stadium will ever be built and so it is down to someone to get all parties in a room(having locked the door) and to bang their bloody heads together till we get a compromise.Somewhat less of a struggle I'd say, after all what is CCFC turnover these days on ~2000 crowds paying £9 a ticket?
But that situation is born out of spite. The real agenda is to get both parties talking about a return to the Ricoh. Nobody believes that this other stadium will ever be built and so it is down to someone to get all parties in a room(having locked the door) and to bang their bloody heads together till we get a compromise.
Somewhat less of a struggle I'd say, after all what is CCFC turnover these days on ~2000 crowds paying £9 a ticket?
I think that the latest offer of rent is acceptable BUT I think that Shitzu will also want some of the "match day", income and, although a great hater of them, I can understand their reasoning for doing so.ACL's latest offer seemed to be a very decent compromise to me, how much do you think the club should pay?
I think that the latest offer of rent is acceptable BUT I think that Shitzu will also want some of the "match day", income and, although a great hater of them, I can understand their reasoning for doing so.
So what question is the JR asking? What is the purpose of it?
To me and many others the JR is asking the question of how much do ACL/CCC/Higg's fancy litigation without giving in to all demands from SISUE for the freehold at a low price.
The purpose could easily be to try and get the Ricoh on the cheap. Most would also agree on this. Whilst it is going on we will stay in Northampton and they will not have to show willing to building the stadium they keep going on about. So yes again it is all about tying everyone up in litigation.
So to cut it all short it is all about litigation and putting pressure on in this way IMHO.
And yes you keep saying IF. But there has been no evidence of it.
A JR isn't really a litigation process in the sense your suggest, it's a review by a Judge on the actions of a public body and in this case is the loan to ACL an appropriate use of public funding.
And it's only about ACL and nothing to do with the freehold. The freehold all been paid for when ACL paid the 50 year lease up front. Even if the JR goes against ACL, the council will own the freehold.
So you don't think they are trying to put even more pressure on by litigation then?
So why do you really think they are doing it?
So what question is the JR asking? What is the purpose of it?
What's the use of talking about anything we don't have the full facts for if it's all ifs and buts? We may as well close the forum because that's all we do, we have no real insider knowledge, PWKH and ACL tell us what they want us to hear as do TF/SISU, they're all spinning it so all we can do is hypothesise, but obviously we should do that if it's all ifs and buts.
And I was only say that if ACL were struggling (baring in mind they're in conflict with SISU) they're not going to publicly state it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
The original Lying thread has had 140 replies and nearly 7k views but immediately descended into the usual arguments, rumours, personal opinions etc
So to try again - can we put down some specific, concrete markers which can help determine the honesty or otherwise of acl-sisu claims? Original suggestions were forthcoming acl accounts and establishing a date by which if a site has not been identified it can be said that promises of a new stadium aren't true. But there must be other FACTUAL benchmarks that can be set too
I think that the latest offer of rent is acceptable BUT I think that Shitzu will also want some of the "match day", income and, although a great hater of them, I can understand their reasoning for doing so.
agree totally, so what i cant understand is why sisu haven't made a counter offer to this effect, either directly or through the FA.
We were in the championship so by a few I assume you mean 10 leagues - that's not a few - and sisu have propped ACL up in its Infancy - it would never have survived in 2008.
I think you've just won the most stupid post if the year. Well done,
Part of is putting pressure on, and half of it is because they feel that they have been wronged by the allegations they have made - I have no idea whether those allegations are true or not.
Bottom line is, even if ACL went under and the lease became defunct, the council would still own the freehold and would be able to negotiate a sale with however they liked or even another long lease. The JR doesn't really affect the freehold.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
It does affect it when part of the freehold bid is CCC writing off the £14m and winding up ACL.
If ACL got wound up, who would own the entirety of the freehold?
Sisu have asked for ACL to be wound up if they buy the freehold. The total cost to the council of the last bid was £9m (£5m offered - £14m debt written off). If that £14m is confirmed bad debt then the cost comes down as the value of the debt isn't based on it being assumed it'll be paid off.
I don't think it's that easy. They would need to see the books to see what they would be buying, plus the F&B's are part of another company IEC (?) of which Kompass paid £4m for c15% share. F&B's is only part of what that company do and what contracts/agreement are in place, that means overheads are so high that they only make 10% profit on F&B's. And didn't david gibney tell sisu they would sell them the rights to F&B's for £20m?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
CCC.
Would Sisus offer not look more tempting if you've just been told to write off £14m though? To claim the two aren't linked is simply wrong.
Sisu have asked for ACL to be wound up if they buy the freehold. The total cost to the council of the last bid was £9m (£5m offered - £14m debt written off). If that £14m is confirmed bad debt then the cost comes down as the value of the debt isn't based on it being assumed it'll be paid off.
Edit: Of course I'm still not convinced plan A is the freehold. I suspect that forcing ACL into admin then finding a way to play the system so they have a case for being the best bid out of administration is their ideal outcome.
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?