"We would welcome arbitration as it would clear up a lot of questions and sticking points so that a sensible solution can be found."
Completely agree, however arbitration was 1st mentioned a couple of months ago and it hasn't happened yet and doesn't look likely to given the entrenched positions of both parties.
Well, if I was a gambler I would put my money on sisu being the first to ask for arbitration. They seem to have most to lose short term.
There you go.
Double or nothing - My next gamble is that ACL declines arbitration.
Will be interesting to see how people here would respond if ACL reject binding arbitration.
There you go.
Double or nothing - My next gamble is that ACL declines arbitration.
Will be interesting to see how people here would respond if ACL reject binding arbitration.
People would have been, rightly, up in arms had binding arbitration been cited last year and refused ahead of the rent ceasing to be paid.
However, since that point, ACL have been subjected to SISU changing course and tactic in a frenzied and unfathomable way.
Think about it: Rushden and Diamonds ground, Hinckley's ground, agreement then reneged upon, a new build in Warwickshire, then mediation, to folding, and now finally arbitration. I've probably forgotten some twists and turns en route. As stated yesterday, negotiating with Fisher appears to be akin to putting smoke in your pocket.
This is bound to tire negotiations and stances. That stated, if it's still there, ACL have to take it
I don't agree - They have followed the only path available to them. So have ACL.
Every step they have taken have been countered.
Every next step has been a consequence of ACL response.
Think about it: Rushden and Diamonds ground, Hinckley's ground, agreement then reneged upon, a new build in Warwickshire, then mediation, to folding, and now finally arbitration. I've probably forgotten some twists and turns en route. As stated yesterday, negotiating with Fisher appears to be akin to putting smoke in your pocket.
They really don't do themselves any favours do they. I really do not trust ACL at all, but they have played their hand so much better and have been much more astute in their media dealings.
It is clear Fisher is way out of his depth, and while I side with the club/SISU in many respects, they did start throwing their weight around and ACL have run rings around them since. The inevitable consequence of that is that some have allowed themselves to get caught up in their whirlwind of spin and are refusing to acknowledge just how dangerous the actions of ACL might turn out to be, they are potentially catastrophic should no buyer emerge. Huge gamble.
Perhaps SISU still have a trump card to play. Who knows.
Popcorn anyone?[/QUOTE]
Beer dear chap. And quick before the casino's boarded up!
They're a business old boy; and directors have a responsibility to act in the best interests of their business. So, I guess they're not going to give everything away; they're going to duck and dive and protect their own interests.
For me, the tipping point came when it was obvious this was bigger than the rent or match-day income, and Fisher seemingly set about distressing ACL with a view to picking up the whole shooting match for peanuts. Then it's not a reasoned negotiation about sharing income, it's a case of one party trying to destroy the other, and this being countered by a strong counter-offensive.
And in so doing, I agree, ACL have left Fisher for dead
Throw up all the pieces of the jigsaw and see if you can assemble a different picture:
What if ACL had accepted the clubs wish for a net rent of around £150k p/y back in April?
There would have been no arrears - which is now being used to take the club into administration or worse.
It seems only pennies are separating the parties right now, so as ACL have now more or less accepted the clubs demands, it could all have been wrapped up a year ago.
Instead we will live with the consequences for another season.
They're a business old boy; and directors have a responsibility to act in the best interests of their business. So, I guess they're not going to give everything away; they're going to duck and dive and protect their own interests.
For me, the tipping point came when it was obvious this was bigger than the rent or match-day income, and Fisher seemingly set about distressing ACL with a view to picking up the whole shooting match for peanuts. Then it's not a reasoned negotiation about sharing income, it's a case of one party trying to destroy the other, and this being countered by a strong counter-offensive.
And in so doing, I agree, ACL have left Fisher for dead
You ignore my assertion that it was never about rent. Or even rent plus match-day income. It was about SISU getting ACL's whole business on the cheap to feather the nest of their exit strategy.
There was a clear distressing of the business that supports this theory. Allied by the fact that if you do the sums, even with no rent and all match-day income; the club still doesn't make money.
So to answer your question according to how I read the issue - and we're all allowed our own opinions - the £150K rent agreed last year wouldn't have made one iota of difference as it wouldn't have given SISU the end-game I believe they needed
I don't believe for one second that the rent strike was initiated with the goal of distressing ACL.
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?