MP asks for CCFC intervention (18 Viewers)

chiefdave · Aug 23, 2016

dongonzalos said:
The FL will be far more demanding in requiring proof of both the clubs intention and cabability of building a new stadium, this time round.

Are you sure? IMO the FL would be more concerned about not losing what, despite our current status, is still a pretty big team. They'd be even more concerned about spending years fighting SISU in court.

stupot07 · Aug 23, 2016

chiefdave said:
Are you sure? IMO the FL would be more concerned about not losing what, despite our current status, is still a pretty big team. They'd be even more concerned about spending years fighting SISU in court.

Yep, the FL will use their discretion to ensure the integrity of the competition. The supposition based on facts will be enough to persuade them that the football club feel they are being squeezed out. Not sure why don is trying to argue against this, given the FL have been more than flexible so far. They aren't going to now change tack and take the hard-line.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Nick · Aug 23, 2016

stupot07 said:
Yep, the FL will use their discretion to ensure the integrity of the competition. The supposition based on facts will be enough to persuade them that the football club feel they are being squeezed out. Not sure why don is trying to argue against this, given the FL have been more than flexible so far. They aren't going to now change tack and take the hard-line.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

It would be strange if they took the hard line now there is actual evidence.

dongonzalos · Aug 23, 2016

Is it a hard line to not allow franchising?
They will want genuine proof we have both the capability and genuine intent to build a new stadium.
If not and they allow a move then it is franchising is it not?

Grendel · Aug 23, 2016

Nick said:
You do realise he was saying that after they had been found out? Also after they knew Millerchip wouldn't allow it also?

How naive are you? They had ALREADY tried to obstruct at that point.

I know I'm actually starting to cringe. Embarrassing

Nick · Aug 23, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Is it a hard line to not allow franchising?
They will want genuine proof we have both the capability and genuine intent to build a new stadium.
If not and they allow a move then it is franchising is it not?

It depends where it is to doesn't it?

It depends if the original move is full time or temporary. It depends what has been said about a new stadium or option that will happen long term.

Grendel · Aug 23, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Is it a hard line to not allow franchising?
They will want genuine proof we have both the capability and genuine intent to build a new stadium.
If not and they allow a move then it is franchising is it not?

They didn't with Brighton.

dongonzalos · Aug 23, 2016

Grendel said:
They didn't with Brighton.

They were in Brighton for ten years

dongonzalos · Aug 23, 2016

Nick said:
It depends where it is to doesn't it?

It depends if the original move is full time or temporary. It depends what has been said about a new stadium or option that will happen long term.

Exactly and all I am saying is this time they will be looking alot deeper before allowing it

chiefdave · Aug 23, 2016

dongonzalos said:
They were in Brighton for ten years

Brighton left their original stadium with no plans in place to play anywhere let alone in Brighton. They then played in Gillingham, 75 miles away, with no plans for a new stadium in Brighton.

Grendel · Aug 23, 2016

dongonzalos said:
They were in Brighton for ten years

For the first two years they weren't and for several years had no stadium plan at all

dongonzalos · Aug 23, 2016

chiefdave said:
Brighton left their original stadium with no plans in place to play anywhere let alone in Brighton. They then played in Gillingham, 75 miles away, with no plans for a new stadium in Brighton.

I take it you are also aware that the FL effectively forced Brighton into a rent deal where that had to pay £480k rent to the new owners instead of the £200k they wanted to pay, because they couldn't provide concrete proof that they could return Brighton if they moved away, so they were had over a barrel and had no choice.

This is the same FL that would never be able to do that.

MP asks for CCFC intervention (18 Viewers)

chiefdave

Well-Known Member

stupot07

Well-Known Member

Nick

Administrator

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member

Grendel

Well-Known Member

Nick

Administrator

Grendel

Well-Known Member

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member

chiefdave

Well-Known Member

Grendel

Well-Known Member

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

MP asks for CCFC intervention (18 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency