CCFC still need to be profiting from the Matchday Revenues, something they need to negotiate with ACL, maybe you could look into that Michael?
Irrelevant on two points. 1 Ricoh is a lot better financially than sixfields right now regardless and 2. It's never been about rent or revenues in any shape or form.
Sisu do not care about the financial difference (which is probably only a couple of million anyway) so its totally relevant.
So just run this through us again Grendel to clarify. Robo clearly thinks Matchday revenues is the crux of the matter and Kingokings disagrees with this as being irrelevant on two points.
You disagree with Kingokings statement saying that IT IS relevant yet in the same sentence saying SISU do not care about financial differences of a couple of million pounds. Do you not think there’s a massive contradiction in your statement?
So just run this through us again Grendel to clarify. Robo clearly thinks Matchday revenues is the crux of the matter and Kingokings disagrees with this as being irrelevant on two points.
You disagree with Kingokings statement saying that IT IS relevant yet in the same sentence saying SISU do not care about financial differences of a couple of million pounds. Do you not think there’s a massive contradiction in your statement?
Good post. There is not one person who thinks ccfc should not get all income but if sisu won't buy them back at a sensible price then all pointless.
No as the strategy is clearly to bridge short term losses for long term financi gain.
The club at the Ricoh under a deal with no improved revenue structure is worthless. The club with full access and ownership of ACL is worth far more than 2 years losses at Northampton. Given the losses in the final year at the Ricoh its chicken feed.
CCFC still need to be profiting from the Matchday Revenues, something they need to negotiate with ACL, maybe you could look into that Michael?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes that clearly was the strategy as condemmed by Judge Hickinbottom. That strategy has spectacularly failed though hasn't it? So in keeping with the theme of this thread rather than deviating from it, what is that is now stopping us from returning to the Ricoh, at least in the short term?
Because without an increase in asset value sisu will not do it.
Sisu should have distressed ACL and bust them from day one. Then we would have moved on and have new owners and owned the ground. Sisu decided not to behave like a hedge fund until far too late.
I'd like to see the club own 100% of acl. It's more viable than building a new stadium, but one step at a time and all that
This is it in a nutshell, we all want CCFC back at the Ricoh and it's undeniable that CCFC being back at the Ricoh now would be more than 100x beneficial to the Club than being at Sixfields, however CCFC needs to purchase the 50% of ACL back from the Higgs when moving back to the Ricoh as this revenue is vital to the Club.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Your Carvery is getting cold Robo
Or even 100%? What is ACL worth 6.4million we are told with no ccfc there. A lot cheaper than buying a stadium. ACL won't sell for that obviously but may be tempted by around 10m. Still a lot cheaper than a new stadium.
We all want ccfc back and a short term deal IMO is imminent. TF clearly stated he wants peace and reconciliation and he hasn't said that ever. He also said a interim deal is and has always been possible so the fact he has said this means something is happening.
We haven't heard anything since the day after the JR when fisher and Lucas went on the radio. Maybe talks are happening? The fact nothing has been said in the media or here is a good sign. It needs to happen behind closed doors.
Players will be signing also maybe in the promise of a Ricoh deal? Would help wouldn't it.
Because without an increase in asset value sisu will not do it.
Sisu should have distressed ACL and bust them from day one. Then we would have moved on and have new owners and owned the ground. Sisu decided not to behave like a hedge fund until far too late.
No as the strategy is clearly to bridge short term losses for long term financi gain.
The club at the Ricoh under a deal with no improved revenue structure is worthless. The club with full access and ownership of ACL is worth far more than 2 years losses at Northampton. Given the losses in the final year at the Ricoh its chicken feed.
But it is to do with revenues, it's a CCFC generated revenue that the Club feels it should benefit from, a thought I completely agree with.
The Club could return to the Ricoh under the new terms, but other than the rent changing, what else has changed from the old terms?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So what? That's the past - I thought we were only concerned about the future now.
So why won't Sisu buy the revenue streams if they want them ?
Answer : They don't want to pay for them.
Where has that been said Italia?
Nowhere, it's just an assumption leading to nothing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Where has that been said Italia?
Nowhere, it's just an assumption leading to nothing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So you want acl to give away something that they paid for?
Why exactly should they do that?
Are you really suggesting a new tenant wouldn't want them for free? ACL would have to offer it or they would be uncompetitive. If a rugby franchise was approached do you think they'd be offered f and b at £6 million? They'd laugh all the way back home.
But a rugby franchise for instance haven't already sold their income streams.
In the real world if you sell ownership of something then you can't keep it.
If its revenue that is the stumbling block then the club only has to buy back the rights they sold. You cant have what you're not legally entitled to.
Hang on, so is the logic anybody who hasn't sold those rights, should be entitled to them for next-to-nothing?
Well yes.
Grendel is right in that the default position of any stadium occupant should get to keep the revenues that they generate. However if anyone new coming in sold their rights then why should they then say oh actually we need those, but we don't want to pay for it.
But but but...
Aren't you thus in agreement with Grendel?
Isn't he too saying that those who didn't sell the rights should be entitled to them for next-to-nothing?
Yes he is, and on that I agree with him in principle.
However ccfc did sell it's rights to income streams. That is clear to see.
SISU didn't however.
So what differentiates them from a random Rugby club? Surely the same should apply for both, be it they should both be entitled to revenue streams for next-to-nowt... or neither should!
Yes he is, and on that I agree with him in principle.
However ccfc did sell it's rights to income streams. That is clear to see.
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?