Of course it makes a difference "we" didn't sell the rights - a bankrupt company did
I care so answer the question or stop taking the thread off topic
I care so answer the question or stop taking the thread off topic
whatever the revenues are worth surely if the club wanted them that badly it would be cheaper to buy them than build a new stadium?
Don't point out the obvious LT. You've got to see the bigger picture. If sisu don't get a return for their investors some posters on here will cry.
As an outsider looking in (albeit one with a slightly skewed take on it, Northampton fan with a Coventry born and supporting mrs who would prefer to visit the ricoh every other boxing day than watch telly at the inlaws) it seems to me like Joy has got you lot arguing amongst yourselves over the most demented things. I honestly dont think anyone, including Fisher and Labovitch, believes the shite they are coming out with about revenues etc, its just a script. The only two people that are happy with the sixfields rent arrangement appear to be Cardoza and Joy and the fact that she wont show her face in public to me says it all.
Of course it makes a difference "we" didn't sell the rights - a bankrupt company did
I suppose we can get Robbie Keane back for free too?
Oh God. Not again. We sold our rights to that stadium management company!!
Charlton are in complete control of their stadium.
Even is we didn't sell our rights to them we would have only ever had 50% of it.
You're trying to suggest two situations are similar when they are worlds apart.
Did our share not give us 100% of match day revenues and 50% of all other revenues?
I could simply weep, to be frank.....
Did our share not give us 100% of match day revenues and 50% of all other revenues?
Thing is though, according to the logic of some. You can sell something. Then if the selling party goes bust thereafter, it's back on the table to be sold again. After which, I presume it can be sold over and over again. I can't believe centuries of commerce have passed with nobody else harvesting this reward that keeps on giving
Thing is though, according to the logic of some. You can sell something. Then if the selling party goes bust thereafter, it's back on the table to be sold again. After which, I presume it can be sold over and over again. I can't believe centuries of commerce have passed with nobody else harvesting this reward that keeps on giving
Lets put it this way.
I was forced to sell my shares should I now get them back as the company I sold them to no longer exists.
Of course it makes a difference "we" didn't sell the rights - a bankrupt company did
I sold a car to my mate. He has now hit hard times and is selling that car. Cheeky sod won't give it to me for nothing, it was mine after all.
At times Grendel you sound like Tim Fisher.
That is truly the worst analogy I have ever seen posted on here.
What people continue to ignore is one clear fact. Sisu will not be leaving this club until they have a tangible asset to sell.
Potential buyers will not be interested if the club is just playing at the Ricoh Arena. It has no value.
The club needs to obtain some form of revenue control or we will never get out of the situation.
The previous rent deal is gone finished - the lease does not exist. All prior rules no longer exist. The revenues are without the football club worth nothing to anyone. The club is the only reason they will be worth one penny.
The failure for people to grasp the fact is puzzling. The best solution is a short term rent deal which includes these revenues. This would have three benefits;
- it makes the club a saleable proposition. Potential new owners could negotiate prior to purchase a deal safe in the knowledge the club at least has some competitive ability with such an arrangement
- the company that owns the catering facility has a long term prospect it will eventually yield some revenues on a consistent basis. The ultimate ideal of course for them would be new owner, long term lease or purchase and a vision of higher crowds and enhanced returns
ACL will have a permanent tenant back which creates business stability - makes sponsorship
Negotiations easier and assists their business model with confirmed cash flow.
The only reason anyone wants them to pay is because it's sisu.
This is a sure fire way if seeing them here for a lot longer. I thought people wanted them out.
What people continue to ignore is one clear fact. Sisu will not be leaving this club until they have a tangible asset to sell.
Potential buyers will not be interested if the club is just playing at the Ricoh Arena. It has no value.
The club needs to obtain some form of revenue control or we will never get out of the situation.
The previous rent deal is gone finished - the lease does not exist. All prior rules no longer exist. The revenues are without the football club worth nothing to anyone. The club is the only reason they will be worth one penny.
The failure for people to grasp the fact is puzzling. The best solution is a short term rent deal which includes these revenues. This would have three benefits;
- it makes the club a saleable proposition. Potential new owners could negotiate prior to purchase a deal safe in the knowledge the club at least has some competitive ability with such an arrangement
- the company that owns the catering facility has a long term prospect it will eventually yield some revenues on a consistent basis. The ultimate ideal of course for them would be new owner, long term lease or purchase and a vision of higher crowds and enhanced returns
ACL will have a permanent tenant back which creates business stability - makes sponsorship
Negotiations easier and assists their business model with confirmed cash flow.
The only reason anyone wants them to pay is because it's sisu.
This is a sure fire way if seeing them here for a lot longer. I thought people wanted them out.
What people continue to ignore is one clear fact. Sisu will not be leaving this club until they have a tangible asset to sell.
Potential buyers will not be interested if the club is just playing at the Ricoh Arena. It has no value.
The club needs to obtain some form of revenue control or we will never get out of the situation.
The previous rent deal is gone finished - the lease does not exist. All prior rules no longer exist. The revenues are without the football club worth nothing to anyone. The club is the only reason they will be worth one penny.
The failure for people to grasp the fact is puzzling. The best solution is a short term rent deal which includes these revenues. This would have three benefits;
- it makes the club a saleable proposition. Potential new owners could negotiate prior to purchase a deal safe in the knowledge the club at least has some competitive ability with such an arrangement
- the company that owns the catering facility has a long term prospect it will eventually yield some revenues on a consistent basis. The ultimate ideal of course for them would be new owner, long term lease or purchase and a vision of higher crowds and enhanced returns
ACL will have a permanent tenant back which creates business stability - makes sponsorship
Negotiations easier and assists their business model with confirmed cash flow.
The only reason anyone wants them to pay is because it's sisu.
This is a sure fire way if seeing them here for a lot longer. I thought people wanted them out.
they are building a new stadium, we will get the revenues.
Its coming grendal, they will get the revenues and have said various times in the past they will fund the short term losses.
Dont know why you are worried about ACL having "business stability" In 2 - 4 years we will be in the new stadium and ACL will have to fend for themselves.
All of this is based on some unproven belief that Sisu's timescales has anything to do with the football club.
The Ricoh isn't for us G. It's for Sisu to sell the land on for development. What happens to us is immaterial.
We're as likely to be left with no ground paying rent to a new owner of the Ricoh and paying off Sisus debt as we are to be sold as a package with the ground.
Thing is though, according to the logic of some. You can sell something. Then if the selling party goes bust thereafter, it's back on the table to be sold again. After which, I presume it can be sold over and over again. I can't believe centuries of commerce have passed with nobody else harvesting this reward that keeps on giving
Shocking isn't it. You can see why none off these brainiacs have six figure salaries doing multi million pound deals on the telephone
What people continue to ignore is one clear fact. Sisu will not be leaving this club until they have a tangible asset to sell.
Potential buyers will not be interested if the club is just playing at the Ricoh Arena. It has no value.
It is undortunately true. SISU maintain a new ground is Plan A.
Therefore, we should be campaigning for ACL to talk to SISU and arrange a short term deal. Doesn't have to extort the club, but nor does it have to be perfect.
That said, we have to actually campaign for them to talk to them, not to say it's understandable that they don't...
The problem with that being that in order for that to work, you have to believe that SISU have any plans to build a new stadium. What evidence can you supply that shows they're doing anything other than smokescreening in that regard?
Why do I need evidence to arrange a short term rent deal?
Surely what I suggest is what you *want* which is ACL hanging on to their rightful revenue streams, and is me showing I'm not blind, ignorant and ill-informed by playing the narrative that sees a resolution?
Why on earth wouldn't anybody push for a resolution, when the resolution is made *more* likely by the SISU narrative?
Why do I need evidence to arrange a short term rent deal?
Surely what I suggest is what you *want* which is ACL hanging on to their rightful revenue streams, and is me showing I'm not blind, ignorant and ill-informed by playing the narrative that sees a resolution?
Why on earth wouldn't anybody push for a resolution, when the resolution is made *more* likely by the SISU narrative?
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?