Some valid points here.
Why did the council step in and finance £14M when Sisu could get the loan for half that.
What would it mean to CCC and SISU if SISU took over the loan ?
Would the deal also include getting ACL as a whole with all the leases ?. Always struggled on this.
Maybe the JR will reveal this?
The door has finally been slammed and firmly shut!
Well done CCC & Anne Lucas, I hope your proud of yourselves?
It says a lot that the council were seemingly prepared to go into business with SISU before having a late change of thought. It doesn't quite tally and the amounts of money involved aren't small change to a council losing hand over fist every year.
The JR will reveal whether or not the council's decision to take out £14m was 'right'-I don't think there are any other ramifications but I'm not a legal man so can't be definite.
Both sides wanted to buy out ACL's loan with the bank-then the Council opted to borrow an extra £7m and do it all themselves, seemingly without SISU's knowledge. You then have the rejection of a CVA which dished out another points deduction and no cash settlement for the council.
These two aspects of the council's business need explaining. I am not for a minute saying 'poor old SISU'-they are the ones who manipulated the administration process to their advantage and they are the ones who have caused more damage to the club, but the people at CCC have to be clear on the above two actions, especially the former.
This is the same council that have talked of ambitious plans to:
Build on the old post sorting office (nothing has happened)
Build on the site at the bottom of Bishop St / corner of Corporation St (nothing has happened)
Demolished the Smithfield pub and Shambles arcade for some new flats / shops in 2002 (nothing has happened)
Demolished some houses on Greyfriars Rd for a new development of flats (nothing has happened)
Demolished the fish market to build some more flats / shops (nothing has happened)
Have the 'Belgrade Plaza' development which has been half finished for 5 years or so
Therefore, I take council plans with a huge pinch of salt....
What could be interesting is if the council go into this Judicial Review armed with multi-million Government sponsored re-development plans for the Ricoh Arena area. Would that justify our council financing ACL to the tune of just £14million to preserve the master plan if there is one.The JR will reveal whether or not the council's decision to take out £14m was 'right'-I don't think there are any other ramifications but I'm not a legal man so can't be definite.
Must admit that crossed my mind
It is a another move in the game of brinkmanship
You are you no concrete plans for a stadium
We have our no concrete plans for a hotel.
However two points to consider
This is the first time the council themselves have said they will be behind the hotel project ( I believe)
SISU have been building a new stadium for 7 months now. So far I think we have seen a generic photo of what a stadium looks like.
Which project is more likely a hotel in a location that already had demand for it.
SISU spending ( borrowing 30-50 million)
There might not be any ramifications as such, but it might pose the question Why the Council decided to go with this option when as you stated Sisu could manage at for £7M?
So the people who own football clubs can have no other business interests?
The door has finally been slammed and firmly shut!
Well done CCC & Anne Lucas, I hope your proud of yourselves?
Who the fuck is going to stay in these hotels?
.....Oooh....what a lovely view of the M6, Tesco & an disused football stadium....
.....at least the large white elephant will have some company....
..."What a waste of money"
I would rather their interests be in the football team than in hotels. So yes.
I would rather their interests be in the football team than in hotels. So yes.
Agreed. As I keep on stating - even in this thread - some members of the council have said, and acted in such a way that has been a million miles from helpful.
However, this wrangle could have continued with CCFC at the Ricoh. The JV, plans for a new stadium, the whole shooting match. The fact it hasn't seems nothing more than an act of spite; doesn't it? And whilst CCC may have been culpable for the fall out - to a percentage as yet unknown - they didn't force the football club elsewhere, and do have an ongoing responsibility to ensure regeneration and jobs prevail in this key area of the city.
That doesn't make me 'love' the council; to have a view that SISU's reaction to any provocation appears to have fundamentally damaged the football club in proving whatever point it is they are wishing to make?!?
So you think that SISU should get rid of every 'investment' they have and concentrate on our football club?
There might not be any ramifications as such, but it might pose the question Why the Council decided to go with this option when as you stated Sisu could manage at for £7M?
What money is this?
There might not be any ramifications as such, but it might pose the question Why the Council decided to go with this option when as you stated Sisu could manage at for £7M?
How many hotels have you ever stayed at to think that they have great views?
Because they didn't want to be ripped off by SISU?
Surely If you take the article at face value Its highlighting the drawback of not having sufficient rooms available to bid for certain events?
Question would then be who would use those rooms in the downtime around events and does that make them viable and worth the Initial Invetment.
That is something which needs answering by those who made the decision.
CCC runs at a deficit and is being required to make extensive budget cuts across the board-therefore to plough £14m into something other than public services suffering from such cuts is something that needs to be answered. Especially when a third party was offering to halve the cost.
CCC runs at a deficit and is being required to make extensive budget cuts across the board-therefore to plough £14m into something other than public services suffering from such cuts is something that needs to be answered. Especially when a third party was offering to halve the cost.
Surely If you take the article at face value Its highlighting the drawback of not having sufficient rooms available to bid for certain events?
Question would then be who would use those rooms in the downtime around events and does that make them viable and worth the Initial Invetment.
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?