chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Didn't ACL offer to subsidise the remainder of this season as SISU would have to pay compensation to Northampton if they left part way through a season?
Wonder why there is a 50% increase in match day costs from one season to the next?
It's an odd arguement that the Ricoh should be the same cost as Sixfields. I'm sure if you wanted to hire a ground and Sphinx and the Ricoh both quoted you the same rate you'd think it was a bit odd given that one is obviously a much better facility than the other.
Wonder why there is a 50% increase in match day costs from one season to the next?
It is, but at the end of the day you only want a bit of grass, some seats, toilets and changing room. At the end of the day the cost is only what ACL are willing to rent it out for and what the club are willing to pay. They are charging other tenants considerably less than us. yes we would have first call but at the end of the day we will only use it 23-25 days per year, I can't see them renting office space or the shop if we go back as tenants next season.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Exactly! It would just be the football facilities needed.
Do we get pie money at Sixfields too? If I remember they said they get a % too (not that many sell)
Whoopee doo! I guess a cut off 100-200 pies will save SISU's bacon then, could be as much as £100 pure profit that!
great, but that was months ago. We need a ACL response to what is on the table for the 2014/15 season. CT / Trust need to publish this offer and use it to ask "WHY", if there is no reason at all why we are in Northampton. Clearly SISU are not going to accept a 10 year deal, so has that been revised ?
as i remember it the football league say it must be ten years they won't accept less
There is a FL rule saying you must have at least 10 years on your lease but I think ACL also offered a deal for the remainder of this year and the next two seasons taking us up to when our new ground is ready!
agreed, but I am tryinmg to understand how much difference there is. I cant get my head around why the match days costs would be so different. Only thing that would make sense is that more people = more costs, but in that case, it would also = more income !
What do we have at Sixfields?
as i remember it the football league say it must be ten years they won't accept less
What do we have at Sixfields?
What do we have at Sixfields?
great, but that was months ago. We need a ACL response to what is on the table for the 2014/15 season. CT / Trust need to publish this offer and use it to ask "WHY", if there is no reason at all why we are in Northampton. Clearly SISU are not going to accept a 10 year deal, so has that been revised ?
So IF the FL can allow that, pretty sure that could allow a short term agreement at the Ricoh?
You'd like to think that they would but have the club/Sisu even asked them before rejecting the ACL offers? They could have gone back to ACL at that stage and said we're not having 10 years but we've got permission for 3-5 is the same deal possible for that length of time? If ACL had said no then we could have lumped the blame on them.
ACL have already offered a 3 year deal, the rest of this season (offered before Xmas) and then the next two seasons.
as i remember it the football league say it must be ten years they won't accept less
You'd like to think that they would but have the club/Sisu even asked them before rejecting the ACL offers? They could have gone back to ACL at that stage and said we're not having 10 years but we've got permission for 3-5 is the same deal possible for that length of time? If ACL had said no then we could have lumped the blame on them.
10 years would be perfect. That's how long it will take to get Legoland up and running.
I fail to see how there is any excuse from FL or SISU as to why we are not back at the Ricoh next season.
Once it got to the point that the offers from ACL couldn't be reasonably rejected Fisher and Labovich started saying there's no way they could go back renting as they couldn't work with ACL. Don't really see why not, if the deal is on the table and you take it until the new stadium is ready there's no need to work with them really, you just pay the rent and that's it. Would only be an issue if there isn't actually a new stadium.
so it which case the FL should get involved and broker the rent. SISU pay FL, FL pay ACL.
If said Ricoh rental all in is £400k a year on a rolling 1 season contract, I fail to see how there is any excuse from FL or SISU as to why we are not back at the Ricoh next season.
If we are still at Sixfields next season, the protest campaign should be "DO THE MATHS"
Once it got to the point that the offers from ACL couldn't be reasonably rejected Fisher and Labovich started saying there's no way they could go back renting as they couldn't work with ACL. Don't really see why not, if the deal is on the table and you take it until the new stadium is ready there's no need to work with them really, you just pay the rent and that's it. Would only be an issue if there isn't actually a new stadium.
Part of the problem is the NOPM campaign that Sisu have going against ACL and I suspect that is a large part of the refusal to return.
Weren't SISU going on about it months ago before the accounts even came out when they were calling them Lions led by Donkeys?
as i remember it the football league say it must be ten years they won't accept less
Rumour has it, a 3-5 year deal with break clauses every couple of months.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sp...try-city-groundshare-northampton-town-4922123The Telegraph understands there is a get-out clause in the deal with the Cobblers but a defiant Fisher insists: “In order to break that it would be very expensive. The deal has been done.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but I was at the Tranmere game and over heard some lads saying the Trust was trying to get on the committee for the new stadium with Sandra Garlic. So if true and the ground goes ahead (lala land)the Trust would want to be part of this Outside Coventry!!! In which case they to me will do anything to get on the Board. Can anyone confirm this rumour ?
The trust asked it's members to vote on if they should request to be involved, making it clear that being involved would not mean the trust was endorsing the club being located outside of the city and the members voted in favour so they requested a place on the committee and were rejected by Garlick. Speaking of the committee it all seems to have gone very quiet.
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?