Short term being key, however.
And it's worth remembering that at this point we, the fans, effectively lobbied the council to getting behind the Ricoh project, as much because the club fed the line that it was build it or the club dies.
Not true.
We still had the option to buy back Highfield Road (that we later took up) and there were other options open too. The club *chose* to position the Ricoh as sole choice (with council involvement let's not forget - it suited the club then to have a council led funding package), not because it was in the club's best interests, but because it was in the interests of the board at the time.
Ditto now. It would be very dangerous to say the club *must* rent the Ricoh long term (much, incidentally, as it would have been very dangerous to get behind an 'unencumbered freehold or nothing' line for the Ricoh).
However, the way it's being positioned, I can't help but feel the lobby is to tie the football club into unhealthy deals that keep them second class citizens in their own city, to a cuckold. I'd rather explore the other options rather than just dismiss them and yes, I have zero faith in SISU to deliver them.
Just because I have no faith in that however, doesn't automatically mean they're without merit, or the numbers can't stack up. Bristol Rovers may see their ground delayed and delayed (why a longer short-term deal at the Ricoh needed, incidentally) but it will be delivered because it's in a number of parties' interests to do so.
The Villa feeder idea would, of course, be the best cost neutral idea. The fact it meets with horror shows why we shouldn't necessarily tie ourselves in with other clubs, because it's about more than the financials, isn't it.