RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Just to make things interesting I want Sisu to win, I wonder if any of the bookies will have any odds for it :thinking about:
... and if it comes out during the JR that sisu and CCC actually made a joint plan to distress the YB mortgage?
What then? Would you still want CCC to win?
So morals and ethics are not the real reasons you want CCC to win.
Well, no matter who wins - I am sure the decision will be made on factual evidence and based on the law. W
hatever you or I believe or think or feel will have no influence.
I disagree, my alternative is that we ask why CCFc can't purchase the Higgs Share of ACL and ask the Council how much they'd want for their share of ACL, so for instance:
- £6,000,000 for the Higgs Share of ACL
- £6,000,000 - £10,000,000 Council share of ACL
- Club take over the loan that ACL are repaying to CCC with an added 5% - 10% extra on each repayment annually.
Job sorted for initial outlet of £12,000,000* the Club have 100% control of ACL.
* The same amount as another 4 season at Sixfields.
Robo, for me that's the type of negotiation that would take place once we're back at the Ricoh. My suggestion is good for the team and good for the fans, gets us back to the Ricoh immediately then allows time for the kind of negotiation you suggest.
Robo, for me that's the type of negotiation that would take place once we're back at the Ricoh. My suggestion is good for the team and good for the fans, gets us back to the Ricoh immediately then allows time for the kind of negotiation you suggest.
pick up the phone, come back tomorrow, negotiate a sale for 6 months, council refuse to sell,
phone northampton back and try to start a new ground share whilst picking up plans again to build a stadium.
doesnt really make sense tbf, they will ground share till a deal is done with council or new stadium.
So it makes sense to stay at sixfields for a few years and lose millions ?
I am not sure you are correct Michael for instance CCFC have said they won't return to the Ricoh for two reasons:
Firstly because they don't trust ACL or CCC and don't want to be a tenant.
Secondly because they want ownership that entitles them to more revenue.
My example, that also coupled with examples Noggin has previously stated over the last few weeks would be in my eyes the quickest way to get the Club back on a deal that's right for all parties.
The issue there though is that what is right for Sisu isn't necessarily what is right for CCFC.
The issue there though is that what is right for Sisu isn't necessarily what is right for CCFC.
I am not sure you are correct Michael for instance CCFC have said they won't return to the Ricoh for two reasons:
Firstly because they don't trust ACL or CCC and don't want to be a tenant.
Secondly because they want ownership that entitles them to more revenue.
My example, that also coupled with examples Noggin has previously stated over the last few weeks would be in my eyes the quickest way to get the Club back on a deal that's right for all parties.
Despite many arguing it would.
The reality is finally starting to kick in on that one
The two quoted reasons are what certain people want you to believe, is the real reason they won't return to the Ricoh under a rental agreement because they don't want to be helping out a business they are trying to distress. Please can we stop talking about Sisu not trusting ACL/CCC like they are some sort of devious clandestine organisation, it is Sisu who the untrustworthy ones, do you not remember what a well respected judge said about Joy Seppella and the truth on a previous case they were involved in? Do you not remember what we have been told about players registrations? Do you remember what we have been told about the new ground?
People have shown on here that we could be viable under an affordable rental agreement with access to revenues, once in we could then build on that relationship and look to buy into the Arena. This would be the quickest way to get the club back playing at HOME.
Michael, with all respect it is not as simple as you saying that SISU should just pick up the phone. Don't get me wrong I would love nothing more than for SISU / ACL/ CCC to all talk and get the best arrangement possible for the club and can build trust a bit.
How is it?
For instance the Matchday revenues, explain to me how the club shouldn't benefit from these revenues or better yet give me an example to another successful Football Club that doesn't benefit from them at all, like I said these will have to be paid for by CCFC, but it is imperative the Club make this step.
From a strategic point of view - yes, if the aim is to either own ACL or build a new stadium.
You almost lost the argument there
But overall I agree.
It isn't and never has been a good idea to play at sixfields if building their own stadium.
Well like you posting your opinion on the reason the Club won't return to the Ricoh I see other reasons.
I do what remember what a judge said about Joy Seppala but do you also not remember that ACL triued to bring an American Property Investor in to purchase the Club and the Arena together during a shoddy Administration process? A rent deal will not happen, it might seem like the best deal to you but if I was in CCFC's shoes I wouldn't want it either.
That depends on the alternative options available. At the time they negotiated ground share there was not a better offer on the table. At this point in time - well, it's just too late and the parties are fighting it out in courts. Hopefully better options comes on the table when the fighting stops.
Really? So if Sisu lose the appeal and are forced to either build a new stadium for upwards of 30 million (probably far more in reality), they would rather do that than deal with ACL, because if you say that Sisu do not trust ACL/CCC then how can they either buy or rent based on your opinion of Sisu not wanting to deal with them. Of course if we do build a new stadium and as I said to you earlier that won't happen for at least another 5 years, based on what debt we are already in, what further debt will be amassed from at least 5 years in the wilderness and the debt of the new stadium (which we won't own by the way, we will rent as said by Tim Fisher), how exactly will we be better off? My reckoning will be at least 120 million in debt in League 1 at best with crowds of around 5k (generous), can't wait!
Really? So if Sisu lose the appeal and are forced to either build a new stadium for upwards of 30 million (probably far more in reality), they would rather do that than deal with ACL, because if you say that Sisu do not trust ACL/CCC then how can they either buy or rent based on your opinion of Sisu not wanting to deal with them. Of course if we do build a new stadium and as I said to you earlier that won't happen for at least another 5 years, based on what debt we are already in, what further debt will be amassed from at least 5 years in the wilderness and the debt of the new stadium (which we won't own by the way, we will rent as said by Tim Fisher), how exactly will we be better off? My reckoning will be at least 120 million in debt in League 1 at best with crowds of around 5k (generous), can't wait!
at every stage there has been a better option than playing at sixfields if your plan really was to build a new stadium.
Your debt figures are grossly overstated - and you don't really realize the initial debt to the funds could probably be bought for a fraction of its nominal value.
7m loss, 44.7m in the hole and concerns as to whether going concern unless further funding provided and loans not called in
worrying
I agree last week OSB said this:
Now the figure I have highlighted is £44.7M, now Tim Fisher has stated the financing for the new Stadium would come from Equity which would be converted from the debt figure so if we say £20M for instance does this not mean in simple terms that the figure of debt has then reduced not escalated?
Really? Was that the offer with a 10 year lease? Or the offer depending of abandoning the JR? Or are you referring to the offer made after the deal with Northampton was signed?
Come to think of it - I can't remember any of those constantly quoting a debt figure of £70m even asking why it's now only £45m.
Despite many arguing it would.
The reality is finally starting to kick in on that one
Come to think of it - I can't remember any of those constantly quoting a debt figure of £70m even asking why it's now only £45m.
Come to think of it - I can't remember any of those constantly quoting a debt figure of £70m even asking why it's now only £45m.
it was written off when Otium brought the club wasn't it?. I can only assume it was in sisus best interests to do this. Presumably bidding for the club involved giving a percentage in the pound you were willing to pay for for the debts. This of course meant no one else could beat sisu when bidding for the club because the money was to be paid back to themselves. Presumably for some reason it was better for sisu to write off the debt than it was to have to find 25% of it to pay to buy the club even though it would go back to themselves. not sure of the reasons for this, tax?
I could easily be completely wrong about all that though, it was a pretty confusing and opaque process.
other than the amount of interest we are paying arvo though (and I get the impression this is only based on a small amount of the debt anyway) it seems to me the total debt is mostly irrelevant once it is higher than the number sisu can get back and I'm sure it is.
The amount of debt to arvo seems to matter alot as we are paying very high interest on it, but I don't think we are paying interest on the other debt and since it seems completely impossible for it to ever be paid back fully, weather than number is 45 or 450m is irrelevant. At least thats my take and again on this I could easily be wrong.
Look, it was all about breaking the lease.
Which they did - no matter who put the club in administration.
Sisu did try during rent negotiation and before entering administration to tie an opt-out clause (three years if I remember correctly), but ACL said no.
The club is not going back on a rental agreement, not long, not short.
All parties are now waiting for the JR. Certainly sisu are not interested in any talks before the JR - are ACL/CCC?
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?