Walsall - The Banks's - Beacot (3 Viewers)

Steve.B50 said:

I thought Peterborough were going to use the Rushdon ground while there's was wing upgraded, also is it within the 30 mile rule?

Click to expand...

According to the AA route planner, it is 44.8 miles.
Whilst it is actually a very good ground, it truly is in the middle of nowhere. Irthlingborough is not known for its ability to deal with "outsiders", and decent pubs and transport links are unheard of.
Plus it has already pushed two clubs over the edge with its running costs. It is not a good option.

kettering town's ground is currently unused as they play in corby,would ccfc they look at playing at rockingham road?that might just squeeze in the 30 mile.

Jack Griffin said:

Can't find anything about that on their Website? Anyway, they just got relegated so can they afford it?

What 30 mile rule is that?

Click to expand...

The council are looking to renegotiate the lease. Nene park was looked at as an alternate venue.

so peterborough are gonna play in rushden and diamonds ground, kettering play in corby, Ricoh will be vacant and Sky blues will play in any ground that will negotiate with sisu. Does any low league midlands side actually play in their own town lol

SkyBlueSwiss said:

They are supposedly losing over £6 million a year. Somehow I do not think the rent and F&B come anywhere near covering such losses

Click to expand...

Don't you understand anything? Revenue is the key. Losses in this league are not the determining factor regarding player budget. Without full control we will never have anyone interested in us.

Grendel said:

Don't you understand anything? Revenue is the key. Losses in this league are not the determining factor regarding player budget. Without full control we will never have anyone interested in us.

Click to expand...

Indeed-so why turn down an offer giving us the cross invoicing of such revenue?

Brighton Sky Blue said:

Indeed-so why turn down an offer giving us the cross invoicing of such revenue?

Click to expand...

Indeed and add to that turning down the opportunity to buy the Higgs shares and own 50% of ACL? We could of course just give it all away for nothing couldn't we Grendel?

SkyBlueCharlie said:

Indeed and add to that turning down the opportunity to buy the Higgs shares and own 50% of ACL? We could of course just give it all away for nothing couldn't we Grendel?

Click to expand...

A curious question. If the club could get it for nothing who on earth would object?

Grendel said:

A curious question. If the club could get it for nothing who on earth would object?

Click to expand...

Sorry you missed the sarcasm in the post, I'll try to make it less subtle in future!
In reply to your question I would imagine that the would be quite a few citizens of our fair city that object to giving their share away and I think the Charity Commissioners would get just a little annoyed with a charity giving away it's assets for nothing.

Grendel said:

A curious question. If the club could get it for nothing who on earth would object?

Click to expand...

I would object to the club taking money from a childrens charity.
Guess your morals don't extend to supporting charities, still I'm not surprised.

I'm sure the late Sir Higgs and his dad who left all his money to set this charity supporting underprivileged children in Coventry up would be delighted to know that Grendel proposes to deprive them of their money. This charity that built us somewhere very good where the academy could train and bailed our club out when we were looking likely to go into administration before, is the one you're talking about denying them their money. And you talk about people not supporting the club............!

:facepalm:

Jack Griffin said:

I would object to the club taking money from a childrens charity.
Guess your morals don't extend to supporting charities, still I'm not surprised.

Click to expand...

To be fair Grendel did pitch in a few quid for my charity event last year. The wolf does have a heart

Brighton Sky Blue said:

To be fair Grendel did pitch in a few quid for my charity event last year. The wolf does have a heart

Click to expand...

Please keep that quiet, it might ruin my reputation.

Grendel said:

Please keep that quiet, it might ruin my reputation.

Click to expand...

You do have a funny mix of views on business ethics it must be said.

Brighton Sky Blue said:

You do have a funny mix of views on business ethics it must be said.

Click to expand...

Funny Ha Ha or Funny Peculiar?

SkyBlueSwiss said:

I'd much rather you were a bit more intelligent, but we can't have everything.

Welcome back YamYam

Click to expand...

What next, kumbaya my lord around a campfire ?
I'd much rather you got a grip but hey like you say, we can't have everything.

James Smith said:

Funny Ha Ha or Funny Peculiar?

Click to expand...

I don't think his employer would go for the former.

intercity said:

kettering town's ground is currently unused as they play in corby,would ccfc they look at playing at rockingham road?that might just squeeze in the 30 mile.

Click to expand...

Yes, but not quite that simply. There are a number of things to consider when thinking about whether Nene Park is likely to become a possible location for you.

Kettering have been given a temporary permission to ground share at Corby for a maximum of 13 weeks which will expire before the start of next season. This was granted when the power supply was shut off to the stadium around October due to a dispute with the energy suppler. When Kettering first moved there it was done in haste and they failed to conduct proper due diligence before signing the lease. Apparently the ground is in some state of disrepair and significant work needs to be done which Kettering can't afford to do. If you were to move there it is likely that there will be some cost involved to meet league requirements. Kettering are currently subject to a winding up order by HMRC but have been given a stay of execution until June 24th by which time it is hoped that a planned takeover will be completed to save the club.

Despite temporarily playing at Corby, Kettering still have a long term lease on Nene Park; however the prospective purchaser of the club has expressed a desire to get out of this lease. Assignment of the lease to either CCFC or Peterborough may therefore be attractive to them if allowed under the terms of the lease. If Kettering, should the takeover take place and they survive, cannot get out of the lease and have to play there next season, sub letting to a team under a ground share agreement may provide crucial funding for them if sub letting is allowed under the lease. The dispute with energy supplier still needs to be resolved.

Peterborough currently pay £500k pa rent for London rd, which is a bit of a ramshackled place. The lease there runs out shortly and they have suggested that although there are plans to redevelop the stadium they may choose to let the lease run out and move to Nene Park unless they can negotiate a reduced rent deal on London rd. It could be argued that the added financial pressure of Peterborough's relegation now makes this more likely than before.

Whether through assignment or sub letting by Kettering or Kettering being wound up and new tenants being looked for if it turns out both you and Peterborough want it then it will come down to who will pay most, the length of lease the parties are willing to sign and the time in which they are ready to move. In such a case you may have to pay more than you would have or sign a longer lease than you would have. The danger here is that you end up player there longer than you think.

If Kettering go under you could end up sharing there with Peterborough; however with Peterborough's relegation it raises the same question as Walsall, that is would whoever holds the lease want a sub tenant who's in the same league? You could have a form of join tenancy with non exclusivity; however unless appropriate clauses are within this it could lead to potential disputes between the 2 clubs particularly around scheduling of cup games where both clubs are drawn at home.

Make of all that what you will in terms of how likely it makes Nene Park as a potential location.

Peterborough's attendances are small enough to make Nene Park more realistic. If we moved there we'd lose thousands of fans from the capacity alone.

Brighton Sky Blue said:

Peterborough's attendances are small enough to make Nene Park more realistic. If we moved there we'd lose thousands of fans from the capacity alone.

Click to expand...

I think we have already lost 1000s of fans and everyday a few more leave and look at other options.

Grendel said:

Don't you understand anything? Revenue is the key. Losses in this league are not the determining factor regarding player budget. Without full control we will never have anyone interested in us.

Click to expand...

Yet for some reason you seem to be more in support of a company that has driven us the furthest away from any chance of getting control that we have ever had. Strange.

gaz said:

What next, kumbaya my lord around a campfire ?
I'd much rather you got a grip but hey like you say, we can't have everything.

Click to expand...

Why all the aggression towards people - cov fans or others?

SkyBlueSwiss said:

Why all the aggression towards people - cov fans or others?

Click to expand...

I thought the kumbaya comment was somewhat amusing.

dongonzalos said:

Yet for some reason you seem to be more in support of a company that has driven us the furthest away from any chance of getting control that we have ever had. Strange.

Click to expand...

So we were nearer under Elliot and fletcher? Doubt that.

Once again you make the assumption I am talking about the owners. I am not. I am talking generically about the club whoever owns it.

Grendel said:

So we were nearer under Elliot and fletcher? Doubt that.

Once again you make the assumption I am talking about the owners. I am not. I am talking generically about the club whoever owns it.

Click to expand...

Problem is Grendel that the owners have burnt bridges with ACL and most of the fans which is detrimental to the club on all counts. Owners are not separate at all-as without them the club doesn't exist.

Grendel said:

So we were nearer under Elliot and fletcher? Doubt that.

Once again you make the assumption I am talking about the owners. I am not. I am talking generically about the club whoever owns it.

Click to expand...

Yet you say to want the best for the club.

You acknowledge that that means ACL becoming under the ownership of the Club.

SISU are driving a wedge away from that.

Elliot is introducing someone who offers that.

Yet you defend the actions of SISU.

To say you are only interested in what is best for the club is illogical. Otherwise you would be criticising SISU's action as they keep going further and further away from purchasing ACL.

Steve.B50 said:

I think we have already lost 1000s of fans and everyday a few more leave and look at other options.

Click to expand...

This would do it to an even greater extent and over much less time.