Search results

Everyone has to make their own decision as they see fit - I would however query your comment that the easier option is sitting at home listening to the radio. Having been going to games since the late '60's, I'm going to find that very hard indeed.

Thanks for the updates - CWR reception is poor in Poland!

I think that we agree that there would be a "bounce" if we came back, I suppose what I was questioning was how significant the bounce would be and how low the starting point would be. To (hopefully) exaggerate the point, a bounce of 1,000 from a starting point of 500 wouldn't leave us in a very...

You could be right, but I'm not sure. If we're away for say 5 years (I doubt that anyone believes we'd be in a new ground in 3) there will be many people who will have simply lost the "Saturday football habit". In addition there will be a large number of youngsters who will have missed out on...

Possibly the most stupid post ever on this site - quite an achievement.

So he wasn't working for ACL. Be nice to think that there might be an apology.

Often the way - and of course in the coming season they'll be under much more pressure to get games on, with twice as many to fit in.

But they end up with either: The same net revenue that they'd have got before (i.e. if attendances at the Ricoh don't exceed the anticipated Northampton level) or More net revenue (i.e. if they do). So I can't see how any rational analysis would conclude that there is any net cost (other than...

Firstly, am I correct in assuming that you now agree that there is no (let's call it) "net cost" to Otium from Hoffman's offer? Secondly, I'd have thought that the whole point of Hoffman's offer was to help both parties engineer such a deal - a bit tricky if TF just says "No".

Depends on your definition of "no cost". As I understand it, gate revenues over a given level (that that could reasonably be expected at Northampton) would be shared 50/50 between Otium and Hoffman. Otium get to keep their half (which by definition is more than they would have expected to get...

Don't understand why you see GH's offer as "utterly redundant". Could you explain please.

Interesting way to phrase it... Might another way be - despite the move to Northampton costing City millions in revenue and massively alienating a large section of the club's support, the CEO has not felt it appropriate to try to open dialogue with ACL. Seems a little odd unless, he doesn't...

Could you explain exactly what "confirmation" is required to enable/force (whichever was implied in your post) the FL to "recognise" the offer.

That's a very optimistic analysis - particularly as the ground only holds 7k!!

So is your view that the only rational reason for moving to Northampton is to distress ACL and so pick up the Ricoh at a cheap price?

Clarke is quite a "tidy" player at centre back, but with the squad we have at the moment the prospect of playing against a good old fashioned big third division centre forward is, frankly, pretty scary!

I'd agree with all of that. After a dodgy start, we controlled possession in the first half without very often looking threatening. Second half was much better. Possibly partly down to Nuneaton tiring in the heat, but also much more direct play by City. Thomas was excellent and controlled the...

But they were offered a deal to reduce the £1.3m rent to £400k. They have rejected that and are instead moving us to a stadium with a maximum capacity of circa 7k and (even in TF's world) likely attendances of 3k to 7k. So they have saved £400k in rent, but at the cost of: - Rent to be paid...

We certainly get some payments from the FL, but I think I recall that relegation from the Championship reduced these payments by £33 to £4m.

What's the phrase? - "You need a long spoon when you sup with the devil" (or something like that).