Search results

Right so the council said no to a rent holiday after initially agreeing it. SISU then said well it's going to be a rent strike then because we are not paying. So the council never encouraged SISU to go on a rent strike or agreed to a rent strike. I can see why it's irrelevant now. Still...

What the judge said wasn't relevant to SISU's QC he is now allowing the Council's QC to talk about uninterrupted. Unless he is listening to all but thinking this makes no difference to my final decision.

That doesnt appear when I read the article?

Not even by Les I was reading the coverage by both CET and Les.

Was it I can't even remember it getting a mention. So did the SISU QC tell the judge that the council suggested SISU don't pay the rent and this was agreed by the council QC as well?

It is strange through that in the high court hearing the SISU QC never mentioned this fact. That is now a key point for him. He had to have known about it back then. When they were accused of a rent strike in order to drive down the value. Why not negate it then?

Now that one you should really understand Nick from the making of a murderer Barristers painting a picture

I know where you are coming from and agree with you. I think the lords are saying the "why" factor isn't going to come into. Just once its been decided it's going to happen is it legal or not. That also goes for if it was infact SISU who created this whole situation and that doesn't...

I think the Lords are saying that that is not relevant to whether the council is providing state aid or not. I think the Lords are trying to cut through the crap or "he said she said" I assume they are letting the QC know that that won't influence them and they will stick to the black and...

If the deal was to prepare us for the championship If Liverpool Spurs and Norwich were all interested. If we are currently self funding. For this season. Do you think Maddison's value would increase or decrease by the summer. For me based on his appearances this season I think increase...

.................RCC Loren...Ricketts..Stephens....Stokes .............Vincelot.Fleck................... .......JOB...................Hunt ................Maddison............ ................Armstrong.......... At 60 mins bring on Cole Muphy and Lameries For me but I think TM will do...

Yes I'm a plant I work for the council, I dig up time capsules and plant CCFC memorabilia in them. I am going to deal with the CET today because Simon Gilbert is in my pocket and he did a headline that favourable to SISU. Then again no one believes what's written in the CET as its all lies so...

Weirdo

I did not quote it as the solution. Someone said it was niave not to have asked for a sliding scale rent. I said the club were offered one and said no because they expected to be promoted.

No magic tricks they will hand over between 2 - 2.5 million in rent.

They will still have to pay £2-2.5 million for it, but they are getting an amazing facility and lots thrown in. The tax payer is pissed off.

I completely agree. However it's stil the rent they have agreed to Pay in the prem. If they go down and don't come back up before the parachute payments end. They will be in the poo. Not just over the rent though. That will be unaffordable as well.

West Ham will be paying 2m to £2.5m rent annually as part of a 99-year lease.

Reference your first point..... I think the Judges read it over their prawn sandwiches and glass of Red.