Search results

You can't deny fans the right to watch their team in their town and not expect it to dent enthusiasm. Some fans had 50+ years of loyalty thrown back in their face.

Surely these principles of each to their own apply anywhere though? That being the case, the West terrace fans were bang out of order when they used to mock Main standers for not singing.

And still some people expect the council to be the ones to offer the olive branch (even though they have done umpteen times). Just one question, at what point have sisu made any concessions in there demands?

Cant is a word only used when looking for reasons not to do something. If the will is there then a deal can be done. However we all know that Sisu's only interest is conspiring against the business interests of ACL, and that is the real reason as to why a deal wont be done.

The point of any offer is to match what sisu are getting at sixfields. I don't see whats so difficult to understand about that.

KCIC pay F&B's value based on 23 games at a 2k attendance, this will mean sisu are not out of pocket. I imagine the pitiful amount being spent on F&B's at Sixfields is within the KCIC budget.

So apart from spite, what reason (in principle) would they have to turn down a proposal like this?

So what non-matchday revenues do they currently get at Sixfields?

Take note of what happened, then if my own club decided to sell off its ground without funding in place I would protest as I could see what the outcome would be. Equally if I seen an incompetent hedge fund trying to take over my club I would badger the FL to change its rules over who it...

I think it's rather arrogant of some posters to assume that because they know all about the situation then everyone else does. There's plenty of football fans out there that still aren't aware of all the facts, and they need to know.

A long time ago I know, but Leeds Utd were simply given a football league place after Leeds City left the league.

I'm saying market rate should be paid.

I'm sorry but that is irrelevant for two reasons: A) Contracts don't cease to exist every time ownership of a business changes. B) Sisu did due diligence on the club when buying it. They accepted that they had no entitlement to revenue streams. And yes the same should apply to both. If a...

Yes he is, and on that I agree with him in principle. However ccfc did sell it's rights to income streams. That is clear to see.

Well yes. Grendel is right in that the default position of any stadium occupant should get to keep the revenues that they generate. However if anyone new coming in sold their rights then why should they then say oh actually we need those, but we don't want to pay for it.

But a rugby franchise for instance haven't already sold their income streams. In the real world if you sell ownership of something then you can't keep it.

It won't be on the city boundary though will it? The city is surrounded by greenbelt land, and there is more chance of a new stadium going on top of the cathedral than on greenbelt land. Once past the greenbelt you are almost certainly into the territory of other towns, places that ccfc have...

Why then did sisu threaten to sue The Guardian for printing a factually correct article??

So you want acl to give away something that they paid for? Why exactly should they do that?

It did benefit though. They sold their share of revenues for circa £6m.