Search results

They're renting one now. And the net cost is far higher than the Ricoh. So again, why don't they want to move back, even temporarily?

Wrong on every count there RFC, though good effort. ACL weren't at the recent High Court hearing, that was Higgs v SISU. CCC have a 50% share in ACL, so are entitled to a say into what happens with the company, so not exactly manipulation. Also, how do you know where Weber Shandwick sit in...

Yep, I'd agree with you there - I doubt SISU sue Higgs directly if there's no claim first, although given SISU's prediliction for legal threats I wouldn't put anything past them. As to the article, I must confess I hadn't noticed anything one sided in the CET coverage, but I haven't analysed it...

The club had access to the revenue streams via the half-share in ACL. The one that they had to sell to the AEHC because they were going bust. The one that SISU didn't bother trying to buy back until years after they'd arrived on the scene, and even then on buy-now, pay-later terms. If it was...

Erm, they did sue a charity - that was the point of the counterclaim. They weren't obliged to make a counterclaim, they could just have defended the original claim.

Actually, ACL are named as an interested party in the JR. I'd guess the reason they're done making offers though is that SISU have made it plain that they are not willing to entertain any.

Ah, the pie money. There's probably no deal on revenue access - but from a purely commercial view they'd still be in a far better position with 10,000 at the Ricoh than 1,500 at sixfields, obviously. And who knows, they might even be able to negotiate for some revenue access, it seems it was on...

The rent deal that SISU 'agreed' to, signed HoT and everything. http://www.ricoharena.com/news/acl-statement-february/ £400k with £300k arrears written off, access to matchday revenues, and a deal to pay back remaining arrears over a period of time. Then apparently an even better one during...

Absolutely, they're not bailing it out, they're just building it for them. Wait a sec, didn't our council do just this for the Ricoh. And there you are above, seemingly saying you wished they hadn't. Which way do you want it Ian? Do you want the council to subsidise football teams by, say...

Take your point entirely, although I'm sure that the Council would have been slaughtered here and elsewhere for not helping the club had they taken that decision, (probably by many of those here who clearly believe that the council are actively working against the club). It also sticks in my...

What evidence, precisely?

A fair point, but then there's enough evidence in the Higgs trial as to SISU's method of 'negotiating' to draw conclusions as to why Fisher's roadmap failed, and why things like getting the bank debt for half-price didn't look likely either. That would seem to refute a fair amount of SISU's JR...

I'm not disputing that HoT was agreed, or that it obviously failed. But you're piling into the Council here and blaming them for the failure, unless I'm mistaken, and I'm pointing out that that's an opinion based on what you've heard from one side. As the Higgs case shows, that's a mistake to...

Ah, you see my background is neo-brutalist, where the focus is on the front cover and the readers' wives, rather than the author. :) Edit: Smiley added, just in case.

It's an unchallenged document, created by one side, SISU - to support a court case. Like I say, if you think there's evidence in there then point to the specific thing that proves your assertion. I'm not denying anything, the 'facts' that you mention have been chosen by one side and obviously...

I use it to stop lazy people saying, "Yeah but this is a fact", when really it isn't. Especially when it's chucked in alongside the implication that no one other then them has ever bothered to read the document in question. If you want to use it as a stalling tactic, that's down to you - I...

Yes. I've read it. I also read a similar 'statement of facts' they put forward in the counterclaim for the Higgs case, much of which was shot down in court of course. Have you read those transcripts? The problem is that what is in SISU's JR case is selective and unchallenged, being as it is...

Yep, it's a statement of facts, but it's from SISU. In other words it's from one side and has not been challenged in court yet. That's why I think it's risky to rely on it as a single source of information, which is what I feel is happening in this article and elsewhere.

It is basically a rehash of the SISU JR skeleton argument though, isn't it? That what strikes me about Rob's (and possibly Les's) pov, they seem to have taken the SISU JR argument and largely accepted it. There's a belief that the debt could have been bought from the bank at half or less of...

All in favour of digging stuff out, though again I've got to say that your motive for this seems to be to 'prove' that ACL isn't sustainable. Have I read that correctly?