Search results

My aim is not to try and convince you of anything. She was under £400k wrong on a large turnover, doesn't sound bad to me, she should have defended herself better in her statements this week.

Two Paul Telfer goals has got to be better than a PS4. I might take the iPad instead though.

http://youtu.be/QAatIx_MUzc Went to this cup game in 96, managed to throw away a two goal lead, then lost the replay at home! Hopefully will do better today. Action starts at 1.46.

In short Lucas was wrong by a figure that is 3% of turnover, that's pretty close to being correct isn't it. If all business projections were out by 3% most people would be very happy.

From the JR, it was part of the heads of terms for the failed bid, proves that SISU were well aware that a long lease was available, because they had agreed one. Discussions continued over the summer. On 25 July 2012, there was a meeting of the various parties, including the Leader of the...

SISU had previously agreed with the Council to a 125 year lease, that's long enough, what other stadiums around now were built over 110 years ago.

There's nothing in these accounts to suggest the car park was disposed of, either for cash or for nothing. No assets have been disposed, and nothing is written in the related party transaction note.

I'll be going in, an anonymous group won't be stopping that.

maybe they think your offer to pay the rent if attendances get below 5,000 still stands.

There's a bit of spin in here Dave, and we all hate that don't we. The Tesco money belonged to the Council didn't it, it was their land to sell, so I don't see the need to dress it up as the Council not putting the money in, why not put the real figures out and let people decide based on that?

I imagine we must have been given all the income we were entitled to as part of the lease/rent payment, and any other future income that we may have been due must have been included in the sale price agreed when we foolishly sold our half of ACL. Any income other than that is being expected for...

Well of course most people would love to be given money for free, and that would be great if someone generously decided they would do that for the club. So it seems from a couple of answers the 'no income' statement seems in the most part to actually mean money from the naming of the stadium...

I've seen this 'no revenue' comment a couple of times now, but of course the biggest stadium related income is from tickets and we got all that, we got pitchside advertising, car parking, a shop to sell stuff, and I believe we also got income from selling meals in whatever the VIP bits are...

The figures are from the CCFC annual report as part of the 2005 accounts, Don has copied the full report in this thread.

The total cost to Higgs was a bit more than £2.3m, not like you to put a spin on things. Copied from the trust website. 19th December Alan Edward Higgs Charity acquires 50% of ACL from CCFC ltd. Shares owned by Football Investors Limited, which becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of the Charity...

From what I can find in the court papers the 3 year reduction and then the increase back to £1.2m was an offer that the bank (and ACL) wanted at a particular time, and this was a sticking point. When the Council bought the loan the reference to the rent going back up after 3 years wasn't...

No I don't think anyone is, so maybe you have just made it up.

If the silly rent was only 10% of his costs, then it would probably be better if he cut down on something else in the first instance.

First of all though set up a company and gift him 50% of it so that he can benefit from all the revenues earned from his brand new home, including the silly amounts of rent. Hopefully he won't do something short sighted, like sell it.

He was poor when he returned, missed some chances he really should have scored. He'll be glad he's not here as he'd be getting some terrible stick as part of these performances.