Search results

I think when £40m is quoted it includes the land price, so two temp stands at £15m each that will only last 10 to 20 years, plus the land gets you back to £40m spent, yet going the temporary route gives you nothing but the land left after the 10 to 20 years. I just can't see SISU coming up with...

So, £15m presumably the land cost is extra, for a max of 10 years = £1.5m a year, plus land, plus maintenance, plus rates etc. I'd rather try and lenghten the £100k a year rental deal we've got. edit: plus interest on borrowing the £15m, could be another £600k a year (4%)

You could always take away the doubt and point out the contradictions anyway, or are you trying to cut down on the amount of pages taken up by stories?

I haven't been so outraged since someone put the string of a (partially inflated) balloon under a windscreen wiper.

Having the responsibility for the maintenance of a stadium is the problem with owning one (or owning the lease to one), if you own a football club operating on little income it's best to get a cheap rent and leave the expensive repairs to others.

They were smart enough to agree a long lease before, they had agreed with the Council to extend the lease to 125 years. So the only bit they failed on was not putting an offer in when asked to do so.

They were bidding to buy half of the Company owing the money, how can they put a condition in that means they are not liable for the debt? In respect of bidding for 50% of ACL from Higgs, under what circumstances would we be at risk of losing points?

Madison and Pennington 7, everyone else less. If we could have got the ball to Pennington quicker, especially as he was usually in plenty of attacking space, then he had the opportunity to rate better, and we may well have gained a win.

The next two homes games will feel just like the premier league, Sun afternoon and Monday night. Maybe this is sign of successful times ahead. No, I don't think so either.

Ok. I bet they are gutted though, most posters on here would be a bit miffed if they lost the best part of £4m on a deal.

I wouldn't doubt for a moment that they are gutted about it, they have had to write off millions due to selling at far less than they had originally recorded the shares value. I think though that they recognised that from their point of view it was get out now for a big loss, or take the risk of...

If Higgs were that concerned they could have vetoed wasps buying the Council's share. Higgs had the power before wasps did.

If the pitch is any good we'll be able to play the Coventry way, lose 3 nil.

The Council shouldn't be considering what's best for the Charity any more or less than considering what's best for CCFC. certainly we won't know for sure whether wasps would have done a deal for 50%, not convinced you'd know for sure if you ask them either, but it looks to me that 50% is better...

SISU seem to be trying to distance the club from this court action, so I don't see how it could possibly benefit the club.

certainly it would appear that after the deal was first announced it was for 100%, I'm suggesting that better negotiations could and should have taken place, with the offer on the table only being Higgs share (assuming they were happy to sell).

I can see that wasps would prefer it all, but I think they would also see that owning 50% of ACL for half the price is still better than renting in Wycombe in a small stadium without the extra revenues they can access through ACL.

That would justify not vetoing the sale of the Higgs shares to wasps, but doesn't explain why the Council had to sell its shares. The price seems cheap enough for wasps to still be interested in a 50% share, so wasps would still come in, all the expected benefits would still be there, with the...

If there is a sound basis for the decision what possible argument is there for not telling people what it is, just because you may not get to see the actual outcome for years shouldn't prevent the Council from explaining the logic.

Comparing it to keeping it, there's as yet no information to justify the sale. It seems a cheap price to me, if Higgs wanted out that's fair enough, but the Council should be looking long term. If the decision to sell now at such a price is a good deal, let's see the information.