Search results

<p> Lighten up. If sisu thought they could make money out of this it would be straight on the shelves anyway (sorry, barrow).

I couldn't see how 2 teams would work in the long term. The new acl utd would get bigger crowds thank sisu fc in Walsall. If the acl team was successful then the sisu team would eventually go out of existence. If sisu fc was successful then someone else would buy them and probably move...

When the location is revealed just tell the telegraph that you've seen bats or adders in the area. Just a mention of an endangered species in the area will mean it all has to be investigated properly, delaying sisus plans and causing them extra cost.

<p> That depends on what their plan is. If it was just to try and get acl on the cheap then this would be game over for them.

Telegraph cried wolf once to often with this sort of thing.

<p> But we would have gone into administration had the higgs charity not took on the clubs share. That was something that took council approval.

How exactly? Remember its a completely different argument from the rent.

That comes from the common belief that the council and acl are the same thing. We need to view them as the separate organisations that they are.

Yes I agree it was a good deal, and had the club been properly run then we would have been the beneficiaries. My whole point was you can apportion blame on the rent agreement if you want, but the council taking control of the construction of the ground had no detrimental effect on Ccfc.

Of course I don't, what is wrong with the council doing that anyway? It wasn't detrimental to Ccfc, and it saved the project.

I'm not talking about acl, I was talking about the council.

As I'm sure your aware the money came from tesco. They got their store, council got their ground. What's the great scandal about that?

As we are talking about the actual construction of the stadium your point is irrelevant.

Your mixing up the rent agreement with the building of the stadium. The council building the stadium was beneficial to the club, not detrimental.

Well the council did build the stadium, that's an indisputable fact. Also the highs charity bailed the club out in 2003. 24 hours away from admin.

But no one was worse off from the council building the stadium.

Shouldn't the council be congratulated on the investment they got on taxpayers money? That is their job after all.

So you think news should be censored? Frankly I think comparing a football fan going on a slim fast diet once a week, to a child having to go through conditions similar to pow's is tasteless.

Fair way forward would be for board members of acl to go onto Ccfc board and vice versa. Ccfc continue paying rent, but receive any profits acl make (minus any investment in infrastructure deemed necessary by the council). Both the club and acl then have a vested interest in making each...

I want owners that care about the club, know what they are doing, and are playing at the Ricoh. I don't care who delivers that, but one thing for sure is sisu can't deliver. You talk about putting pressure on acl, they have said and shown numerous time they will deal with anyone but sisu...