Search results

Without being too critical, it didn't really have much 'meat on the bones', otherwise a decent article.

Some poor managers in this League with some poor excuses! :thinking about: Offered nothing upfront.

You've misunderstood. What I'm saying is, ACL rely too heavily on CCFC to run as an efficient, competitive business, CCFC can't stand up on it's own 2 feet because we have to pay 1.28m in rent a year, AS WELL AS, getting nothing from the revenue streams, so we've lost out on about 1.5m a year...

No, I don't think so. He knew what he was getting into, he seen an opportunity, with more money on the table, championship status, and I feel he may have started to panic because we haven't had a great 2013 and have had to change his system to accommodate Clarke. Now it's your turn, you...

300k backdated, ACL should write the other 1m off, and CCFC get 100% of revenue streams. If that was put on the table, and it was rejected, my stance would become untenable. If they get cheaper than that, then fair fucking play! I think it's time for ACL to no longer rely on CCFC, and CCFC to...

It's ok to change your mind before you sign a contract, so if he did shake on it, it doesn't mean much really, as he wasn't 'contractually obliged', I've heard that phrase a lot from a few people. The deal, IMO, has to be backdated from when we stopped paying and we get 100% revenues on match...

No, it might be moveable, or changes time to time. I think ACL might be pulling a sly one with this 'rebate'.

Backdated to when we stopped paying and 100% of match day revenue, then that would be reasonable, but ACL remain rock solid on the former and I'm not to sure on the latter.

I'm sceptical of this 'rebate' because I don't see why they just wouldn't just knock it off the final price, again, I don't know the nitty gritty details, same with all of us really except the negotiating parties.

Without being disrespectful, I don't think any of this really matters tbh, especially if we get a favourable agreement. Isn't exactly going to live long in the memory when it's concluded.

If, by your standards, the deal is 150k because we get a cut in revenue streams, would that mean, whilst we haven't been getting this cut, we've actually been paying in excess of 1.5-1.75m a year? Especially bearing in mind, we had average crowds of 24k in our 1st season, 20k after that, late...

Why would we get a rebate? What would be the point of one, why haven't they just factored in the rebate in the final price?

You're missing the point, we're still paying 400k rent. Most clubs have 100% of this revenue streams, if we factored that into the 'average rents', the average rent would be below 100k! EDIT: if, by your standards, the deal is 150k because we get a cut in revenue streams, would that mean...

It does look like an attractive deal I do say, if ACL now say, ok, 400k backdated to when we stopped paying and we got 100% of 'x, y and z match day revenue', it would be difficult to turn down, but I'd hold out for 300k. I'm not on board with the renegade tactics, there is probably a better...

The deal is we pay 400k in rent. With the revenue streams we pay 150k is nonsense, we'll pay 400k in rent but reap part of the benefits our fans by buying food & drink etc. no matter what, we're still paying 400k. It looks attractive, but I bet ACL want the 1.3m back dated as well as a share in...

I don't think he'll be caretaker for that long

To poach Mourinho? No. ;) To poach, say, Johnson @ Yeovil? Possibly

I. Hope. Not.

We would've got about 15k though.

I don't know your views on this rent debacle, but I'm going to guess it was sarcastic, because your post confirmed it.