Search results

I notice they said own their own stadium.... no mention of build.

When they start re-developing Sixfields, will that mean the view from the hill will be reduced?

So the club have now done their bit. So all we need now is the JR appeal to be dropped and then negotiations can begin......... right?

ffs....

14th I believe. Lets hope they say no and we can close this chapter at least.

Profuse apologies for posting a truthful statement.

If they didn't like it then have the balls to say it.. don't hide behind the excuses that they did. Pretending they did it for the good of the fans is shameful. On your other point, no one is saying that ACL should not have their money. There is no excuse for it not to be paid. But all we have...

If the process was 'flawed' they are suggesting that something untoward happened. If this was the case it should have been reported accordingly and investigated by the appropriate authorities. Except they didn't do this... because the reality is they didn't like the outcome, rather than it...

I agree - a sustainable model should be based on the fact that tickets sales and matchday revenues should cover all outgoings. Things like player sales or windfalls from games like Arsenal should be a bonus that goes directly into improving the squad further. This is what we have to aim for...

The judgement had absolutely nothing to do with the 590K payment did it? Anyone can clearly see that JR was a spectacular fail for SISU. The council were lawfully correct in their actions. I don't actually see anyone disputing this (apart from TF) This is about the 'agreement' after the CVA...

I dread to think how much money was wasted on paying off managers after 9 months and then employing a new one on a 3 year contract... and repeat. It may not be relevant as much today, but there will be an attendance figure that we would have to meet at the Ricoh or new stadium to hit that...

Bad week for you maybe Michael... we found out your offer was a pile of shite.

Rather than the general drop-off that you would expect to see anyway after the novelty of a new stadium wore off, it tells you that out of the 7 seasons of home games (161 min) - which was the clubs only real way to generate it's revenue, it only managed to exceed the 'break even' figure 34...

It does show potential I agree... but when you have a deal where you only can break even around 20% of your home fixtures (and only real opportunities to generate revenue) it's shows how unsustainable the rental deal was in the first place.

Isn't that just it.... it hasn't been reported officially by the only people that can confirm one way or the other.

Not quite..... the following games by season that had an attendance greater than the 'break-even' amount of 22K 2005-06 12 games 2006-07 7 games 2007-08 6 games 2008-09 4 games 2009-10 1 game 2010-11 2 games 2011-12 1 game 2012-13 1 game A total of 34 games in 7 years ( out of 161 minimum...

I'm sorry but that makes no sense. Who would have a guarantor in place for such an event, and at that level of value? If it was for 'loss of earnings' outside of rent then it just goes to show how ridiculous the rent deal was in the first place. Why should the club be in any way liable for the...

It's only not relevant to you because you know that it's not a stick you can beat SISU with.

Of course it was. The problem was historic and SISU should have addressed it when they first came in. Clearly due diligence was not done...was this down to impending admin, as they weren't the expected people to take over originally. We don't know. Just because something was agreed badly a...