Search results

Does it? I don't think so.. just emphasises that people will dismiss a statement out of hand with no evidence.. and then take another statement as gospel with equally little evidence. All I'm suggesting is a little consistency.

Clearly people have a simple method of judging any press release from the club. Every single thing they release is bullshit... unless of course the word 'liquidation' is used and then it becomes gospel truth.

What do you want the club to say? If this is what they are actually going to do then the football side will benefit from the sale of Wilson.

There are some definitions of revenue laid out by UEFA - Pages 77-81. http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/80/54/10/1805410_DOWNLOAD.pdf One line I found interesting... 'The income (and expenses – see part C(1)(k)) of non-football operations only needs to be...

So it's not really an offer... Just some clever accounting with no net value to the club, and ultimately is of no benefit to anyone.

I agree about needing a will to get a deal done. Said deal has to be far better than the half baked ideas served up so far.

By who?

Except that's not what it says is it? You can't apply the rent deal to a matchday revenue scenario. It doesn't stack up.

And here is the crux of it. This is where the money can be made. EDIT: If it's enough revenue to deem ACL a 'sustainable business' then it's enough for the club to want to have it.

What? The offer relates to the matchday revenue at the Ricoh - not Sixfields.

What proposal? That KCIC pay all the matchday revenue? Will there be a caveat on it like the rent deal where they only paid up to 5K attendance. 'KCIC will pay for the first 250 pies, 300 hot dogs and then ACL get the rest'? 23 games with a 10K attendance as a minimum - if average spend per...

Because it's a start point. The matchday revenues are important but the non-matchday has far more potential. Why do you think they lined up AEG to come in and run the complex?

As much as they got at the Ricoh..... precisely fuck all.

No it's the non-matchday revenues as well.... when will you realise?

You may well be right about that, but also we have no guarantee that a future owner wouldn't do exactly the same, and if previous owners are a measure I would expect subsequent owners to act pretty similarly. So in order to remove our reliance on owners like SISU we have to be in a position...

Ultimately they want the non-matchday revenue streams that they can count in FFP calculations (and no doubt go some way to reclaiming their investment). This is why they should try and buy out ACL in it's entirety.

If everyone accepts the judges valuation of £10.8m for ACL to be correct, is it fair game for SISU to offer £11m? £12m maybe? Or would this be classed as 'trying to get on the cheap'?

Of course it is stupid.. but technically it is classed as a temporary groundshare, which the FL have allowed on several occasions to different club. If a franchise club was to be created it would have to begin a lot further down the football pyramid, and certainly would not get CCFC's place in...

Is that a yes or no? ;)

I was a fan of the Prolouge personally... 'The following words are an act of fiction'