Search results

Goodness knows. Would depend on how far the streams go. I guess SISU want all matchday & non matchday too. In fact didn't they plan for AEG to come in and run Arena? So guessing it would be substantial and more than they would generate in ticket sales. If they did a temp deal... Can imagine...

So there's the answer. There are no revenue streams so they have rejected the offer.

Why does the law stop them offering a unencumbered freehold? I genuinely don't know why...

I didn't quite mean it in that context - but thank you nevertheless. I wondered if there was information that you had found out as KCIC organiser that we may not know. Not suggesting that you do have, just interested in anything that can help make sense of this mess. We all want Cov back at...

Do any of us actually know the details of the final offer that was put on the table? That is one of Michael's questions as well is it not? That would defnitely clarify things if we knew.

I only came here originally to ask some questions of PWKH. Since then I have got into debate, but I have also shared some information that wasn't previously known to everyone. You are asking for information too - so how am I any different to you? How about you share some with us too.

You have clearly confused me with someone else. I first posted here a couple of days ago (well since over a year ago) and began this thread. I think you are referring to someone else?

The comment was about Simon and if it suggested that I was comparing him to Les it was not intentional. My apologies there as it wasn't clear. I was not trying to compare the two.

According to the SCMP (league 1 version of FFP) any shortfall can be made up by investors but only as a grant... Not a debt for future. So if this is implemented correctly it would be the first I guess.

I guess we wouldn't have this whole issue if who owns what if they bought the whole bloody lot. Can I see the council selling it... Not a chance.

Then why ask me who I am? As far as you or anyone needs to know I am a poster on a forum about CCFC. You suggested because I was 'very knowledgeable' I must be someone involved in the dispute. And let's be honest - The KCIC campaign hasn't always just been pro team has it? Also when...

At Ricoh they got ticket sales, pitch side sponsorship and 1 section of the car parking. That was it. Everything else went to ACL. It's not necessarily about what they get at Sixfields, but more about what they didn't get at Ricoh. That's not to mention all the other non- matchday revenue...

I thought the counter-claim was ridiculous too, as was the original claim. I have no idea why either party thought it was worth going to court over. My only thought about SISU's actions was that the counter-claim was a smoke screen.. they just wanted to get some info into the public domain and...

That'll be why they won't accept. They want access to revenue streams. And if you think it's just a bit of pie money, you haven't really grasped how this issue is so important in the dispute. If it's just pie money - why are ACL so intent on keeping hold of it?

I agree with you - the sale of the 50% share was catastrophic. SISU not buying back upon taking over was equally catastrophic. I would like to know if they had the option to buy it at that point, and if it was why they didn't it. And equally if it wasn't why not? I think this shows the lack of...

I can't give you an exact number, but probably at least 50. Now in the grand scheme of things that's not a lot, but we are talking about active Twitter users that post on CCFC. I have no idea how that transposes on other social media and then more generally.

Yet the headline suggested that they went and actively pursued Higgs. Which is not true. Would SISU have launched a claim against Higgs in the first instance? Doubt it.

I agree with you on this. Perhaps the reason why we can't get an answer on this is because we are talking a lot of future events, which they can almost deflect by saying we will let you know when we have a site confirmed etc - which is total bollocks on their part, and not exactly helping them...

Yes it is clear once you get half way into the article. But the headline and sub-headline imply a slightly different context. And as I have already tried to explain, a lot of people will go no further than the headline and sub-headline before deciding their opinion. This is my point. You go an...

I never said there was an issue about council building Ricoh. Loads of councils build stadia for their sporting team, and in the case of Sixfields it is a community asset owned by the council. The difference is that all the others make it work because there are sensible plans in terms of revenue...