Search results

I'm not. He's just posturing - we all know that title is mine alone and nobody is even close to be able to take it from me. Les Reid tried in that sneaky interview, but clearly he's not in my league. I am sisu's greatest fan.

Will especially be interesting to see how much of the £60m debts have moved to Otium as it should now hold everything previously in Limited and Holdings. Maybe the full amount, but I hope to see it at least down to £25m - preferbly even lower.

Couldn't agree more.

I am sure you will go again once you're released :-)

Maybe, but when it comes to what exactly happened during the negotiations we are completely in the dark. We know bit and pieces but not the whole story and certainly nobody has yet told the true story. There have been negotiations with ACL - with CCC - with ACL and CCC. In what order, what...

I agree - the outcome was what sisu wanted. Maybe we should give them some credit and think they planned for it?

But you haven't proved the management fees were going into sisu's pockets rather than be just a paper trail within the group.

I meant 'by semantics'. ACL did exactly what they should do and what any other business would. I even believe sisu have calculated with it as an outcome.

Don't be fooled - ACL effectively put us in administration. Sisu simply used the possibility to do it themself to influence the selection of administrator. And they did pay money to get out, to lawyers and even settled some - if not all - of the debt owed to ACL. But it was money well spent in...

Do you mean that ACL have shadow directors??? Surely NOT!

For the first paragraph I suspect it depends on the accounting and the auditor ... there's a lot of flexibility to paint the picture you want. But the second paragraph is where I agree totally. If it turns out that the outcome of all this is a company more profitable than before - then it's...

No matter how you look at it - at the end of the day any money gained or spend, 50% is taxpayers money. Money spent decreases the overall value - money earned increases the value. It doesn't matter if the money was allocated before any actions were taken - if they are spent they have in fact...

True, but sisu have something to show for their money: They have broken the lease. How much is that worth? And their investors will not really ask too many questions anyway. ACL is a different case.

I looked it up sometime ago but it was very poorly documented/explained. See if you can make sense of it here: http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php

But we all know that sisu doesn't care about the club or the fans, while on the other hand ACL have repeatedly said their actions is all about 'what is best for the fans and the club'. So by your argument it should be ACL coming forward with a 'we have listened to the fans and think a short term...

Maximum is £6mio at the moment for PL clubs. The amount will decrease over the coming years.

Any money awarded to NTFC will add to the 'legal cost' of ACL. At some point someone is bound to ask questions about the amount of legal costs and ask questions of what has been achieved by those costs.

But the sugar daddy's are being restricted by FFP. That's why the club and stadium must be united. Otium will have to own the stadium and make their money there - while they support the club within the overall profit.

Ok, let's just leave it there. My basic POV is the club must own its stadium. I can see why it will never be the Ricoh - both sides have dug too deep trenches and that is even reflected in the fan base. So a new stadium is more likely and I support that.

Why can't a football be run as a business? Are you saying a football club can only be run by a sugardaddy?