Search results

I'm not talking about acl, I was talking about the council.

As I'm sure your aware the money came from tesco. They got their store, council got their ground. What's the great scandal about that?

As we are talking about the actual construction of the stadium your point is irrelevant.

Your mixing up the rent agreement with the building of the stadium. The council building the stadium was beneficial to the club, not detrimental.

Well the council did build the stadium, that's an indisputable fact. Also the highs charity bailed the club out in 2003. 24 hours away from admin.

But no one was worse off from the council building the stadium.

Shouldn't the council be congratulated on the investment they got on taxpayers money? That is their job after all.

So you think news should be censored? Frankly I think comparing a football fan going on a slim fast diet once a week, to a child having to go through conditions similar to pow's is tasteless.

Fair way forward would be for board members of acl to go onto Ccfc board and vice versa. Ccfc continue paying rent, but receive any profits acl make (minus any investment in infrastructure deemed necessary by the council). Both the club and acl then have a vested interest in making each...

I want owners that care about the club, know what they are doing, and are playing at the Ricoh. I don't care who delivers that, but one thing for sure is sisu can't deliver. You talk about putting pressure on acl, they have said and shown numerous time they will deal with anyone but sisu...

<p> Surely at this stage the best way to ensure that is to stop sisu getting back the golden share?

Why would you want them to give up?

At away games only.

<p> Well whilst both companies could have done better, in my opinion acl have far outperformed sisu over the last few years.

<p> Yes but it would seem the contract means nothing to sisu anyway.

<p> In fairness had sisu paid the rent like they were contractually obliged to then they could have continued playing at the Ricoh for another 3 years and acl wouldn't have been able to stop them.

<p> Funding isn't an issue, its the administration of it that's the problem. I.e. Who is going to take charge and set this up. The club itself would be self funding after this point.

As in the club and ground united or just Fisher and Labovitch worked for acl?

Anyone would think the board of acl were in charge of Ccfc!

Option 1 for me.