Search results

Funny how people are calling TF an imbecile etc. but realistically it isn't a viable option, anyway, there are better options locally (Nuneaton). This is a scare tactic, and for people to take it in and treatit with such seriousness, they are the imbeciles. We aren't moving out of the RICOH.

I was replying to OSB, who said their priorities are: RICOH 1st, CCFC 2nd, (could be true) and if they got the RICOH, they wouldn't support CCFC and wouldn't go on a prem drive... That's why I said for 100% share we'd have to be in the prem, 50% share is max they can get, and that wouldn't make...

You don't though do, hence why you want ACL to beat CCFC.

But hey wouldn't be able to purchase 100% of the stadium until they got into the prem :thinking about: 50% yes, but whilst we linger in L1, they would take a long, long time to make a return in profit.

You say I'm stupid to believe in SISU propaganda... A) I haven't spouted any SISU facts B) I'm comparing our rent to others. Fact is, we pay 1.2m rent, or was that made up by SISU :thinking about: fact, Swansea don't pay rent, we pay 1.2m, fact, we pay just under half the rent THE RICHEST...

It wasn't in the master plan to be where we are, the expectations was to get promoted ASAP, so therefore, the rent wasn't an issue at 1st. Now it is, (for some time actually) we have to do something about it, for the survival of CCFC.

I don't think we'll profit, but if rent was cut to say 300k and we get promoted - who knows we may break even, or NOT make a significant loss? Thing is, it's ok to make a loss, as long there're gains to be made elsewhere e.g. TV money, and so on.

Thy are, we've paid 6.7m of rent (owed 7.7), too much, either way, the debt will paid, just a longer time, 1.2m a year is too much and puts the survival of CCFC very much at risk.

But how are SISU different to any other similar investors? Secondly, how is that necessarily bad, they want RICOH, but to get to there, they need a successful CCFC. As I said in the previous post, ACL would surely safeguard the club. Realistically, we can only get 50% share now anyway, the...

Thank you, for the facts. I understand the situation is slightly different, but my point here is that CCFC are paying 1.1/1.2m more than a premiership club. Their council wants them to pay more rent. If we put it into context, we pay nearly half what Man City do for a 48,000 seater stadium...

Wouldn't anyone who would take over CCFC want to own the RICOH? So what's the big deal with SISU being able to get a share? I'm pretty sure ACL would safeguard the club. Honest question(s).

Idea is, IMO, is to get ACL to the negotiation table (now we have to negotiate) and come to agreement, we want 200k, ACL want 400k, I reckon they'd (SISU/TF etc.) settle for 300k as that is realistic. We have to remember there are little details have to be agreed as well, if SISU just...

I suppose, but if you factor the money from getting promoted, it would counter the loss, I imagine, TV money, £ from winning title/POs etc. if we assume that's what TF budgeted for. Perhaps? :thinking about:

Is this to me? Swansea? My thread dedicated to it, has the web page with all facts on it. Ipswich, there was another thread and I comment was posted comparing us to Ipswich (who refused to pay rent) have a lot less contracted rent, and Hull didn't have to pay no rent, as a firm basically paid...

It's a scare tactic, quite a good one, but realistically, if worst come to worst, we won't go some shitty stadium 45 miles away! How many fans will turn up? I couldn't, I don't drive (getting lessons for Christmas etc) I can't get there, it is financially unviable, and our fan base couldn't...

If we get promoted, would we in fact make a small bit of profit? (If rent is considerably reduced) May also be why we want new rate of rent backdated from 10months?

They wouldn't move away from the RICOH, it's a scare tactic, to give us the upper hand in negotiations.

This stance? The stance that has forced ACL to make many concessions? Their 1st offer was 400k with other concessions, we on track for further concessions... Glad you aren't part of the negotiating! :thinking about: :whistle: :facepalm:

We didn't want McG then, nor could we have afforded him at the time! Ben Turner, none of us wanted him to lave and 1.8m was a bit low, but that's football, last in contract, so we couldn't command a better fee. :facepalm: