Search results

They're not going to leave are they.... unless of course they are kicked out by their new landlords.

If you want to go down that line then perhaps it's worth thinking about where all the profits from ACL have gone over the last 9 years? Surely a deprived kid is more deserving of that money than paying down a mortgage we were told they could manage sufficiently.

SISU were never going to return to Ricoh on a rental deal. The language changed from build to own a stadium. Now the club are back - initially on a 2 year deal.... There has been a shift in the approach - The comments suggest a change whilst trying to publicly save as much face as possible...

If the children's charity was so concerned about their money.... you have to wonder why they invested in the first place knowing full well they could have lost the lot....

Bear in mind that the club returned to the Ricoh within the last month, after over a month of negotiations. The club may well be initially suggesting that it is not a deal forever, but given the bad blood previously between the parties - it's not really that odd that a short-term deal was...

The only thing it goes to show is that a club not owning or at least controlling it's own stadium has no long term future. That occurred long before SISU's arrival. I would be far more interested to know if ACL/CCC are prepared to offer SISU the same deal at the same price? After all that would...

You're delusional if you think it would make SISU leave. It would make their stay even longer. Clearly you put your hatred for SISU above your love for CCFC.

Quietly deflecting my question there.... So i'll ask again - will you still defend ACL if they agree to sell to Wasps if at the time of the deal (which is after the club have returned) they did not allow the club to put in an offer or negotiate??

And if they have not been given the oportunity to negotiate??

Because they clearly want a return on their investment... or at least a sizeable amount. And who will buy a football club that is a second hand tenant in a stadium they don't own? A new owner would potentially be faced with having to build their own stadium as well.

The chances of SISU leaving will be virtually zero if this deal happens.

You'll have to forgive my cynicism but something tells me SISU would be charged more....

So would SISU be offered a controlling stake of ACL at the same price it would be offered to Wasps?

Absolutely....

If this were to happen.... And let's hope it doesn't, but it would probably mean that a SISU exit would be about as likely as finding an unicorn that shits diamonds..

Well it's clear to everyone that the smoking gun didn't exist. It's not like we haven't discussed it.... Higgs was never in any position to be financially distressed by SISU's actions.

I'm not ignoring anything, but that's like saying that SISU must have had a point about the JR because of the amount of court time it received. SISU's actions were to get information. To suggest they were 'distressing' a local children's charity is nonsense. I'm more suprised that no one thinks...

The point is that the two would never have got it on in court if Higgs hadn't instigated the proceedings.

Higgs - not ACL. There's enough distinction to seperate them... especially in this particular example.

I would suggest that a minimum value of £52m from the Premier League TV rights is quite the advantage.