Search results

I dread to think how much money was wasted on paying off managers after 9 months and then employing a new one on a 3 year contract... and repeat. It may not be relevant as much today, but there will be an attendance figure that we would have to meet at the Ricoh or new stadium to hit that...

Bad week for you maybe Michael... we found out your offer was a pile of shite.

Rather than the general drop-off that you would expect to see anyway after the novelty of a new stadium wore off, it tells you that out of the 7 seasons of home games (161 min) - which was the clubs only real way to generate it's revenue, it only managed to exceed the 'break even' figure 34...

It does show potential I agree... but when you have a deal where you only can break even around 20% of your home fixtures (and only real opportunities to generate revenue) it's shows how unsustainable the rental deal was in the first place.

Isn't that just it.... it hasn't been reported officially by the only people that can confirm one way or the other.

Not quite..... the following games by season that had an attendance greater than the 'break-even' amount of 22K 2005-06 12 games 2006-07 7 games 2007-08 6 games 2008-09 4 games 2009-10 1 game 2010-11 2 games 2011-12 1 game 2012-13 1 game A total of 34 games in 7 years ( out of 161 minimum...

I'm sorry but that makes no sense. Who would have a guarantor in place for such an event, and at that level of value? If it was for 'loss of earnings' outside of rent then it just goes to show how ridiculous the rent deal was in the first place. Why should the club be in any way liable for the...

It's only not relevant to you because you know that it's not a stick you can beat SISU with.

Of course it was. The problem was historic and SISU should have addressed it when they first came in. Clearly due diligence was not done...was this down to impending admin, as they weren't the expected people to take over originally. We don't know. Just because something was agreed badly a...

Not quite what I said... For the club to maintain wage spend for Championship, rent and outgoings it had to sell 22k tickets a match to break even. No other revenue streams remember... Someone else had them. How many games in 7 seasons do you think we hit that target? Bet it's less than 40...

Is it really that crazy? They didn't want to deal with SISU and wanted new owners. What better way but to install yourself and then either run it or most likely sell on to someone you do like. There's nothing paltry about a rental agreement where the club have to sell 22k tickets a game to...

My second comment was a little tounge in cheek... But now I think about it weren't ACL rumoured to be one of the bidders in the admin process? It's all making sense now.... Obviously not liking the outcome of something makes it automatically illegal in your world.

The registration of the players was of no concern to ACL... All they should have been worried about was where their owed money was. Just a poor excuse to unnecessarily reject the CVA, further proving they couldn't give a fuck about the club. Unless of course they were concerned about the...

I guess that would be another way to do it. EDIT: If that occurred could you see fans creating about ACL holding onto money they rightfully owed other people in the same way they do about SISU? I somehow doubt it.

If it is not related to the golden share deal... (which was in essence for the loss of rent that they had) then why the need for ACL to activate the guarantor aspect? Why would there even be a guarantor deal in place if it was not connected to the rent?

Hypothetical question... if SISU were to offer the £10.8m valuation that came up in the JR in order to buy out ACL. Woud people accept that as a fair offer?

To be fair it does mean that MM and GR should have every right to pursue SISU for that money.

The original guarantor agreement was for 500K - exactly the same value as the ESCROW fund in relation to the rental agreement. Of course it was part of it. It was then negotiated down to 300K. If it wasn't part of the deal then why would 2 guarantors agree to potentially stump up to the tune...

Yes of course. I'm sick to the fucking back teeth of it.

Why should the club be responsible for the earnings of ACL when they gave nothing to the club which directly helped them achieve the revenue in the first place?