Search results

Byng said all along he was only interested if the club and stadium were one entity. If that was to occur then maybe he would take his interest a bit further.

I miss the Yellow one - best away kit we've had in years.

Have only just had a chance to see this all day.. a few thoughts (apologies if they have been covered) The ownership offer - It was always going to be a non-starter. Putting in additional amounts to symbolise 1987 and 35 just make the offer look petty and ridiculous. The rent offer is...

I agree... Unless what was agreed by the handshake changed by the time the formal offer came through. God knows...

You asked a question - I tried to answer. Just because I think something is good, doesn't mean my boss will agree with my idea does it? And let's be honest... They signed a draft HOT agreement which neither followed through on. What makes you think a handshake holds any weight either way?

The only obvious reason that springs to mind is that she wasn't happy with other aspects - namely revenue streams. Which is ultimately a far bigger issue than the price of the rent.

I get the impression they counter-claimed to get more information out in the public domain.

Agree it should have been done then. Even so now the FL could just state what the deal was to clear any confusion. I'm just starting to wonder if it was agreed as a good-will gesture rather than anything contractually agreed or signed on.

Clearly more interested in trampling on each other in the race to the top.

So I just wonder why we all believe it to be true. Both parties have referred to it, but we don't know the exact conditions as they haven't been shared. We don't really know if it is tied to the liquidation or not - or if the owners liability ends at paying the money to the Escrow. Just more...

I don't think ACL have really cared about the traditions & values of our club have they?

This subject was brought up a few weeks ago. Can anyone actually find a statement from FL or document that says about this £590K payment. We all seem agreed on its existence, but there doesn't appear to be something to confirm it in writing anywhere.

If ACL chose to call in money from guarantors, then that should be deducted from amount owed. ACL should not be getting the money twice. Said guarantors may wish to pursue SISU for the monies however.

Apart from 'I love ACL' i think you've covered it.

So it's not their flag but it contains their logo, petition and campaign name.... If KCIC's message is simply SISU OUT - then why does Michael go to lengths to pretend it's not?

A bit like when everyone proclaims everything that comes out of Fisher's mouth is bullshit. Mentions the word liquidation though and suddenly it becomes scripture.

Oh yes - the 'pro-team' KCIC message otherwise known as SISU OUT. And you wonder why people think your message is confusing?

What do people think is the right level of revenue streams in the first instance? Obviously SISU would eventually want the lot - maybe they could achieve that by buying out ACL in the future, which may be the best way to circumvent other contracts and the like. I think as a starting point...

TBF Michael made an unnecessary dig at a relevant point Grendel made. That aside - any previous offer needs to be ignored and full clarity going forward on what each side wants and will accept.

Yes I agree that SISU could do the same. Clearly a sticking point would be what revenue streams, but maybe both need to state what they want/are prepared to give.