Search results

At Ricoh they got ticket sales, pitch side sponsorship and 1 section of the car parking. That was it. Everything else went to ACL. It's not necessarily about what they get at Sixfields, but more about what they didn't get at Ricoh. That's not to mention all the other non- matchday revenue...

I thought the counter-claim was ridiculous too, as was the original claim. I have no idea why either party thought it was worth going to court over. My only thought about SISU's actions was that the counter-claim was a smoke screen.. they just wanted to get some info into the public domain and...

That'll be why they won't accept. They want access to revenue streams. And if you think it's just a bit of pie money, you haven't really grasped how this issue is so important in the dispute. If it's just pie money - why are ACL so intent on keeping hold of it?

I agree with you - the sale of the 50% share was catastrophic. SISU not buying back upon taking over was equally catastrophic. I would like to know if they had the option to buy it at that point, and if it was why they didn't it. And equally if it wasn't why not? I think this shows the lack of...

I can't give you an exact number, but probably at least 50. Now in the grand scheme of things that's not a lot, but we are talking about active Twitter users that post on CCFC. I have no idea how that transposes on other social media and then more generally.

Yet the headline suggested that they went and actively pursued Higgs. Which is not true. Would SISU have launched a claim against Higgs in the first instance? Doubt it.

I agree with you on this. Perhaps the reason why we can't get an answer on this is because we are talking a lot of future events, which they can almost deflect by saying we will let you know when we have a site confirmed etc - which is total bollocks on their part, and not exactly helping them...

Yes it is clear once you get half way into the article. But the headline and sub-headline imply a slightly different context. And as I have already tried to explain, a lot of people will go no further than the headline and sub-headline before deciding their opinion. This is my point. You go an...

I never said there was an issue about council building Ricoh. Loads of councils build stadia for their sporting team, and in the case of Sixfields it is a community asset owned by the council. The difference is that all the others make it work because there are sensible plans in terms of revenue...

What is the detail on the revenue access? That's probably the reason why they won't accept.

olderskyblue - This is 2 I was referring to yesterday.

Amount of times NBC have bailed out Sixfields complex....... Zero

I wish this had happened too. I also remember the season when Leicester were relegated instead of us, and thinking as much as I was happy - we should have gone down. We may well have been in a much better place now.

How about this one? http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/fans-poll-shows-huge-chunk-6930683 That epically huge poll of how many.... 397 people? My personal favourite is the one from the beginning of the season where he publicly humiliates 2 twitter users for saying they would...

Most of his stories are the same. Big explosive headline... Then the finer detail tells it slightly different. My point is that people will just read headline and form their opinion. You only have to look on a Twitter to see that happens frequently. The fact that £136 was donated to that...

I explained this in another thread, but if you take the article on the recent court case, the way he structured his headline, and sub headline implied it was SISU that took Higgs to court, not the other way round.

The main reason I just appear to have Higgs/ACL questions is because everything that SISU has done has been scrutinised, analysed and deconstructed. What's Higgs/ACL have been doing has generally gone under the media radar. That's why I have the questions primarily for them. One thing I do...

I'm not saying he is hiding facts, but he presents them in a way that is not entirely accurate, and often adapts the context of his pieces. He did also go big on that ridiculous Highfield Group thing yesterday....

That could well be true. His name is on the article though.

Yeah - they got it... Or certainly that's what the documents says. But it was only £6.7m. The link is on Pg 21 I think... Save you wading.