I may have this wrong, but my analysis from 10,000 feet (ignoring details) is..
SUSU's argument is that public funds were used in support of an attempt to distress a private company (ie CCFC).
CCC's defence is that there was no such conspiracy and funds were used to restructure the finances...
You can read that as the costs do not include stewards, crowd doctor, crowd ambulance & player ambulance,.he said the stadium provide these, he did not say that they were included in the rent. And the police are not mentioned, they may have a cost.
This effectively means that if SISU disagree with a media article it becomes a personal risk to pass a link or reference to that article whether their objections have merit or not.
It is a form of censorship IMHO as a body like SBT can't take a risk like that.
I see the CT have given the letter to the trust asking for the guardian link removal the publicity they feel it deserves..
NONE WHATSOEVER...
(ps happy to be proved wrong on that, if someone can find a link to the story)
The argument goes that if SISU spend £25M on a stadium but get some partner to fund half that they end up with an additional £12.5M debt, but an additional asset worth £25M and thereby enhance the sale value of the club. It is still a losing position, but one that is not so bad as presently...