ACL Shoot themselves in the foot & The Fans in the Head (1 Viewer)

[thaiskyblue]

so that's all right then. :jerkit::jerkit:

 

---

[James Smith]

Well his facts are;

Ipswich pay £1.05 million a year less than we have been paying. Should the same logic regarding back pay apply to us do you think

And Ipswich play at the Ricoh do they? Payments are still being made for the completion of Portman Road are they? If you bother to take a look at the last offer ACL made which SISU rejected, our yearly rent would have been £485k which is a drop of about 63% (rounding up). This was the lowest they could offer based on the payments needed on the mortgage. They also allowed the rent arrears (or back rent) to be paid over ten years, so they did offer similar terms to the ones Ipswich got.

Doncaster pay £300,000 a year and have 100% access to all revenue streams - this was my original point anyway.

To whom do Doncaster Rovers pay £300,000? You obviously didn't read what I wrote

So Doncaster Rovers offered to run the stadium and take over the increased lease (now 99 years) for £100k per year.

http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threa...e-stadium-deal?p=413032&viewfull=1#post413032

They don't pay the council £300,000 anymore They have however taken on a stadium that was projected to make a roughly £300k loss each year and who knows they may have turned it around. I'd be interested to see whether they have or not.

Hull he seems to concur with me but their council it seems are a bit dim

I do not agree with what you wrote which is and I quote

Hull City were supposed to pay £500,000 a year and have on average paid £53,000 a year. They even seem to charge the council for using office space.

I can't find any evidence for the £500,000 a year claim but there is evidence that the council were due a percentage of the profits from the SMC which as it never made anything significant were almost nothing. You are almost correct about one thing in that statement the council did pay the SMC rent for offices which they should have stopped doing by now and vacated the offices.

Forest and Brighton we await the analysis.

Yeah bit busy today to do that, who knows maybe I'll find time.

So he his facts support my case that this council is greedy and disgusting.

That's your opinion only not a fact, None of those teams that you mentioned play at the Ricoh and their circumstances are often different to ours.

The one overriding difference of course is supporter attitude. The supporters in general backed the club 100%.

Don't get me wrong I support the club 100% just not SISU and especially not their attitude to negotiations/inaccurate public statements etc.

So Brighton and Forrest then.

As far as I can tell Brighton own their own ground at Falmer, known as The Amex Community stadium, so not sure why you mentioned them or where the council come in there.

Forrest is a very different Kettle of fish so to speak, and I've briefly looked into their financial arrangements which are interesting to say the least. Apparently Nottingham City Council have underwritten at least one loan made to the football club, which is interesting and not something I have to say I wholeheartedly approve of. The City Ground has been the home of Nottingham Forrest since 1898 and is owned by the City Council. The rent is very low and from what I've seen it is set around £85kper year but this lease is due to expire this year and new a new lease will have to be agreed if it hasn't already.

However it should be noted that the situation here is different from the one in Coventry. Firstly I strongly suspect that any council money that was used to obtain the ground in the first place is long since paid off, based on the length of time the ground has been in existence. If the lease was also a very long one then there is a good chance that the base rent will probably have been set quite low and possibly with no or very low increases to it. Also whilst we are (or were?) currently tenants at the Ricoh, we are not responsible for making improvements to it. Under the current arrangement as I understand them that would be down to ACL in our case. This is not the case at Forrest and from what I can gather as leaseholders for the entire ground are also responsible for any improvements/repairs to the ground. This may also help explain the lower rent payments and they have borrwed money in the past to make these improvements.

I base this on the fact that they borrowed money from Prudential M&G to build the Trend End stand which the council guaranteed. Sadly for Forrest fans then they defaulted on an interest payment to Prudential M&G and the council was forced to make the payment for them as guarantor of the loan. The council demanded the repayment of this money immediately and the club had to find the money somewhere, I've read it came from their transfer funds but have been unable to confirm that. At this time (in 2004) there were reccomendations from within the council about surrendering the lease on the ground etc. which can be read in this internal council report

So there again wholy different circumstances to the current situation at the Ricoh and CCFC.

 

[Grendel]

So Brighton and Forrest then.

As far as I can tell Brighton own their own ground at Falmer, known as The Amex Community stadium, so not sure why you mentioned them or where the council come in there.

Forrest is a very different Kettle of fish so to speak, and I've briefly looked into their financial arrangements which are interesting to say the least. Apparently Nottingham City Council have underwritten at least one loan made to the football club, which is interesting and not something I have to say I wholeheartedly approve of. The City Ground has been the home of Nottingham Forrest since 1898 and is owned by the City Council. The rent is very low and from what I've seen it is set around £85kper year but this lease is due to expire this year and new a new lease will have to be agreed if it hasn't already.

I am sure you would not agree with councils loaning and supporting a football club as a community asset. This is obvious from all your posts to date. The face it is the existing ground is irrelevant - what is relevant is the low rent for a very established Championship Ground

However it should be noted that the situation here is different from the one in Coventry. Firstly I strongly suspect that any council money that was used to obtain the ground in the first place is long since paid off, based on the length of time the ground has been in existence. If the lease was also a very long one then there is a good chance that the base rent will probably have been set quite low and possibly with no or very low increases to it. Also whilst we are (or were?) currently tenants at the Ricoh, we are not responsible for making improvements to it. Under the current arrangement as I understand them that would be down to ACL in our case. This is not the case at Forrest and from what I can gather as leaseholders for the entire ground are also responsible for any improvements/repairs to the ground. This may also help explain the lower rent payments and they have borrwed money in the past to make these improvements.

I have not seen the lease and neither have you. Even if the maintenance is the duty of ACL to seriously pass off the difference of £1.2 million per year in rent down to this is nonsense. The football club pay matchday costs in addition to this rent and have had no revenues either. To even hint that this arrangement is in anyway comparable or justifiable is frankly astonishing

I base this on the fact that they borrowed money from Prudential M&G to build the Trend End stand which the council guaranteed. Sadly for Forrest fans then they defaulted on an interest payment to Prudential M&G and the council was forced to make the payment for them as guarantor of the loan. The council demanded the repayment of this money immediately and the club had to find the money somewhere, I've read it came from their transfer funds but have been unable to confirm that. At this time (in 2004) there were reccomendations from within the council about surrendering the lease on the ground etc. which can be read in this internal council report

So there again wholy different circumstances to the current situation at the Ricoh and CCFC.

Ultimately every situation is different.

Who would you rather have as a council Nottingham or Coventry

BSB mentioned Brighton which is why I mentioned them.

 

[Wrenstreetcarpark]

Grendel you said: The football club pay matchday costs in addition to this rent and have had no revenues either. This is garbage. The licence fee covers match day costs, they are not in addition. CCFC has all advertising round the pitch, has car parking, day sponsorships, scoreboard advertising etc. Bollocks, but then when did the facts ever get in the way in your posts?

 

[James Smith]

So Brighton and Forrest then.

As far as I can tell Brighton own their own ground at Falmer, known as The Amex Community stadium, so not sure why you mentioned them or where the council come in there.

Forrest is a very different Kettle of fish so to speak, and I've briefly looked into their financial arrangements which are interesting to say the least. Apparently Nottingham City Council have underwritten at least one loan made to the football club, which is interesting and not something I have to say I wholeheartedly approve of. The City Ground has been the home of Nottingham Forrest since 1898 and is owned by the City Council. The rent is very low and from what I've seen it is set around £85kper year but this lease is due to expire this year and new a new lease will have to be agreed if it hasn't already.

I am sure you would not agree with councils loaning and supporting a football club as a community asset. This is obvious from all your posts to date. The face it is the existing ground is irrelevant - what is relevant is the low rent for a very established Championship Ground

However it should be noted that the situation here is different from the one in Coventry. Firstly I strongly suspect that any council money that was used to obtain the ground in the first place is long since paid off, based on the length of time the ground has been in existence. If the lease was also a very long one then there is a good chance that the base rent will probably have been set quite low and possibly with no or very low increases to it. Also whilst we are (or were?) currently tenants at the Ricoh, we are not responsible for making improvements to it. Under the current arrangement as I understand them that would be down to ACL in our case. This is not the case at Forrest and from what I can gather as leaseholders for the entire ground are also responsible for any improvements/repairs to the ground. This may also help explain the lower rent payments and they have borrwed money in the past to make these improvements.

I have not seen the lease and neither have you. Even if the maintenance is the duty of ACL to seriously pass off the difference of £1.2 million per year in rent down to this is nonsense. The football club pay matchday costs in addition to this rent and have had no revenues either. To even hint that this arrangement is in anyway comparable or justifiable is frankly astonishing.

I base this on the fact that they borrowed money from Prudential M&G to build the Trend End stand which the council guaranteed. Sadly for Forrest fans then they defaulted on an interest payment to Prudential M&G and the council was forced to make the payment for them as guarantor of the loan. The council demanded the repayment of this money immediately and the club had to find the money somewhere, I've read it came from their transfer funds but have been unable to confirm that. At this time (in 2004) there were reccomendations from within the council about surrendering the lease on the ground etc. which can be read in this internal council report

So there again wholy different circumstances to the current situation at the Ricoh and CCFC.

Ultimately every situation is different.

Who would you rather have as a council Nottingham or Coventry

BSB mentioned Brighton which is why I mentioned them.

Firstly please don't amalagamate your comments into mine, it is confusing to read and could make people think your arguments are mine which they certainly aren't.

No I don't agree with councils loaning football clubs money or even acting as guarantors for loans and I think the council report sums up perfectly the problems this can cause:

The default by NFFC on the interest instalment has placed the City Council in a difficult position, particularly as there is a risk of non-payment of the last interest instalment and principal, amounting to about £4.5m, due in June 2004

So as I understand it that could have left the council with an unbudgeted for hole in their finances of £4½m if the final interest payment and the money originally loaned was not repayed. Do you think that is fair on the taxpayers of Nottingham?

The fact that it is an exisiting ground is and probably has no money owing on it is very relevant. If there was no money left to pay off on the Ricoh then the situation might be similar, but here there is still money owing, millions of pounds - What if they don't support the Sky Blues but Man City or even Villa (there must be some). Do you think that the council tax payers in Coventry should be subsidising the football club in Coventry (which is what you are suggesting) by lowering the rent to below the value needed to meet the cost of the repayments? Are you seriously suggesting that?

And as for

supporting a football football club as a community asset

what do you think their (including but not limited to financial) support for building the Ricoh was?

ACL did offer to pass on the value of the lower repayments that they were making to the council by offering to reduce the rent to £485k. The fact that SISU by not paying their contractually obligated rent apparently made the Yorkshire Bank nervous enough about the loan to set up the need for the council to do what they did also requires consideration.

As you point out every situation is different and by saying that you've sort of shot your argument down as they are rarely if ever going to be comparable. Also the club do get revenues from matches and I wonder if you are making serious arguments anymore or just posting for the sake of it.

Which council would I rather have? Coventry Council thanks for asking, and which stadium? The lovely Ricoh Arena we have in Foleshill.

 

[Grendel]

Grendel you said: The football club pay matchday costs in addition to this rent and have had no revenues either. This is garbage. The licence fee covers match day costs, they are not in addition. CCFC has all advertising round the pitch, has car parking, day sponsorships, scoreboard advertising etc. Bollocks, but then when did the facts ever get in the way in your posts?

Er the rent is currently separate from matchday costs and all food and beverage goes to ACL. We have a portion of parking only and we get no revenue from the named ground sponsor.

Why are you so desperate to deny the club these?

Extraordinary for a fan.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Firstly please don't amalagamate your comments into mine, it is confusing to read and could make people think your arguments are mine which they certainly aren't.

No I don't agree with councils loaning football clubs money or even acting as guarantors for loans and I think the council report sums up perfectly the problems this can cause:


So as I understand it that could have left the council with an unbudgeted for hole in their finances of £4½m if the final interest payment and the money originally loaned was not repayed. Do you think that is fair on the taxpayers of Nottingham?

The fact that it is an exisiting ground is and probably has no money owing on it is very relevant. If there was no money left to pay off on the Ricoh then the situation might be similar, but here there is still money owing, millions of pounds - What if they don't support the Sky Blues but Man City or even Villa (there must be some). Do you think that the council tax payers in Coventry should be subsidising the football club in Coventry (which is what you are suggesting) by lowering the rent to below the value needed to meet the cost of the repayments? Are you seriously suggesting that?

ACL did offer to pass on the value of the lower repayments that they were making to the council by offering to reduce the rent to £485k. The fact that SISU by not paying their contractually obligated rent apparently made the Yorkshire Bank nervous enough about the loan to set up the need for the council to do what they did also requires consideration.

As you point out every situation is different and by saying that you've sort of shot your argument down as they are rarely if ever going to be comparable. Also the club do get revenues from matches and I wonder if you are making serious arguments anymore or just posting for the sake of it.

Which council would I rather have? Coventry Council thanks for asking, and which stadium? The lovely Ricoh Arena we have in Foleshill.

You don't inflate the rent to pay for your cost of borrowing though, that isn't how a market rent works.

 

[James Smith]

You don't inflate the rent to pay for your cost of borrowing though, that isn't how a market rent works.

Have they inflated the rent to pay for the cost of borrowing? I thought the rent was set according to something like the last rent at Highfield Road plus inflation - I haven't check this and am going on memory - which someone (PWKH maybe?) mentioned. CCFC agreed to this don't forget and SISU didn't ask to have it changed when they took over or as I understand it for a long time afterwards.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Have they inflated the rent to pay for the cost of borrowing? I thought the rent was set according to something like the last rent at Highfield Road plus inflation - I haven't check this and am going on memory - which someone (PWKH maybe?) mentioned. CCFC agreed to this don't forget and SISU didn't ask to have it changed when they took over or as I understand it for a long time afterwards.

You said it:

The fact that it is an exisiting ground is and probably has no money owing on it is very relevant. If there was no money left to pay off on the Ricoh then the situation might be similar, but here there is still money owing, millions of pounds

 

[James Smith]

You said it:

The fact that it is an exisiting ground is and probably has no money owing on it is very relevant. If there was no money left to pay off on the Ricoh then the situation might be similar, but here there is still money owing, millions of pounds

Yes I did and that quote (even taken out of context) doesn't mean that anyone has inflated the rent to pay for the cost of borrowing. What I was refering to was the fact that if there was no money outstanding on the stadium (as is probably the case with the City Ground) then ACL could charge as low a rent as they liked so long as they were generating enough to keep the Ricoh going. However there is money owing on the Ricoh and ACL still have to pay that off whether SISU are boycotting paying their rent or not.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Yes I did and that quote (even taken out of context) doesn't mean that anyone has inflated the rent to pay for the cost of borrowing. What I was refering to was the fact that if there was no money outstanding on the stadium (as is probably the case with the City Ground) then ACL could charge as low a rent as they liked so long as they were generating enough to keep the Ricoh going. However there is money owing on the Ricoh and ACL still have to pay that off whether SISU are boycotting paying their rent or not.

What point are you trying to make then?

So you're saying that if ACL's borrowing costs were lower, the rent could be lower?

Quality.

 

[Grendel]

Firstly please don't amalagamate your comments into mine, it is confusing to read and could make people think your arguments are mine which they certainly aren't.

I'll do what I like and will continue to do so

No I don't agree with councils loaning football clubs money or even acting as guarantors for loans and I think the council report sums up perfectly the problems this can cause:

But it is OK to secure a loan for the purpose of assisting the management company who according to media sources were under the threat of liquidation

So as I understand it that could have left the council with an unbudgeted for hole in their finances of £4½m if the final interest payment and the money originally loaned was not repayed. Do you think that is fair on the taxpayers of Nottingham?

I think it is unfair that the football club has been paying a disproportionately high rent for of a facility with restricted incomes. From a fans perspective I would approve. As a taxpayer I would be ambivalent.

The fact that it is an exisiting ground is and probably has no money owing on it is very relevant. If there was no money left to pay off on the Ricoh then the situation might be similar, but here there is still money owing, millions of pounds - What if they don't support the Sky Blues but Man City or even Villa (there must be some). Do you think that the council tax payers in Coventry should be subsidising the football club in Coventry (which is what you are suggesting) by lowering the rent to below the value needed to meet the cost of the repayments? Are you seriously suggesting that?

Interesting. That would suggest the £1.3 million pound arrangement was required to not pose additional payments to the taxpayer. Do you have evidence to suggest if the rent was lower the payments would have been reflected in additional council tax payments? Given that the first rent reduction was offered before the Yorkshire Bank loan was purchased how does that equate?

And as for

what do you think their (including but not limited to financial) support for building the Ricoh was?

ACL did offer to pass on the value of the lower repayments that they were making to the council by offering to reduce the rent to £485k. The fact that SISU by not paying their contractually obligated rent apparently made the Yorkshire Bank nervous enough about the loan to set up the need for the council to do what they did also requires consideration.

As you point out every situation is different and by saying that you've sort of shot your argument down as they are rarely if ever going to be comparable. Also the club do get revenues from matches and I wonder if you are making serious arguments anymore or just posting for the sake of it.

Is there a question there is just empty rhetoric?

Which council would I rather have? Coventry Council thanks for asking, and which stadium? The lovely Ricoh Arena we have in Foleshill.

Do you think a Nottingham Forest fan would swap their rental arrangement with ours?

As the independent 5 Live journalist stated "How the hell can Coventry council justify charging that rent to the football club"

I guess he just needs to looks at "supporters" like you to get the answer.

Hope you can sort your junk from mine. I've tried to make it easy for you.

 

[James Smith]

What point are you trying to make then?

So you're saying that if ACL's borrowing costs were lower, the rent could be lower?

Quality.

Yes that's it exactly and didn't PWKH make that point, someone certainly did. As I understand it because the Council are charging lower interest rates to ACL than the Yorkshire Bank, ACL were able now to reduce the rent charged to CCFC.

The rent was sorted out thus:

Someone asked how the rental was arrived at: in the final years at HR the lease plus costs was c£900,000. The cost of lease and licence at the Rioch followed that model. It was signed off by Robinson and Brannigan for the Club and Fletcher and McGuigan on behalf of ACL. It had been agreed by the Boards of both ACL and CCFC.

Please take up any arguments as to why the club agreed to that or SISU didn't ask to have it reduced shortly after taking over, with them not me - I wasn't in the negotiations

 

[fernandopartridge]

Yes that's it exactly and didn't PWKH make that point, someone certainly did. As I understand it because the Council are charging lower interest rates to ACL than the Yorkshire Bank, ACL were able now to reduce the rent charged to CCFC.

The rent was sorted out thus:



Please take up any arguments as to why the club agreed to that or SISU didn't ask to have it reduced shortly after taking over, with them not me - I wasn't in the negotiations

Thanks for confirming my point then.

You don't inflate the rent to pay for your cost of borrowing though, that isn't how a market rent works.

Although, that isn't how the rent was arrived at according to PWHK in any case, or is it?

 

[Wrenstreetcarpark]

Er the rent is currently separate from matchday costs and all food and beverage goes to ACL. We have a portion of parking only and we get no revenue from the named ground sponsor.

Why are you so desperate to deny the club these?

Extraordinary for a fan.

Grendel you can be relied on to add little digs with a superior nose in air attitude. You are wrong. The rent and licence fee are separate. The licence fee covers the matchday costs. For simplicity these get rolled together when people talk about £1.3m or whatever. So your post was wrong. Your reply is wrong. Get over it.

 

[James Smith]

Thanks for confirming my point then.



Although, that isn't how the rent was arrived at according to PWHK in any case, or is it?

I can only go on what gets reported in the CET or on here by PWKH, I don't have all the facts about this. I know nothing about commercial rents and the inner workings of the stadium financing. The closest I get to thousands of pounds is when I mistakenly enter the wrong amount in the till at work. If someone with a bigger brain than me wants to try and fathom this out go ahead, I only know what I've posted.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

I can only go on what gets reported in the CET or on here by PWKH, I don't have all the facts about this. I know nothing about commercial rents and the inner workings of the stadium financing. The closest I get to thousands of pounds is when I mistakenly enter the wrong amount in the till at work. If someone with a bigger brain than me wants to try and fathom this out go ahead, I only know what I've posted.

Well, you're doing darn well for a till jockey; if I was still in retail management, I'd hire yer! That was the best thing about the job actually, hiring people because they supported City, or I liked their political views or taste in music

 

[James Smith]

Well, you're doing darn well for a till jockey; if I was still in retail management, I'd hire yer! That was the best thing about the job actually, hiring people because they supported City, or I liked their political views or taste in music

Thank you.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Well, you're doing darn well for a till jockey; if I was still in retail management, I'd hire yer! That was the best thing about the job actually, hiring people because they supported City, or I liked their political views or taste in music

A till-jockey who signs-off in Latin, telling us those with the most empty heads make the most noise? I'm not thinking Poundland here.......

 

[James Smith]

A till-jockey who signs-off in Latin, telling us those with the most empty heads make the most noise? I'm not thinking Poundland here.......

Nope and I didn't always work in a shop! As for the Latin, Google Translate is a wonderful thing. :claping hands:

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Nope and I didn't always work in a shop! As for the Latin, Google Translate is a wonderful thing. :claping hands:

Ah. How fiendishly clever! I relied on what I could recall from school. However - now advised - I can proclaim:

piscatoribus, quae terra est twat

 

[Grendel]

A till-jockey who signs-off in Latin, telling us those with the most empty heads make the most noise? I'm not thinking Poundland here.......

Nor me. I'm thinking a shop run by the council - selling milk perhaps.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Nor me. I'm thinking a shop run by the council - selling milk perhaps.

Does Fisher think he's due a share of the profits?

 

[James Smith]

Nor me. I'm thinking a shop run by the council - selling milk perhaps.

Nope and for the avoidance of any further doubt, I don't work for and have never worked for CCFC (or any subsidiary company based in the UK or the cayman islands or anywhere else), ACL, Coventry City Council, the Civil Service etc. At the present time I don't live in Coventry or even in the Midlands - I am not Joy S, Tim F, PWKH, a god, God, David Cameron etc.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Does Fisher think he's due a share of the profits?

This is the way SISU work, they place managers into businesses and they get a cut of any profit made.. so this is Fisher's motivation.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Hope you can sort your junk from mine. I've tried to make it easy for you.

'How can the council justify charging that rent?'

1. The council is not ACL.

2. The club's board signed up to the rent of £1.3m and refused to allow it to vary depending upon league status.

3. A rent of £400k was agreed between both parties.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Nope and for the avoidance of any further doubt, I don't work for and have never worked for CCFC (or any subsidiary company based in the UK or the cayman islands or anywhere else), ACL, Coventry City Council, the Civil Service etc. At the present time I don't live in Coventry or even in the Midlands - I am not Joy S, Tim F, PWKH, a god, God, David Cameron etc.

I like the distinction between God and a god. Very Roman of you

Best Latin I can think of is a phrase my great grand-dad taught me when I was about 7, which I loved because I thought it was posh swearing, not to mention a working class tribute to perseverance ; nil illegitimi carborundum.

Now Wikipedia tells me he was totally wrong, but I guess in General Stillwell, he was in good company!

 

[Spencer]

Firstly please don't amalagamate your comments into mine, it is confusing to read and could make people think your arguments are mine which they certainly aren't.

No I don't agree with councils loaning football clubs money or even acting as guarantors for loans and I think the council report sums up perfectly the problems this can cause:


So as I understand it that could have left the council with an unbudgeted for hole in their finances of £4½m if the final interest payment and the money originally loaned was not repayed. Do you think that is fair on the taxpayers of Nottingham?

The fact that it is an exisiting ground is and probably has no money owing on it is very relevant. If there was no money left to pay off on the Ricoh then the situation might be similar, but here there is still money owing, millions of pounds - What if they don't support the Sky Blues but Man City or even Villa (there must be some). Do you think that the council tax payers in Coventry should be subsidising the football club in Coventry (which is what you are suggesting) by lowering the rent to below the value needed to meet the cost of the repayments? Are you seriously suggesting that?

And as for

what do you think their (including but not limited to financial) support for building the Ricoh was?

ACL did offer to pass on the value of the lower repayments that they were making to the council by offering to reduce the rent to £485k. The fact that SISU by not paying their contractually obligated rent apparently made the Yorkshire Bank nervous enough about the loan to set up the need for the council to do what they did also requires consideration.

As you point out every situation is different and by saying that you've sort of shot your argument down as they are rarely if ever going to be comparable. Also the club do get revenues from matches and I wonder if you are making serious arguments anymore or just posting for the sake of it.

Which council would I rather have? Coventry Council thanks for asking, and which stadium? The lovely Ricoh Arena we have in Foleshill.

Have you been to the City Ground?

It is in a prime real estate location within West Bridgford. I would guess the land value there is 5 times that attributed to the Ricoh.

From a fans perspective it is ideally located next to good pubs and a short walk from the train station.

I'd much prefer the City Ground.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I like the distinction between God and a god. Very Roman of you

Best Latin I can think of is a phrase my great grand-dad taught me when I was about 7, which I loved because I thought it was posh swearing, not to mention a working class tribute to perseverance ; nil illegitimi carborundum.

Now Wikipedia tells me he was totally wrong, but I guess in General Stillwell, he was in good company!

I did Latin for 7 years at school (ended up being my best subject) and one thing I remember was the school library having a dictionary by Catullus of every Latin innuendo/'rude word'. Part of me thinks it must still be available

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Have you been to the City Ground?

It is in a prime real estate location within West Bridgford. I would guess the land value there is 5 times that attributed to the Ricoh.

From a fans perspective it is ideally located next to good pubs and a short walk from the train station.

I'd much prefer the City Ground.

Apologies for being facetious, but...go and support Forest, then!

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Apologies for being facetious, but...go and support Forest, then!

He was right on one count though-why on Earth the Ricoh still hasn't got a train station when the tracks go right past it has never made any sense. It'd almost certainly give a small boost to crowds for one thing and would majorly ease up on the nightmare of parking.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

I did Latin for 7 years at school (ended up being my best subject) and one thing I remember was the school library having a dictionary by Catullus of every Latin innuendo/'rude word'. Part of me thinks it must still be available

Best we had in our library was Colloquial Arabic, written sometime in the 1940's. It was entirely filled with useless seeming, often entirely incongruous and surreal phrases, such as "excuse me, there is no horse in my house". We didn't do Latin, but I did get the chance to study Ancient History, which was absolutely bloody brilliant. Our teachers of the subject were husband and wife, the bloke being a larger than life character who probably thought he was an ancient Greek reincarnated, the woman being one of the calmest and gentlest people I've ever met (possibly as a coping mechanism for her bonkers hubby). He made us watch I Claudius and spent 4 weeks teaching us basic Ancient Greek (the language), even though neither were on the syllabus and we fell behind our schedule, because he thought it would "benefit our all-round education"

 

[Grendel]

Apologies for being facetious, but...go and support Forest, then!

He was responded to a comment by our Latin expert who claimed the Ricoh a better football venue than the city ground. It isn't and its certainly not worth £1.1 million a year extra in rent.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

He was responded to a comment by our Latin expert who claimed the Ricoh a better football venue than the city ground. It isn't and its certainly not worth £1.1 million a year extra in rent.

He sounded like he was cruising for a "well, if you love Forest so much, why don't you marry them?" type comment. But then you are utterly humourless, aintchya? :laugh:

 

[Spencer]

He was right on one count though-why on Earth the Ricoh still hasn't got a train station when the tracks go right past it has never made any sense. It'd almost certainly give a small boost to crowds for one thing and would majorly ease up on the nightmare of parking.

I think you'll find I was right on all counts.