Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Then let's take a more accurate example-paying rent on an apartment.
'Sorry I've not paid my rent for the last year, but I chipped in for the water bill, so it's basically the same isn't it?'
Because it is not like paying a mortgage. If you know you are the only tenant who will ever pay the rent and you dont pay then the Bank will far more understanding,
Because it is not like paying a mortgage. If you know you are the only tenant who will ever pay the rent and you dont pay then the Bank will far more understanding,
Accept that Dude but the total loaned to prop up losses must be near or past the £50m mark now; that's a sum of money which is just too big to write off I feel.
Lmfao...you mean much like you do when someone has the opposite view to you???
like your argument about 4-5-1 having more wins than 4-4-2???
Seeing as 4-4-2 has been played approx 5 times in the league this year...remind me again...how many games have we played in the league up to now??????
Talk about stating the obvious ffs!
BUT!!! let's take these games into consideration. The ratio of games won whilst playing 4-4-2 totally blitzes 4-5-1 or any other combination of formations.
You're a self opinionated twat m8....you prove that everytime someone disagrees with your post. If you put across your opinion...no problem, but you don't just do that do you!!! You try to force your view on everyone. Won't work with me pal. :jerkit:
If only ACL did to.
If that 50 million was in assets I'd agree with you; however all they lose by walking now is a continual spiral of more debt. I also wonder about their outlay; someone, some time ago, inferred that some form of separate company account supplied a substancial amount of club income. At the time I didn't understand how that could work and who is liable for it; but finance is a strange world with varied avenues.
I see, so when Marlon King scored a goal your first thought was how this affected his victims when he celebrated in front of his adoring fans?
When we had not paid for Leon Best you wrote to Southampton expressing support.
If not you are a disgusting filthy hypocrite -- so which is it?
Who was it who decided upon contract breaking as a negotiating tactic?
They lose any hope of the money being recouped-and there is also a big cost to their reputation in the finance world as a result of this and all the hugely negative publicity attached to it. We know very little of their investors though and if they're happy to write off the cash then we've had it unless another buyer is found.
No. But it was them who charged them a whopping, massive, over-inflated rent 8 years ago. Regardless of whether the fools in charge of our Club agreed with it at the time it was still out of order. I wonder why PWHK or whatever he's called never says who decided on this shocking figure.
The club excepted they were in the wrong about owing Southampton money. They didn't sign a contract to buy him and then say "actually we don't want to pay that."
Who was it who decided upon contract breaking as a negotiating tactic?
They lose any hope of the money being recouped-and there is also a big cost to their reputation in the finance world as a result of this and all the hugely negative publicity attached to it. We know very little of their investors though and if they're happy to write off the cash then we've had it unless another buyer is found.
Why sign the contract? No one forced them to move to the Ricoh.
I think the point is the sickening hypocritical "it's more than football, it's all about being moral and good, etc, etc". No one on here complained about us not paying Southampton the money we owed them. I don't remember MM, Cj, SBK and yourself fainting like a lady in Pride and Prejudice when that happened.
In the 4-5-1 v 4-4-2 argument, I have facts (a word you don't quite know the definition of) that back my argument up... You have zilch, nout, jack diddly squat, nothing! Schmuck.
Come on then twat back up your figures and FACTS!
You talk out of your arse pal. You prove to me and everyone else on this forum that we've played 18 league games with 4-4-2.
Thorn didn't know what 4-4-2 was....Shaw played the tried and trusted Thorn formation. "Mr Sky Blue Blood" played Goldie, then Clarke up front on their own, till Clarke lost his way and McSheff 2 games and Elliott 3 games played ALONGSIDE him.
Then again what am I proving anything to you for? I'm the one telling you to prove your facts and figures.....Carry on then...!:jerkit:
No. But it was them who charged them a whopping, massive, over-inflated rent 8 years ago. Regardless of whether the fools in charge of our Club agreed with it at the time it was still out of order. I wonder why PWHK or whatever he's called never says who decided on this shocking figure.
But the sad fact is Torch that this is a mess of the club's own making. You know the story very well so I won't repeat it-thinking more on the present, even Fisher himself has declared ACL's rent offer to be satisfactory; it is the revenues he is haggling over to satisfy FFP. He has also muted the possibility of building a new ground (total nonsense), but if the funding for that could be found, then surely it could also be found to acquire the Higgs' 50% shareholding and thus make the club a part of ACL?
If only ACL did to.
If sisu decide to walk they wave goodbye to what I think is now about £47m which strikes me as a heck of a hit to take. Is another option that they settle the current dispute, then do further cost cutting to reach break even point asap so there are no more financial losses (irrespective of what that means on the pitch) and wait and see if someone does at some point come along and make an offer?
I agree. It was a mess of the Club's own making, but not SISUs. Sure, they have compounded the situation but the seed was sown by BR and MM.
As for the new ground. No, it won't happen, and I for one wish it was. For the money we would have to give Higgs or half of the stadium we could probably be well on the way to building our own smaller, more fit-for-purpose stadium. Without ownership of their own ground the club has no future. I can't see why fans of the Club wouldn't want that to happen. But there you go.
SISU, but don't mistaken me, I have never said SISU have acted in a moral way. Morality in the boardroom doesn't exist, the same applies to ACL as well as SISU.
But the sad fact is Torch that this is a mess of the club's own making. You know the story very well so I won't repeat it-thinking more on the present, even Fisher himself has declared ACL's rent offer to be satisfactory; it is the revenues he is haggling over to satisfy FFP. He has also muted the possibility of building a new ground (total nonsense), but if the funding for that could be found, then surely it could also be found to acquire the Higgs' 50% shareholding and thus make the club a part of ACL?
1) putting aside the ACL v SISU debate for a second, isn't everyone just sick of this who shit? I can't remember the last time we could just talk about football without having to debate finance
2) If SISU can't succeed in bullying the council into more concessions, they should just leave - nobody will benefit by them staying, not even themselves.
I somehow doubt their reputation, in terms of his particular project, can sink any further to be honest.
And here lies a point; why did they never buy that 50% when pastures were greener. Personally, I don't believe they could afford to therefore, for the same reason, a new stadium is but an empty threat.
They can sell at any time-all of the club's debts are in effect in the form of loans from SISU investors. If they are happy for any amount of that to be written off, then the club's debt goes down accordingly. No investor I imagine would be willing to give them 100% of the money back, which I think SISU realistically have to accept, but if they were to offer say even just a quarter of it (£12m), this is still a lot better than what they'd get from liquidating the club. It's all in their hands really.
And here lies a point; why did they never buy that 50% when pastures were greener. Personally, I don't believe they could afford to therefore, for the same reason, a new stadium is but an empty threat.
Whilst the moral debate is very interesting; I think we can all agree, in the business sense, the stance of 'non-payment' is not looking an intelligent tactic as things stand?
Or is anyone out there suggesting it is?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?