sw88
Chief Commentator!
We know all to well about the FL using their discretion against what is in black and white aka the rule book!
The FL rules are that you can't move grounds mid season. However the FL have said this rule can be discretionary and they would support city going back to the Ricoh as long as it was a permanent or long term deal.
We know all to well about the FL using their discretion against what is in black and white aka the rule book!
I'm not sure ACL are depriving them of their right to appeal, they are just exercising their own right not to enter any negotiations with a company who as the judge implied is trying to drive them out of business. Yes SISU have rights ,but so do ACL. Not sure why you would think any quick appeal would benefit the club. Firstly it hardly helps heal the divide, and secondly what evidence is there of any different result next time round, unless you are suggesting the High Court Judge was serially incompetent. Most people wil see it as SISU desperately clutching at strawsThey should continue with The JR because appeal is a corner stone in the legal system. The appeal mechanism is there to protect you and me - everyone. To deprive sisu their right to appeal is simply wrong.
If they are granted right to appeal soon it could potentially benefit the club, but if they have to go to the EU commission it might just take too long. Still they have the right to do it - and they should.
But it's not a bargaining tool as ACL could still refinance elsewhere now that they are ticking over in 'safe mode'.
IMHO the £590K would further secure the business case and I believe SISU know this, hence the reluctance to hand it over.
As a CCFC fan it would be nice if CCC said we give up and CCFC can have the Ricoh bowl and all within it for a silly £20M.
But in reality this is not going to happen so SISU need to take this on board.
CCC/ACL need to understand the long term problems of the club and accommodate them as best they can.
I'm not sure ACL are depriving them of their right to appeal, they are just exercising their own right not to enter any negotiations with a company who as the judge implied is trying to drive them out of business. Yes SISU have rights ,but so do ACL. Not sure why you would think any quick appeal would benefit the club. Firstly it hardly helps heal the divide, and secondly what evidence is there of any different result next time round, unless you are suggesting the High Court Judge was serially incompetent. Most people wil see it as SISU desperately clutching at straws
Anybody would reject a CVA when you were guaranteed the payment regardless
I fully agree both have rights. ACL have the right to issue their ultimatum. Sisu have rights to appeal.
Now how do we get them to the table without taking away their rights?
It can't work. Something have to give.
So the next question - can the club play at the Ricoh while sisu pursue their appeals?
Yes agree something has to give, but why should it be ACL who make the concession. Just because SISU demand it, doesn't mean they should get it.I fully agree both have rights. ACL have the right to issue their ultimatum. Sisu have rights to appeal.
Now how do we get them to the table without taking away their rights?
It can't work. Something have to give.
So the next question - can the club play at the Ricoh while sisu pursue their appeals?
What's factually incorrect?Laughable and factually incorrect. Sorry
What if ACL said to sisu yes you can come back but the rent is 600k. Then what?
As said Peterborough pay 300k rent for a dump and we pay 175k for a dump ourselves so ACL are entitled to ask for 5-600k no?
So what then do sisu carry on at Northampton regardless and suffer themselves?
My 2 points are the Ricoh is miles better than London road at 300k and point 2 is even at 600k sisu would make millions more as a fact.
If they want 175k rent I wouldn't blame ACL for saying no chance.
LaughableWhat if ACL said to sisu yes you can come back but the rent is 600k. Then what?
As said Peterborough pay 300k rent for a dump and we pay 175k for a dump ourselves so ACL are entitled to ask for 5-600k no?
So what then do sisu carry on at Northampton regardless and suffer themselves?
My 2 points are the Ricoh is miles better than London road at 300k and point 2 is even at 600k sisu would make millions more as a fact.
If they want 175k rent I wouldn't blame ACL for saying no chance.
The ground itself is irrelevant in determining costs to rent - its demand. Who would pay that - no one?
Swansea pay very little and forest and Ipswich pay less than £175,000 - are they poor grounds?
What if ACL said to sisu yes you can come back but the rent is 600k. Then what?
As said Peterborough pay 300k rent for a dump and we pay 175k for a dump ourselves so ACL are entitled to ask for 5-600k no?
So what then do sisu carry on at Northampton regardless and suffer themselves?
My 2 points are the Ricoh is miles better than London road at 300k and point 2 is even at 600k sisu would make millions more as a fact.
If they want 175k rent I wouldn't blame ACL for saying no chance.
What's factually incorrect?
In Godiva's world he thinks it perfectly feasible for Acl to accept 175k a year deal and also allow Sisu to continue to sue !
but my point is ACL can charge sisu want they want. It would still be millions better than sixfields. ACL would know this so why wouldn't they?
Also are you crazy of course the stadium is of relevance. Show a player round the Ricoh or a sponsor or show them round sixfields. Come on. You get what you pay for in life. A primark pair of jeans or an Armani pair. Simple really.
You're not a divEverything you say.
It is irrelevant - it's down to supply and demand. I repeat Swansea, Ipswich and the City Ground have less rental costs than £175,000. I think you will find they match the Ricoh for concerts and are easily impressive enough for sponsors. Without the club it seems there will be no sponsor and that revenue will be pocketed by ACL.
At the moment they have no tenant and no tenant on the horizon so they are not in a great bargaining position themselves.
Disagree ACL are not desperate but SISU are very desperate, the folly of Sixfields and the lost revenues and the lost court cases SISU need the Ricoh more than ACL need CCFC. Supply & demand - when there is not a proper market for football grounds is nonsense.
So no sponsor after next year, no revenue from the largest fixed out and bills for continued maintenance isn't a problem? If its that great why haven't they attracted another sports franchise and got them to pay £600,000?
ACL still aren't desperate or to put it another way not as desperate as SISU, SISU without the stadium will eventually cease to exist, IMO that is desperation
Sisu will not cease to exist - the club will - and you'd be hard pressed to spin an argument that ACL will be funding a loan on a ground for 43 years with no tenant.
If the club does cease to exist do you think that there is no chance of a pheonix club wanting to play there?
Why the insistence that the case is dropped then?
It is irrelevant - it's down to supply and demand. I repeat Swansea, Ipswich and the City Ground have less rental costs than £175,000. I think you will find they match the Ricoh for concerts and are easily impressive enough for sponsors. Without the club it seems there will be no sponsor and that revenue will be pocketed by ACL.
At the moment they have no tenant and no tenant on the horizon so they are not in a great bargaining position themselves.
Sisu will not cease to exist - the club will - and you'd be hard pressed to spin an argument that ACL will be funding a loan on a ground for 43 years with no tenant.
It's a contract between ACL and Compass. The club can only ask those companies if they agree the club can have the F/B revenue.
But this thread again illuminates the fundamental issues of having the club and ACL owned by two different owners with two different objectives.
The club will always exist in some form. Just waiting to see how low Sisu take us then we can restart.
Do Glasgow Rangers still exist ?
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?