Interesting. So if a new owner came in and said - right I'm putting £10 million into the club but this rent sucks and will only agree £100,000 what side will you be in if ACL say no? Where is your REAL loyalty dale? Club or council quango?
Interesting. So if a new owner came in and said - right I'm putting £10 million into the club but this rent sucks and will only agree £100,000 what side will you be in if ACL say no? Where is your REAL loyalty dale? Club or council quango?
Not going to support a new owner making unreasonable rent demands if it means that ACL ends up in administration because they're getting less in than the payments going out, you can't run a business like that it will go bust. However I would hope that an agreement could be reached where the rent was reduced as income from other ACL sources made it possible - as happened when the council bought the mortgage.
It would be better for everyone is ACL didn't exist. The club owning ALL the stadium and not being the slaves of the Council is the best solution for Coventry City and its fans.
It would be better for everyone is ACL didn't exist. The club owning ALL the stadium and not being the slaves of the Council is the best solution for Coventry City and its fans.
It would be better for everyone is ACL didn't exist. The club owning ALL the stadium and not being the slaves of the Council is the best solution for Coventry City and its fans.
No, the stadium needs to be owned by a third party. A council with a public responsibility is ideal.
That's different to the club needing the ability to take advantage of the stadium more than it does at the moment, and that's where ACL existing can work as the vehicle it was originally intended to, to give the club that ability. Maybe not existing in its present form, but its existence is not a negative in itself.