Offer made through fl you may have forgotten mate
It did edgy it was all part of the original agreement that should have been renegotiated when they took over rather than just refusing to pay. Surely?
honestly some people! how many people would turn up for that game do you think at the ricoh? I don't know how many they get but it cant be more than an absolute maximum of a couple of thousand? if that?
HMMMMMMMMM!!!! Let me just think...god I wonder why they wouldn't have been charged the same amount? Gee.....i just can't put my finger on it.
Some right fucking idiots on here. On both sides of the pathetic little debate
honestly some people! how many people would turn up for that game do you think at the ricoh? I don't know how many they get but it cant be more than an absolute maximum of a couple of thousand? if that?
HMMMMMMMMM!!!! Let me just think...god I wonder why they wouldn't have been charged the same amount? Gee.....i just can't put my finger on it.
Some right fucking idiots on here. On both sides of the pathetic little debate
Imagine fans of other clubs coming out with this apologist rubbish!!
Playing in another town is wrong. Full stop. Backing that in any way, shape or form is wrong.
There is no rational reason for playing at Sixfields. is utter madness.
It's just a ploy to try and force ACL out.
Sisu, why don't they just pay the going rate for a 50% share and we can move on?
Answer, they'd rather lose £5 million a season to get it for next to nothing.
Christians, my backside.
No, but some, yourself included, will far more readily criticize or blame CCC/ACL for the mess we are in, when those that chose to leave the Ricoh are seemingly exempt from blame.I have not seen anyone on here backing SISU or sticking up for them. If you dare to state that other parties are to blame as well then it automatically equates that you support SISU.
No, but some, yourself included, will far more readily criticize or blame CCC/ACL for the mess we are in, when those that chose to leave the Ricoh are seemingly exempt from blame.
Playing in another town is wrong. Full stop. Backing that in any way, shape or form is wrong.
There is no rational reason for playing at Sixfields. It is utter madness.
It's just a ploy to try and force ACL out.
Sisu, why don't they just pay the going rate for a 50% share and we can move on?
Answer, they'd rather lose £5 million a season to get it for next to nothing.
Christians, my backside.
What is the going rate?
honestly some people! how many people would turn up for that game do you think at the ricoh? I don't know how many they get but it cant be more than an absolute maximum of a couple of thousand? if that?
HMMMMMMMMM!!!! Let me just think...god I wonder why they wouldn't have been charged the same amount? Gee.....i just can't put my finger on it.
Some right fucking idiots on here. On both sides of the pathetic little debate
Did the rent at the Ricoh include the office space, shop ticket office etc? as well as the pitch and seating etc.
Was 4 million agreed by both sides?
I'm sure I read somewhere that the club owned the shop and that's why Jimmy hill is where he is. Might be wrong though.
Why didn't the rent drop in line with the average gate then? Or is that an idiotic question?
Why didn't the rent drop in line with the average gate then? Or is that an idiotic question?
You're right it is. The reason it is, is that we are talking about matchday costs in a new deal, not the agreed costs in a long defunct deal that some can't help bringing up.
You could ask: hey: why didn't the club agree a deal that changed with attendance? That wouldn't be a stupid question, just an irrelevant one. Problem is, no-one who knows the answer is talking, and it doesn't help us move forward. If you want an answer, my best guess is that the club believed they'd be back in the Prem in no time. Hence the rejection of the sliding scale based on league position, hence the deal being set up for a club with 20k+ crowds.
Oh wait, I mean, I'm sure the council stole it all while twiddling their moustache. That's the answer you want, right?
You're right it is. The reason it is, is that we are talking about matchday costs in a new deal, not the agreed costs in a long defunct deal that some can't help bringing up.
You could ask: hey: why didn't the club agree a deal that changed with attendance? That wouldn't be a stupid question, just an irrelevant one. Problem is, no-one who knows the answer is talking, and it doesn't help us move forward. If you want an answer, my best guess is that the club believed they'd be back in the Prem in no time. Hence the rejection of the sliding scale based on league position, hence the deal being set up for a club with 20k+ crowds.
Oh wait, I mean, I'm sure the council stole it all while twiddling their moustache. That's the answer you want, right?
I was responding back directly the point the poster made, that rent and attendances are linked.
Not necessary really is It ,sure Shmmeee Is old enough and educated enough to think for himself ,I mean you don't know me and I don't know you ,how has his Identitiy or that of his dad become public on here by the way.
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?