I think even if ACL offered the Ricoh rent free SISU would not accept the offer, as they only want ownership.
To me ACL's main mistake was only offering the free rent whilst in admin. It showed that they were happy for admin to continue into the new season.
If they had offered it free up until say xmas for negotiations with any potential new owners to continue, it could've called SISU's bluff.
I've tried to understand this but nobody seems to know the real answer.
I understand it could not be offered as part of the CVA process but cannot understand why it could not be offered outside it.
They could have an agreement at 150K legally bound in with CCC/ACL accepting the CVA surely ?
PWKH has already said 'Sisu have moved on', they arent interested in talking.
I've tried to understand this but nobody seems to know the real answer.
I understand it could not be offered as part of the CVA process but cannot understand why it could not be offered outside it.
They could have an agreement at 150K legally bound in with CCC/ACL accepting the CVA surely ?
The way I've understood things is that ACL have only wanted to deal with CCFC Ltd, they do not recognise Holdings as the club. It's just infuriating that petty issues are stopping CCFC playing in the city.
Petty issues and the offer "never being legally made"!
It's also been alleged by MEP that on top of the rental offer that was not made CCC wanted to put on a £4 surcharge or levy on top of whatever price CCFC were going to charge and on an average gate of 10,000 this would have produced a further £1.5 million in revenue for the Council/ACL????
This idea of letting Sisu have the Ricoh (no doubt at their price) so they will then nice and easy sell on to a new owner, is beyond naive.
They are unethical incompetent bullies with a business strategy no one understands- which is very likely not in the interests of the club or city.
The idea of giving in to a bully so they will have want and go away is also none to pleasant.
The way I've understood things is that ACL have only wanted to deal with CCFC Ltd, they do not recognise Holdings as the club. It's just infuriating that petty issues are stopping CCFC playing in the city.
Yes but on Fishers own admission it was LTD that paid the ricoh rent so why would they deal with holdings it's a separate company and who's fault is that?
Are you sure ? I'm not.
Are they waiting for Ltd to be sorted before they offer the deal?
If they are why can't they tell Optium now ?
Petty issues and the offer "never being legally made"!
It's also been alleged by MEP that on top of the rental offer that was not made CCC wanted to put on a £4 surcharge or levy on top of whatever price CCFC were going to charge and on an average gate of 10,000 this would have produced a further £1.5 million in revenue for the Council/ACL????
Or perhaps original £1.2M rental divided by 12,000 attending divided by 25 games equals £4 contribution per person per game ?
It may be just playing on figures, we don't really know. But if we can't interrogate the facts we just hear it as we want too.
The surcharge was also mentioned on the FAQ's as part of the £400k per annum offer.
Or perhaps original £1.2M rental divided by 12,000 attending divided by 25 games equals £4 contribution per person per game ?
It may be just playing on figures, we don't really know. But if we can't interrogate the facts we just hear it as we want too.
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?