have our council done enough (1 Viewer)

[grego_gee]

The council have the power to solve this problem of where we play and put the people first if they really want it to happen.

Going back to the op, I think the council have been very oportunistic in jumping into the Arena project and taking it out of the hands of the club who instigated the project. It is generally overlooked that the project grew into much more that just a football stadium.
Stokes stadium only cost £30m the Ricoh Arena as a whole cost over £110m. I think the rent of over £1m was always over the top and influenced by the whole project cost, when we only rent the turf and seats and then only on matchdays.

imp:

 

---

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Plenty were lauding SISU and were proud of their reputation. Some were even proud of what was reported in that article about the court case. They were regarded as 'hard-nosed business people', who would stop the club being messed about. It even went as far as goading Southampton for not accepting SISU's offer of a takeover and saying how lucky we were.

A lot of the most pro-sisu lot are now the ones who label others who don't support the council 100% as 'sisu rent boys'. Whereas a lot of the rent boys who were sceptical in the first place were originally labelled as traitors for questioning sisu. How times change, eh?

But I wasn't, so I don't feel any guilt about those who were! And as for those people-can't you see that the worse thing that they are guilty of is naivety? They wanted the best for their club but couldn't see past the "we're saved, hurrah!" aspect of being owned by a Hedge Fund.


I also think your assertion is a bit of an Urban Legend; I don't know of these "turncoat" SISU fans. I know Lord never liked them, and he still doesn't but attacks ACL instead now because he likes to swim against the popular flow....Torch liked them because "we had no option but them", and he's stuck to his guns. Who else? Frankly, who cares? It's a bit stalker-like to be taking such an interest in individual posters over a period of 5 years if you ask me!

 

[torchomatic]

I just do it because I'm a ####.

But I wasn't, so I don't feel any guilt about those who were! And as for those people-can't you see that the worse thing that they are guilty of is naivety? They wanted the best for their club but couldn't see past the "we're saved, hurrah!" aspect of being owned by a Hedge Fund.


I also think your assertion is a bit of an Urban Legend; I don't know of these "turncoat" SISU fans. I know Lord never liked them, and he still doesn't but attacks ACL instead now because he likes to swim against the popular flow....Torch liked them because "we had no option but them", and he's stuck to his guns. Who else? Frankly, who cares? It's a bit stalker-like to be taking such an interest in individual posters over a period of 5 years if you ask me!

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Going back to the op, I think the council have been very oportunistic in jumping into the Arena project and taking it out of the hands of the club who instigated the project. It is generally overlooked that the project grew into much more that just a football stadium.
Stokes stadium only cost £30m the Ricoh Arena as a whole cost over £110m. I think the rent of over £1m was always over the top and influenced by the whole project cost, when we only rent the turf and seats and then only on matchdays.

imp:

It always was, that was the point, at least according to Richardson-to make more money out of it than we ever could Highfield Road.

 

[grego_gee]

It always was, that was the point, at least according to Richardson-to make more money out of it than we ever could Highfield Road.

Yes but!

Now the council own it, its the council making more money out of it - including out of the footbal club!

All the club needs to rent is the turf and the seats.

imp:

 

[SydneySkyBlue]

Plenty were lauding SISU and were proud of their reputation. Some were even proud of what was reported in that article about the court case. They were regarded as 'hard-nosed business people', who would stop the club being messed about. It even went as far as goading Southampton for not accepting SISU's offer of a takeover and saying how lucky we were.

A lot of the most pro-sisu lot are now the ones who label others who don't support the council 100% as 'sisu rent boys'. Whereas a lot of the rent boys who were sceptical in the first place were originally labelled as traitors for questioning sisu. How times change, eh?

and there are some who cannot comprehend the idea that people might agree with one set of actions and, later, disagree with others.

NB: Something Ranson and Hoffman did and subsequently resigned.

 

[SydneySkyBlue]

IMO the Council would be more forthcoming with any concessions if they trusted the club's owners. Had they jumped into bed with them the minute they took over we'd be in a lot more trouble.