Yes, the rent could have been renegotiated as part of the due diligence leading to the take over. But a few things were quite different back then.
First of all - the business plan was made by Ranson. Not sisu. And his focus was to take us to PL and so I think he didn't even think about the rent.
Next - nobody really understood the reality of the financial crunch. How different almost everything was going to be.
Also - The yearly budget was so much bigger back then than it is now, and so the rent was a smaller percentage of the overall cost.
The annual budget was larger then due to the fact that we were in a higher division. Relegation not being ACL's fault. Crowds - per se - haven't changed over that time. Looking at the championship in the year SISU took over, 2007-08, the average gate was 17,172, and last year being 17,105. So, if we hadn't been relegated, budgets wouldn't be as big an issue as crowds over the term haven't really changed by virtue of 'financial crunch', only by playing in a lower division.
Ranson was SISU's man. As such, his actions were their actions. At the time they took over the club, we were 8 points above the relegation zone, and 10 points away from the automatic promotion spots. Accordingly as part of thier due diligence, to not factor in the effect of relegation and to only look up the table was inept. Again, the season SISU took over, League One attendances averaged 8,182, and last season 8,754 so it's no 'moving target' or surprise package we're talking about here. Going down was always going to be painful.
The reality was that we were closer to a League One club than a Premiership club at the time SISU bought in, and they failed to factor in the loss of 9K supporters from average gates into the due diligence thinking. And nothing else has charged here - the additional income stream they now claim they need wasn't on the table them, and hasn't been on the table up until now.
So, SISU did not inherit this position. They had a chance to renegotiate and failed to do so. They have to accept some responsibility for where we currently are.
Now, is the rent too high? Yes. Evidently so. Does it need to come down for the good of the club, again yes. But ACL does have a contract - verified in Birmingham's courts recently of course - and some recognition and respect needs to be evidenced that at least legally they are in the right, and the football club is in the wrong. This does go back, in fairness, to a time before SISU's tenure, when wrong decisions based upon leaing HR, then the funding of the gin-palace of a new stadium were made, and then - post ACL involvement - the rental levels established. But SISU did have the chance to renegotiate, and didn't do so.
With events on the pitch looking so promising, it would be such a shame for the season to be side-tracked by this shambles; and I think SISU's 'negotiating tactics' have run the risk of leading events to exactly that. I don't agree with Fisher's assertion that we should pay an average League One rental, but at least to do so would show a degree of willing and good faith. To pay nothing and question ACL's financial wellbeing in a media interview when you're legally in the wrong aren't helpful whatsoever.
We could still have a promotion run-in, a trip to Wembley and have a decent New Year cup game ahead of us; and this momentum should, ideally, be all we're talking about. It's a shame we're not, and a shame to read some of the comments on rival club's messageboards with regards us 'cheating', by fielding players they can't afford whilst not paying any rent. We as CCFC supporters have had a few hard years, and I for one don't want any slither of long overdue success tarnished by accusations of being the new Pompey