We haven't got enough fans for 1 team let alone 2.
Means nothing unless SISU want to sell, Haskell isn't going to risk buying a share in the Ricoh and then not being able to deal with SISU and ending up with an empty stadium.
what about the scenario I put forward the other week .... they start again with new co team at the bottom of the league ....
That leaves sizu ...stumped
They either knock down the door of ph4 .. to do a deal ....or ...
Watch new co skate up the league's ...and see they're investments go down the plug hole ???
It's a long time ago now for most of you to remember, but in the 1960's and 70's gates of 36,000 were not not unusual and certainly no less than 28,000. Several times we had gates over 40,000.. even for a league match against Wolves we had 54,000 ! The population is there to support a big team !
It's a long time ago now for most of you to remember, but in the 1960's and 70's gates of 36,000 were not not unusual and certainly no less than 28,000. Several times we had gates over 40,000.. even for a league match against Wolves we had 54,000 ! The population is there to support a big team !
The part of me that hates SISU would love to see this; however we would have to start very low down, and it would take several years to make it back to professional football.
All it would take is for SISU to bring back the real CCFC and it would all be for nothing.
If people want to do this then I'm right behind it. I'd love it to become a 2 team City as it creates a rivalry that generates interest and boosts attendances, but I don't see it happening.
Diversify into what?
We've certainly got enough for 1 big team population-wise, it's just the public have been served up crap football for decade after decade.
Every now and then we prove that there's a lot of people just itching to see City succeed.
I think it could support 2 teams, but small-ish league 1 type size. (Not that we'll end up with 2 teams anyhow).
but at least we had a house
it doesn't solve any problems, they wouldn't sell to phv now and won't in the future
& the suggestion that sisu will not rest until ACL fold, begs the question,
what are their (Otiums) real intentions ?
I think their real intentions have been clear for a while now. They want to drive ACL into administration and acquire the Ricoh.
Hardly honourable intentions are they. Scum, sub-human scum.
If PH4 can buy the Higgs Share, and I hold no illusions that SISU would ever take that lying down, then that would be very good news as it might help rid us of SISU for ever. It also puts ACL in a better position in any negotiations with SISU as they would be dealing with a new, and I assume harder nosed, people than before (with no offence meant to the Higgs representatives on the ACL board) who won't take any sh1t.
Can just imagine PH4 posting on the "SISU - OUT... what have you done to help rid CCFC Ltd of them ?" thread with the words Bought the Higgs Charity Share of ACL.
I think their real intentions have been clear for a while now. They want to drive ACL into administration and acquire the Ricoh.
Hardly honourable intentions are they. Scum, sub-human scum.
Scum, sub-human scum? Murderers and paedophiles perhaps.
It's a long time ago now for most of you to remember, but in the 1960's and 70's gates of 36,000 were not not unusual and certainly no less than 28,000. Several times we had gates over 40,000.. even for a league match against Wolves we had 54,000 ! The population is there to support a big team !
Unfortunately with ACL's "deal" with the club, the more fans we get in the more it costs us.
Think its a reference to money made on a matchday By ACL/Compass.In what way?
In what way?
old pkwh has gone very quiet in recent weeks, now that ACL have been exposed
I think re AcL -they are as guilty as sisu -
SISU want to use ccfc to get hold of the ricoh
ACL want to use ccfc as a cash cow
Neither have the football club at heart
old pkwh has gone very quiet in recent weeks, now that ACL have been exposed
we really somehow need a new start without Sisu, without ACL and without Cov council
not sure how this is achieved
"Take me home, highfield Road"
PWKH? Last I heard he was busy securing a year's supply of tuna for his cat in order to boost his 'like' count.
He'll be up a ladder sorting out the guttering, didn't get the chance to finish it last time as Stuart Linnel called part-way through.
To be fair at least he can't be accused of not fixing the roof while the sun was shining.
Something posted on GMK, not exactly sure of the source though.
"1). Agreement of exra payments to ACL from CCFC of £3 per spectatover over 15k in Championship and £4 per spectator over 16k in Prem was central to contestation in HOT deal of January 2013.
(2). Lease agreement from council to ACL has Super-rent agreement whereby ACL have to pay CNR/Cov City Council "super-rent" (between 10 and 50% increases) if ACL profits exceed £3.75m per annum."
I know that point (2) is from the construction report, so has veracity, though it seems that point (1) is far more recent.
If point one is correct it seems madness commericially from both sides,
Would have thought that reducing the rent the larger the crowds would be a better way, more income from food/drink.parking etc, would also encourage the club to reduce ticket prices to entice more fans.
If it is correct, don't think that anybody could logically agree with it.
8: Have rents for Championship and Premiership been offered and agreed?
ACL: Yes, all part of the HOT verbally agreed with CCFC on 29th January 2013 in the presence of the Boards of each party, CCFC subsequently reneged on the agreement. Requirement for extra spectator payments subsequently withdrawn verbally.
CCFC: Yes but additional payments of £3 per spectator over 15k in Championship and £4 per spectator over 16k in Premiership were not acceptable as impacted financial viability (cashflow b/e) and ticket sales our only material source of revenue.
I'm sure those terms were dropped & PKWH has posted that on this forum.
So they do not exist in the ACL final offer.
"30: Are ACL willing to be bound by an agreement brokered by independent mediators or arbitrator?
ACL: No. We have put our best and final offer on the table after months of negotiation with both SISU and CCFC. It was a reasonable and generous offer, as recognised by all 3 CCFC directors in attendance on 29 January 2013, as they verbally accepted it and shook hands in confirmation. We are not prepared to make further concessions, nor do we believe that any mediator could reasonably expect that we would. The ball is in CCFC’s court. Negotiations are now at an end, and the Board of CCFC have been duly notified."
Something posted on GMK, not exactly sure of the source though.
"1). Agreement of exra payments to ACL from CCFC of £3 per spectatover over 15k in Championship and £4 per spectator over 16k in Prem was central to contestation in HOT deal of January 2013.
(2). Lease agreement from council to ACL has Super-rent agreement whereby ACL have to pay CNR/Cov City Council "super-rent" (between 10 and 50% increases) if ACL profits exceed £3.75m per annum."
I know that point (2) is from the construction report, so has veracity, though it seems that point (1) is far more recent.
If point one is correct it seems madness commericially from both sides,
Would have thought that reducing the rent the larger the crowds would be a better way, more income from food/drink.parking etc, would also encourage the club to reduce ticket prices to entice more fans.
If it is correct, don't think that anybody could logically agree with it.
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?