James Smith
Well-Known Member
Suspect the charity commission would have something to say about it too.
Suspect the charity commission would have something to say about it too.It's not that simple. Try & give what to you is a useless strip of land (say a foot wide) to your neighbour for him to put a wall up for example. Your mortgage lender would go ballistic! So to expect CCC/ACL (or anyone else!) to give the their share of the stadium away is just not a realistic idea.
Suspect the charity commission would have something to say about it too.
Why would it have anything to do with the charity commission. Do they influence outcomes of private investments of registered charities?
So you are prepared to hand your house over to people who won't buy it and won't pay rent, tell us where you live and I'll send some squatters round.
Yes, they most certainly do.
But surely if the selling price was significantly less than the purchase price due to legitimate factors - property decline, devalued product etc. a reduced value on sake would be perfectly legitimate?
Agree with the post. Why are the council and ACL getting away with the continued protests. They should hand the Ricoh over to the football club end of!
Are you really that daft?
Why on Earth should they just hand over assets worth many millions when they only invested the money originally to save the club by building the stadium that the club couldn't because the club ran things so badly that they ran out of money.
And you want them to just hand them over to the club? You are insane as well as daft!
They've already received more than the original investment from the club, and the council would never have built the Arena off their own back, it;s onlt there because of CCFC, if it was up to CCC it would just be a derelict wasteland still.
In fact if it stays still up to CCC it will probably become a desolate wasteland again.
If I rented part of a commercial property for a number of years I would not expect my landlord to give me the property.
To be fair though, I expect that if any SISU owned companies are landlords, they'll give their properties to their tenants after a few years (especially if they go on rent strike)
If I rented part of a commercial property for a number of years I would not expect my landlord to give me the property.
I might do if the tenant had expended more money on it being built than i had as the landlord.
Just putting the cherry on top and then claiming ownership of the whole cake would be the behaviour of some sort of evil hedge-fund surely?
I might do if the tenant had expended more money on it being built than i had as the landlord.
Just putting the cherry on top and then claiming ownership of the whole cake would be the behaviour of some sort of evil hedge-fund surely?
Did SISU build the Ricoh?
Did SISU build the Ricoh?
Would it have ever been built if this particular tenant did not need it?
No, and the particular tenant would no longer exist as it was broke and homeless.
Where did I mention Sisu?
No, Andy Thorn did.
With his bare hands.
No change from now then, except there is still a Ricoh(at the moment).
Not homeless, Ricoh still has doors open.
The doormen are saying that we're not on the list though.
We only have to ask.
Not according to The Management, all discussion on entering finished a while ago.
Even if we are wearing a tie, shoes and trousers.
Its not a choice for us!
I beleive SISU want to sell and get out if a buyer will pay a reasonable price but who knows if they will?
And I didn't say I preferred SISU!
I said we might wind up with only them left!
How does the song go... Are u sisu in disguise
Not according to The Management, all discussion on entering finished a while ago.
Even if we are wearing a tie, shoes and trousers.
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?