Havent they already done soemthing very similar though.. did they not offer £150,000/annum and that was turned down?
Do I not also recall Mr Fisher suggesting that the low profit margins from food and beverage sales(as they are professed to be) prevented SISU from entertaining the current catering contract as business viable?
Exactly, why, if as Fishface says "we have moved on", are they pursuing the appeal re the JR?Agreed, would love it to happen but Timmy has said it never will..................or could he be telling fibs again......:thinking about:
Exactly, why, if as Fishface says "we have moved on", are they pursuing the appeal re the JR?
Isn't it clear by now, Sisu want the Ricoh at a price they name, no negotiations.
It isn't going to happen.
Havent they already done soemthing very similar though.. did they not offer £150,000/annum and that was turned down?
Do I not also recall Mr Fisher suggesting that the low profit margins from food and beverage sales(as they are professed to be) prevented SISU from entertaining the current catering contract as business viable?
How many times must this be denied before some on here finally get it? NO this offer was not made and the offer that you talk about was to the administrator who could not act on that in his remit. It also had a few very special clauses such as a 10 year tied agreement and no F&B etc. to name a few few, totally not what some on here believe happened.
As for a 100k rent offer to match Northampton? Well yes in theory but what about the increased match day cost, the increased policing cost etc etc? The only short term offer that's realistic would be a free rent season while they get a deal sorted for a permanent solution.
Because ACL want 10 years?
ACL are the people with the keys. It's ACL who need to find a tenant and make an offer to one. I suppose that will need to be more than just an offer to rent their pitch? You seem to be under the illusion that the football club should make the first move? The onus is on ACL surely? The football club may have played there before but it was never their exclusive right other than match days and then just to play on the pitch.
Because ACL want 10 years? ACL are the people with the keys. It's ACL who need to find a tenant and make an offer to one. I suppose that will need to be more than just an offer to rent their pitch? You seem to be under the illusion that the football club should make the first move? The onus is on ACL surely? The football club may have played there before but it was never their exclusive right other than match days and then just to play on the pitch.
Why would they liquidate a business after it built a new stadium?
Probably because the ACL offer isn't/won't be as good or as attractive as it may seem on the surface. If it doesn't offer revenue streams or part ownership, it ain't worth jackshit.
Probably because the ACL offer isn't/won't be as good or as attractive as it may seem on the surface. If it doesn't offer revenue streams or part ownership, it ain't worth jackshit.
How many times must it be said before people get it into their heads, they are not, have no intention of, and never will, build a new stadium.Because ACL want 10 years? ACL are the people with the keys. It's ACL who need to find a tenant and make an offer to one. I suppose that will need to be more than just an offer to rent their pitch? You seem to be under the illusion that the football club should make the first move? The onus is on ACL surely? The football club may have played there before but it was never their exclusive right other than match days and then just to play on the pitch.
Why would they liquidate a business after it built a new stadium?
How many times must this be denied before some on here finally get it? NO this offer was not made and the offer that you talk about was to the administrator who could not act on that in his remit. It also had a few very special clauses such as a 10 year tied agreement and no F&B etc. to name a few few, totally not what some on here believe happened.
As for a 100k rent offer to match Northampton? Well yes in theory but what about the increased match day cost, the increased policing cost etc etc? The only short term offer that's realistic would be a free rent season while they get a deal sorted for a permanent solution.
Because ACL want 10 years? ACL are the people with the keys. It's ACL who need to find a tenant and make an offer to one. I suppose that will need to be more than just an offer to rent their pitch? You seem to be under the illusion that the football club should make the first move? The onus is on ACL surely? The football club may have played there before but it was never their exclusive right other than match days and then just to play on the pitch.
Why would they liquidate a business after it built a new stadium?
A 3 year deal was suggested to fisher while they built the stadium by a texter on shanes show last monday, but fisher rejected this idea out of hand
exactly
So why on earth dont ACL come out in public and announce the deal they have offered Otium..
Then we would all know what Otium /SISU's game is
why should acl go arse licking sisu.simply, why on earth dont ACL issue a public offer to Otium ?
I agree the time has come for ACL to make a publicly declares offer for CCFC to return to the Ricoh, but as I see it this is so we know what the game is on both sides, because I don't trust SISU or CCC and blame them both for the demise of our club.
Through the SBT and direct e-mails to ACL/CCC we need to put pressure on ACL to do this.
This is a summary of my thoughts made in previous posts regarding applying pressure to both sides:-
1. Continued NOPM on SISU to minimise its income, regardless of semantics over individual interpretation of this.
2. Put pressure on CCC/ACL to offer to sell the 77% of IEC that ACL owns at a reasonable market price to the football club, to give access to revenues to aid FFP for the football club, and add a value that with a long lease makes the club more saleable. If SISU then turns this down it would finally confirm the majority belief that its only real agenda is distressed acquisition of the Ricoh and that it has absolutely no interest in the football club. If CCC through ACL is not prepared to offer to sell 77% of IEC, then CCC/ACL cannot seriously expect to agree a deal. No investors, even new ones that most would like to see, are likely to accept any deal that includes only match day revenues and profits, as this doesn't enable the club to benefit from all activities at the Ricoh, as was originally envisaged when the stadium was planned. (77% of IEC is not just F&B rights, it is all Ricoh catering and site management revenues)
I personally agree with CCC protecting the asset of the Ricoh for the community by continuing with at least part ownership of the freehold, but I don't agree with it continuing with its fingers in the pie of revenues, or frankly management of the stadium.
Are you mad?
ACL have already bent over backwards in making the £150k offer.
Do you seriously want SISU to have even more control?
Are you mad?
ACL have already bent over backwards in making the £150k offer.
Do you seriously want SISU to have even more control?
Probably because the ACL offer isn't/won't be as good or as attractive as it may seem on the surface. If it doesn't offer revenue streams or part ownership, it ain't worth jackshit.
Because ACL want 10 years?
For goodness sake - the £150,000 deal was not offered to the owners but to the administrator.
Why have people latched onto this 150k as if it's doing us a massive favour? Hull & Doncaster pay nowhere near that to play at council owned stadiums and they're in divisions above us taking all the revenue they generate.
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?