Not Stupid Gits!

[SilverFox]

from discussions with a high ranking LCFC official I am assured that we would and could indeed one day own the stadium if we carry on doing exactly what we are doing now. A run in the prem would make this process even quicker.

This would ensure that LCFC would 100% own their home
This means that any money from non sporting events would go 100% to LCFC
LCFC would always own their home and it wouldn't have to be rebranded. Rebranding WILL involve removing unique elements of what makes us LCFC so that the stadium is non offensive to the tigers. I fail to see how doing this will not affect our identity and our already bored/apathetic home support.
The stadium will be owned 50/50, this is a big problem if Tigers and LCFC can't agree...it means deadlock...bad thing!

By signing up to this we will never have 100% it will always be 50%. I was told by this high ranking official that we will also NEVER own the stadium...only half, half the profits, half of all that is re-branded. And we won't even own that 50% for many many years...WE WILL CONTINUE TO PAY A MORTGAGE, because we don't have the money to buy our half.

If we continue as we are we will one day own the stadium for ourselves...yes it will be blue and white...and no that isn't the most important thing...but it is a factor, it is important, and it has been for 120 years (as the club would for some reason like us to know this year)

Its a Quick fix, and it means long term problems. You may one day want a home for LCFC, but by then it will be too late.

 

[SilverFox]

from discussions with a high ranking LCFC official I am assured that we would and could indeed one day own the stadium if we carry on doing exactly what we are doing now. A run in the prem would make this process even quicker.

This would ensure that LCFC would 100% own their home
This means that any money from non sporting events would go 100% to LCFC
LCFC would always own their home and it wouldn't have to be rebranded. Rebranding WILL involve removing unique elements of what makes us LCFC so that the stadium is non offensive to the tigers. I fail to see how doing this will not affect our identity and our already bored/apathetic home support.
The stadium will be owned 50/50, this is a big problem if Tigers and LCFC can't agree...it means deadlock...bad thing!

By signing up to this we will never have 100% it will always be 50%. I was told by this high ranking official that we will also NEVER own the stadium...only half, half the profits, half of all that is re-branded. And we won't even own that 50% for many many years...WE WILL CONTINUE TO PAY A MORTGAGE, because we don't have the money to buy our half.

If we continue as we are we will one day own the stadium for ourselves...yes it will be blue and white...and no that isn't the most important thing...but it is a factor, it is important, and it has been for 120 years (as the club would for some reason like us to know this year)

Its a Quick fix, and it means long term problems. You may one day want a home for LCFC, but by then it will be too late.

Forgot to mention also that Tigers future is not in question...they have permission for re-developing Welford Road, or building their own stadium. That doesn't sound like a club that need assurances oveer their long term future.

Also could we try to be intelligent and leave the name calling out!

 

[Tony Elsby]

from discussions with a high ranking LCFC official I am assured that we would and could indeed one day own the stadium if we carry on doing exactly what we are doing now. A run in the prem would make this process even quicker.

This would ensure that LCFC would 100% own their home
This means that any money from non sporting events would go 100% to LCFC
LCFC would always own their home and it wouldn't have to be rebranded. Rebranding WILL involve removing unique elements of what makes us LCFC so that the stadium is non offensive to the tigers. I fail to see how doing this will not affect our identity and our already bored/apathetic home support.
The stadium will be owned 50/50, this is a big problem if Tigers and LCFC can't agree...it means deadlock...bad thing!

By signing up to this we will never have 100% it will always be 50%. I was told by this high ranking official that we will also NEVER own the stadium...only half, half the profits, half of all that is re-branded. And we won't even own that 50% for many many years...WE WILL CONTINUE TO PAY A MORTGAGE, because we don't have the money to buy our half.

If we continue as we are we will one day own the stadium for ourselves...yes it will be blue and white...and no that isn't the most important thing...but it is a factor, it is important, and it has been for 120 years (as the club would for some reason like us to know this year)

Its a Quick fix, and it means long term problems. You may one day want a home for LCFC, but by then it will be too late.

For a "moronic fan" there are a lot of interesting points to consider here. This all needs far-reaching and proper debate before anything is signed and sorted.

I hope your insider is willing to stand up and explain his stance when the time comes because stakeholder groundsharing (as opposed to landlord and tenant groundsharing) is only worth advocating if it is the ONLY realistic way of taking the club forward and competing with the best.

If the alternative route to the same end IS FEASIBLE and only requires a bit of patience then why on earth share. City could surely lay their own multic purpose surface, stage pop concerts/major functions etc.

The question is can city survive and compete on their own or is a groundsharing partnership the REALISTIC way forward. I don't have an ideological axe to grind. All I want is the best way forward for City and the sooner all the facts are there to be considered the better.

Smashing, thought-provoking post whatever...thanks.

 

[Durham Fox]

from discussions with a high ranking LCFC official I am assured that we would and could indeed one day own the stadium if we carry on doing exactly what we are doing now. A run in the prem would make this process even quicker.

This would ensure that LCFC would 100% own their home
This means that any money from non sporting events would go 100% to LCFC
LCFC would always own their home and it wouldn't have to be rebranded. Rebranding WILL involve removing unique elements of what makes us LCFC so that the stadium is non offensive to the tigers. I fail to see how doing this will not affect our identity and our already bored/apathetic home support.
The stadium will be owned 50/50, this is a big problem if Tigers and LCFC can't agree...it means deadlock...bad thing!

By signing up to this we will never have 100% it will always be 50%. I was told by this high ranking official that we will also NEVER own the stadium...only half, half the profits, half of all that is re-branded. And we won't even own that 50% for many many years...WE WILL CONTINUE TO PAY A MORTGAGE, because we don't have the money to buy our half.

If we continue as we are we will one day own the stadium for ourselves...yes it will be blue and white...and no that isn't the most important thing...but it is a factor, it is important, and it has been for 120 years (as the club would for some reason like us to know this year)

Its a Quick fix, and it means long term problems. You may one day want a home for LCFC, but by then it will be too late.

For a "moronic fan" there are a lot of interesting points to consider here. This all needs far-reaching and proper debate before anything is signed and sorted.

I hope your insider is willing to stand up and explain his stance when the time comes because stakeholder groundsharing (as opposed to landlord and tenant groundsharing) is only worth advocating if it is the ONLY realistic way of taking the club forward and competing with the best.

If the alternative route to the same end IS FEASIBLE and only requires a bit of patience then why on earth share. City could surely lay their own multic purpose surface, stage pop concerts/major functions etc.

The question is can city survive and compete on their own or is a groundsharing partnership the REALISTIC way forward. I don't have an ideological axe to grind. All I want is the best way forward for City and the sooner all the facts are there to be considered the better.

Smashing, thought-provoking post whatever...thanks.

Good points Tony!

Did you used to play for Hinckley Athletic?

 

[Naughty Fox]

from discussions with a high ranking LCFC official I am assured that we would and could indeed one day own the stadium if we carry on doing exactly what we are doing now. A run in the prem would make this process even quicker.

This would ensure that LCFC would 100% own their home
This means that any money from non sporting events would go 100% to LCFC
LCFC would always own their home and it wouldn't have to be rebranded. Rebranding WILL involve removing unique elements of what makes us LCFC so that the stadium is non offensive to the tigers. I fail to see how doing this will not affect our identity and our already bored/apathetic home support.
The stadium will be owned 50/50, this is a big problem if Tigers and LCFC can't agree...it means deadlock...bad thing!

By signing up to this we will never have 100% it will always be 50%. I was told by this high ranking official that we will also NEVER own the stadium...only half, half the profits, half of all that is re-branded. And we won't even own that 50% for many many years...WE WILL CONTINUE TO PAY A MORTGAGE, because we don't have the money to buy our half.

If we continue as we are we will one day own the stadium for ourselves...yes it will be blue and white...and no that isn't the most important thing...but it is a factor, it is important, and it has been for 120 years (as the club would for some reason like us to know this year)

Its a Quick fix, and it means long term problems. You may one day want a home for LCFC, but by then it will be too late.

For a "moronic fan" there are a lot of interesting points to consider here. This all needs far-reaching and proper debate before anything is signed and sorted.

I hope your insider is willing to stand up and explain his stance when the time comes because stakeholder groundsharing (as opposed to landlord and tenant groundsharing) is only worth advocating if it is the ONLY realistic way of taking the club forward and competing with the best.

If the alternative route to the same end IS FEASIBLE and only requires a bit of patience then why on earth share. City could surely lay their own multic purpose surface, stage pop concerts/major functions etc.

The question is can city survive and compete on their own or is a groundsharing partnership the REALISTIC way forward. I don't have an ideological axe to grind. All I want is the best way forward for City and the sooner all the facts are there to be considered the better.

Smashing, thought-provoking post whatever...thanks.

Too true Tony, the question could also be 'how safe is the club short term'?
If we need to do this it could mean that things are not as good as are made out??
The other side is the opinion of the quick fix and get the money now. Great we get money for players next year so that we can get into the prem, but at what cost for the future?
This is just my opinion but has some of the same points as Silver fox, surely no matter what, we would have a agreement with the owners that we will one day own the stadium, now to me that one day does not matter how far away, if it means we do not have alot of money for players for ten years and stay in the fizzy then so be it, I would rather have that knowing that in the end we would have our own ground and then have extra money to attract 'bigger' players then, we would have achieved something as a club and not a franchise. History says that we would get promoted at least once in the ten years anyway to boost the coffers.
This is about the long term future, I want my daughters to support the foxes, not the tigerfoxes.

Ask yourself this one question, if the option is there that we would own the ground in ten years anyway, is the groundshare still a good idea?

 

[Tony Elsby]

from discussions with a high ranking LCFC official I am assured that we would and could indeed one day own the stadium if we carry on doing exactly what we are doing now. A run in the prem would make this process even quicker.

This would ensure that LCFC would 100% own their home
This means that any money from non sporting events would go 100% to LCFC
LCFC would always own their home and it wouldn't have to be rebranded. Rebranding WILL involve removing unique elements of what makes us LCFC so that the stadium is non offensive to the tigers. I fail to see how doing this will not affect our identity and our already bored/apathetic home support.
The stadium will be owned 50/50, this is a big problem if Tigers and LCFC can't agree...it means deadlock...bad thing!

By signing up to this we will never have 100% it will always be 50%. I was told by this high ranking official that we will also NEVER own the stadium...only half, half the profits, half of all that is re-branded. And we won't even own that 50% for many many years...WE WILL CONTINUE TO PAY A MORTGAGE, because we don't have the money to buy our half.

If we continue as we are we will one day own the stadium for ourselves...yes it will be blue and white...and no that isn't the most important thing...but it is a factor, it is important, and it has been for 120 years (as the club would for some reason like us to know this year)

Its a Quick fix, and it means long term problems. You may one day want a home for LCFC, but by then it will be too late.

For a "moronic fan" there are a lot of interesting points to consider here. This all needs far-reaching and proper debate before anything is signed and sorted.

I hope your insider is willing to stand up and explain his stance when the time comes because stakeholder groundsharing (as opposed to landlord and tenant groundsharing) is only worth advocating if it is the ONLY realistic way of taking the club forward and competing with the best.

If the alternative route to the same end IS FEASIBLE and only requires a bit of patience then why on earth share. City could surely lay their own multic purpose surface, stage pop concerts/major functions etc.

The question is can city survive and compete on their own or is a groundsharing partnership the REALISTIC way forward. I don't have an ideological axe to grind. All I want is the best way forward for City and the sooner all the facts are there to be considered the better.

Smashing, thought-provoking post whatever...thanks.

Good points Tony!

Did you used to play for Hinckley Athletic?

Someone else asked me that and I'm amazed you can still remember that far back. But, yes, player and manager in my teens and 20's, happy days indeed. Some super players, Kenny Oakes, Frank Sheard and his brother Alan, Eric Moore, Paul Mitchell, Andy Baum, Steve Vass et all who started to reverse what had been a long decline. What exciting times for the combined Hinckley United now, eh!

 

[step]

To say that the shared ownership will stop city owning the whole stadium is not necessarily true. We will never be in a situation to buy the stadium outright and raising the money for the repayments on a mortgage will be a constant drain on the finances that the club could do with out.
But if they do go ahead with the shared ownership we will own half the stadium immediately and the repayment on any loan would be halved and after a period of time if the circumstances allowed there is no reason why city could not buy the other half from the Tigers.

I concede that the Tigers may not want to sell city their share of the stadium. But as they would also be operating with their costs halved, they would also be financially better of and the purchase of their half of the stadium would give them a lump sum to build a new stadium of their own.

A win, win situation for all.

 

[Fox Fan]

Bottom line is if at any point Teachers can sell the ground, or want to, which judging by the american econermy may happen, they can do so at a click of their fingers.

If we buy the stadium - they can't simple as.