Well this could be a long one - to respond to various points raised, mainly to clear up certain facts.
Dunc:
"It seems to me that the majority of people against the groundshare are the Leicester City fans who don't like rugby"
- we consulted our members & agree that of those against it the majority also disliked rugby, that in itself is no justification to be against it as those concerned would never be at the ground for one of the rugby games.
"to line the corporate pocket seems more of an issue than cutting our debts" (or as Joe Fox put it later - money, more money in the pockets of the fat cats behind the scenes)
- no shareholders are getting dividends & none are looking for any so that is simply untrue.
Mike - True Blue Tinter:
"If we try to own the stadium outright it will take about 15 years and up to £25million, including interest payments" &
Homer
"If we remained outside the Prem (or continued to yo-yo) it would be double that - but we could still own our ground outright"
- it would take around 10 years of non stop premiership football, however continued championship football would result in no ownership after 50 years based on the current financial deal, as interest outstrips repayments.
Joe Fox:
"lots of cons.
a) the pitch, it'll be awful, truly awful and no amount of empty promises for 'fibre/grass technological advances' will prevent the pitch from being a complete quagmire come christmas"
- can only be proved if it happens, however Reading's is a similar surface, so there are 2 chances to look at it soon
"b) awful looking stadium, a big technicoloured mess
- no decisions have been taken yet on how it will look, we will push hard for fan consultation (as promised at the open meeting) & intend to take a lead in these discussions. Also Filbo had orange seats etc - doesn't that come under the same description, however much we loved it
"c) fixture clashes, get ready for plenty of rearranged fixtures, saturday mornings will be commonplace"
- clashes have been avoided in previous seasons due to police requirements, its only this season that clashes have been allowed. Think this is a red herring
"d) character, imagine the stadium with even less character than it has now"
- again nothing decided see b above
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"
- see above, one day could be not in our lifetime
"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."
- neither have the Tigers who will also have a mortgage. Half the profits for the directly non-footballing activity, but on match days the revenue is LCFC's.
gregs_y2k:
"I'm neither for nor against the ground share. But i' just wondering what will happen IF Tigers go bankrupt, would it affect City in anyway?"
- if one party goes under, the other will have first right of full ownership, depends if they could afford it.
Good to see a debate today, thought everybody has gone to sleep on this one
