lazzer said:now if it meant more money to improve the squad
bocadillo said:Short-term gain for long-term pain.
I would agree to share with the Tigers if we no longer had our own ground to play at. I would then move into their ground if it was the only way that we could continue to exist.
lazzer said:now if it meant more money to improve the squad
You're an experience guy Lazzer, do you really think they would use any money saved to strengthen the squad?lazzer said:why is it?
if our quality improved and we got promoted we could stay there for 20 years
lazzer said:why is it?
if our quality improved and we got promoted we could stay there for 20 years
Feriol said:i would agree with this. in my view, owning half the stadium is better than not owning any of it.
Feriol said:then if we were able to stay in the Premier league for a while, we could perhaps consider either moving on ourselves, or write into the contract a buy out clause from the tigers, so we could buy them out.
Feriol said:From the tigers point of view, they would benifit in the short term, and enable them to save for new facilities.
Feriol said:from our point of view this would improve our financial posistion in the short term and be a realistic sacrifice. (IMO)
The state we are in now. However, as has been mentioned elsewhere, the general consensus is the the Tigers are not keen at all, so I don't think people should get their knickers too twisted on such a hot and humid day.Feriol said:As requested i'll give this a dedicated thread.
In what state would the club need to be in before you would accept a groundshare arrangement?
bocadillo said:But what would happen if we couldn't maintain our finances at a level where we could afford our half. Presumably you wouldn't mind selling half of that to the Tigers because after all is said and done, owning a quarter of a stadium is better than not owning any of it.
As already stated, a bit more money does not guarantee a longer stay in the Prem - it doesn't even guarantee getting to the Prem.
Why would the Tigers be interested in selling Welford Road if there was a clause in the contract for the Walkers that meant we could make them homeless?
Funny then that there was no talk of that being their intention when the matter was discussed a little while ago.
Thank goodness for those three little letters. I thought you were stating that as a fact for one moment there!
Feriol said:in our current situation we are never going to own any of the stadium ...
bocadillo said:Is this a bad thing?
Feriol said:if we continue to sink further into debt because of it then yes i think it is.
I don't understand the " why " - the debt will always increase whilst we are in the Champo, as our cashflow won't allow higher repayments.bocadillo said:I'll ignore the obvious "why" reply and raise you a "what happens if we start to share the ground and continue to go further into debt?"
I would assume that we would be able to buy their half share out, as would they if the position were reversed.Boy Genius said:What happens if we share and tigers fall into the shit and cannot maintain thier half of the deal?
P | Pld | Pts | |
1 | Liverpool | 6 | 15 |
2 | Manchester C | 6 | 14 |
3 | Arsenal | 6 | 14 |
4 | Chelsea | 6 | 13 |
5 | Aston Villa | 5 | 12 |
6 | Fulham | 6 | 11 |
7 | Newcastle | 6 | 11 |
8 | Brighton | 6 | 9 |
9 | Nottm F | 6 | 9 |
10 | Tottenham | 5 | 7 |
11 | Manchester U | 5 | 7 |
12 | Brentford | 6 | 7 |
13 | Bournemouth | 5 | 5 |
14 | West Ham | 6 | 5 |
15 | Everton | 6 | 4 |
16 | Leicester | 6 | 3 |
17 | Palace | 6 | 3 |
18 | Ipswich | 5 | 3 |
19 | Southampton | 5 | 1 |
20 | Wolves | 6 | 1 |