City Fan Posted 4 January 2006 Posted 4 January 2006 If the groundshare had gone through, would we be in a better situation than we are in now? Or would it not have made a difference at all? Discuss!
Babylon Posted 4 January 2006 Posted 4 January 2006 If the groundshare had gone through, would we be in a better situation than we are in now? Or would it not have made a difference at all? Discuss! It would certainly help financially.... which is why I wasn't too fussed about it happening.
davieG Posted 4 January 2006 Posted 4 January 2006 If the groundshare had gone through, would we be in a better situation than we are in now? Or would it not have made a difference at all?Discuss! fFinancial probably yes, football wise it shouldn't make any difference however I suspect we might now be worse off because the fans would have an additional thing to be pissed off about, I'm sure they would have been on the Board's / CL's back sooner. Just a thought!
City Fan Posted 4 January 2006 Author Posted 4 January 2006 It would certainly help financially.... which is why I wasn't too fussed about it happening. I was for it due to this reason. It we get relegated to League One now, we are going to be screwed financially because we still don't even own the stadium. However if the ground share had happened, it wouldn't have been so bad.
Guest Posted 4 January 2006 Posted 4 January 2006 If we shared the ground, we still wouldn't own it. It was a short-sighted solution to a long-term problem, but is it worth bringing this all back up again. Also, at the last FCC meeting, concerns over our financial status should we be relegated was raised, and we were told that the drop in income is not as huge as it was between the PL and Championship, so we won't be worse off at all. There is, apparently, no danger of the club going back into Administration, or even going bust. If it had gone ahead however, we could blame our predicament on the poor state of the pitch.
adam Posted 4 January 2006 Posted 4 January 2006 If it had gone ahead however, we could blame our predicament on the poor state of the pitch. thats a bloody good point. Good job we didnt agree on the ground share or Levein would have another excuse to add to the list.
Jimmy Posted 4 January 2006 Posted 4 January 2006 If we shared the ground, we still wouldn't own it. It was a short-sighted solution to a long-term problem, but is it worth bringing this all back up again. Also, at the last FCC meeting, concerns over our financial status should we be relegated was raised, and we were told that the drop in income is not as huge as it was between the PL and Championship, so we won't be worse off at all. There is, apparently, no danger of the club going back into Administration, or even going bust. If it had gone ahead however, we could blame our predicament on the poor state of the pitch. part of the deal would of been buying the ground and owning it 50-50 with the tigers
Jon the Hat Posted 4 January 2006 Posted 4 January 2006 Better hope we don't go into admin, or I could see Tigers buying the stadium. I you were the owner and we defaulted on payments you would certainly look to sell to the only other buyer in the market.
Jimmy Posted 4 January 2006 Posted 4 January 2006 Better hope we don't go into admin, or I could see Tigers buying the stadium. I you were the owner and we defaulted on payments you would certainly look to sell to the only other buyer in the market. they are renovating welford road
Disillusioned Posted 4 January 2006 Posted 4 January 2006 If we shared the ground, we still wouldn't own it. It was a short-sighted solution to a long-term problem, but is it worth bringing this all back up again. Also, at the last FCC meeting, concerns over our financial status should we be relegated was raised, and we were told that the drop in income is not as huge as it was between the PL and Championship, so we won't be worse off at all. There is, apparently, no danger of the club going back into Administration, or even going bust. If it had gone ahead however, we could blame our predicament on the poor state of the pitch. Lisa I am beginning to wonder about you... On another thread you bang on about the virtues of that breakers yard aka Filbert Street. Here you appear to be one of the anti groundshare die-hards (a project whose failure will certainly inflict long term financial damage on both parties). You then nonchalantly dismiss the financial threat to the club arising out of relegation. I can't help but get the feeling that you are a muffin sucking toothless 120 year old granny who waxes lyrical over trouncing Trinity Band of Hope 6-0 and has never got over the loss of Mill Lane.
Jamesino Posted 4 January 2006 Posted 4 January 2006 Dont you dare think that we would have been better off sharing our ground! I mean, Filbert Street, a monument to the club, to Walkers Stadium, to sharing the Walkers Stadium, TO A RUGBY CLUB! No way, finding out that it fell through was one of the happiest days of my life.
FNQ Posted 4 January 2006 Posted 4 January 2006 I'd certainly like to put this question to Mr Tim Davies. Anyone know his email addy?
Finnegan Posted 4 January 2006 Posted 4 January 2006 Dont you dare think that we would have been better off sharing our ground! I mean, Filbert Street, a monument to the club, to Walkers Stadium, to sharing the Walkers Stadium, TO A RUGBY CLUB! No way, finding out that it fell through was one of the happiest days of my life. You're just scared of the potential embarassment when Tigers' average gate at the Walkers is higher than City's.
Ultra Posted 4 January 2006 Posted 4 January 2006 Dont you dare think that we would have been better off sharing our ground! I mean, Filbert Street, a monument to the club, to Walkers Stadium, to sharing the Walkers Stadium, TO A RUGBY CLUB! No way, finding out that it fell through was one of the happiest days of my life. This has to be among the saddest posts ever read on this forum. Think what we could have done with the extra income generated by the groundshare. Would we be in our present dire plight, burdened with a manager we can apparently not afford to dismiss? I doubt it....
Blue-fox Glos Posted 4 January 2006 Posted 4 January 2006 Well CL will probably say its the wrong type of grass at the walkers compared to Tynecastle where he scared the living daylights out of Rangers and Celtic
Chimp Posted 4 January 2006 Posted 4 January 2006 [..] I can't help but get the feeling that you are a muffin sucking toothless 120 year old granny who waxes lyrical over trouncing Trinity Band of Hope 6-0 and has never got over the loss of Mill Lane. Ahhh, bless, the love-hate thing between Chandler and Lisa re-emerges.
lcfcalan Posted 4 January 2006 Posted 4 January 2006 If I wanted to go watch eggchasing, I would go to an eggchaser stadium. I chose Football, so its a FOOTBALL stadium I want to go to. Not half measures.
Ultra Posted 4 January 2006 Posted 4 January 2006 Whatever. I don't see many Wigan or Reading fans whingeing about having to share their grounds...
Jonbluefox9 Posted 4 January 2006 Posted 4 January 2006 If we shared the ground, we still wouldn't own it. It was a short-sighted solution to a long-term problem, but is it worth bringing this all back up again. Also, at the last FCC meeting, concerns over our financial status should we be relegated was raised, and we were told that the drop in income is not as huge as it was between the PL and Championship, so we won't be worse off at all. There is, apparently, no danger of the club going back into Administration, or even going bust. If it had gone ahead however, we could blame our predicament on the poor state of the pitch. The pitch at the Madejski Stadium looked very good although Reading are only halfway through their season as are London Irish so it may look much worse come the end of the season. The pitch at the JJB last season was awful though. We would've probably got a really nice surface and only would've only had ourselves to blame.
Leicfox Posted 4 January 2006 Posted 4 January 2006 The pitch at the Madejski Stadium looked very good although Reading are only halfway through their season as are London Irish so it may look much worse come the end of the season. The pitch at the JJB last season was awful though. We would've probably got a really nice surface and only would've only had ourselves to blame. Im more than sure that Reading have special strands of synthetic grass sewn in with the real stuff, might be another club though as im not certain, it stops the pitch cutting up and apparently does a great job, was this suggested for City/Tigers share ??
Jonbluefox9 Posted 4 January 2006 Posted 4 January 2006 Im more than sure that Reading have special strands of synthetic grass sewn in with the real stuff, might be another club though as im not certain, it stops the pitch cutting up and apparently does a great job, was this suggested for City/Tigers share ?? Yes it was, and I was prety sure that it would be put down at the end of last season as the groundsmen stopped re-laying certain areas which they normally would've. The deal collapsed and the rest is history.
Guest Posted 5 January 2006 Posted 5 January 2006 I can't help but get the feeling that you are a muffin sucking toothless 120 year old granny who waxes lyrical over trouncing Trinity Band of Hope 6-0 and has never got over the loss of Mill Lane. And you are a sad, bitter and twisted little man, who likes nothing more than hiding behind his keyboard, dishing out insults. Quite pathetic really.
Guest Posted 5 January 2006 Posted 5 January 2006 part of the deal would of been buying the ground and owning it 50-50 with the tigers Unlike the current situation where we will eventually own the ground outright? I thought this argument was done and dusted months ago. Why bring it back up now?
Jimmy Posted 5 January 2006 Posted 5 January 2006 Unlike the current situation where we will eventually own the ground outright? I thought this argument was done and dusted months ago. Why bring it back up now? yes we would 50-50 with the tigers, it was i didn't bring it up, the fa and rfu couldn't agree on priority of use for the stadium and fixture clashes. so tigers backed out and are renovating welford road, at huge expense
Guest Posted 5 January 2006 Posted 5 January 2006 yes we would 50-50 with the tigers, it was i didn't bring it up, the fa and rfu couldn't agree on priority of use for the stadium and fixture clashes. so tigers backed out and are renovating welford road, at huge expense 50:50 is not outright, it's a share. There were other issues that meant the groundshare fell flat. Such as Teachers not agreeing a price. It's not happening, so it's all hypothetical anyway.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.