Groundshare

[Globalfox]

Lets put all these myths to rest once and for all. Read the detail of the proposed so called ground share. LCFC would never have owned the ground. The Walkers would have been owned by a Stadium Company who would then have rented use to both the Tigers and the City.

No ability to borrow against the asset to invest in the Football or Rugby Club.

The only advantage to theis deal was that directors and chief execs at both the Tigers and City could sit on the board of another registered company and take salaries, benefits expenses etc.

It was a bad deal for all.

Also look into those so called other venues where Rugby and Football share. At all those locations the Football has primacy. The Leicester deal fell through on the demands from Tigers directors to have primacy.

Thats is not acceptable to football authorities and never was going to change.

Its dead, it should stay dead forever. I for one would have never gone back to support the Cityhad it gone through.

Good luck to the Tigers but this is a football club.

[Ultra]

Lets put all these myths to rest once and for all. Read the detail of the proposed so called ground share. LCFC would never have owned the ground. The Walkers would have been owned by a Stadium Company who would then have rented use to both the Tigers and the City.

No ability to borrow against the asset to invest in the Football or Rugby Club.

The only advantage to theis deal was that directors and chief execs at both the Tigers and City could sit on the board of another registered company and take salaries, benefits expenses etc.

It was a bad deal for all.

Also look into those so called other venues where Rugby and Football share. At all those locations the Football has primacy. The Leicester deal fell through on the demands from Tigers directors to have primacy.

Thats is not acceptable to football authorities and never was going to change.

Its dead, it should stay dead forever. I for one would have never gone back to support the Cityhad it gone through.

Good luck to the Tigers but this is a football club.

We don't have primacy now. On weekends where our fixtures clash with those of the Tigers, it's up to plod to decide which takes precedence. Already this season we have had the Coventry game switched to a Sunday for precisely that reason.

Although the Football League for less than sympathetic to the idea of the groundshare (because they're still bitter about how we survived administration), in the end it was the Tigers getting cold feet which finally scuppered the deal.

Like I said earlier, Wigan and Reading fans don't have problems with groundshares.

And I'd far rather be in their positions than where we are now!

[Disillusioned]

Lets put all these myths to rest once and for all. Read the detail of the proposed so called ground share. LCFC would never have owned the ground. The Walkers would have been owned by a Stadium Company who would then have rented use to both the Tigers and the City.

No ability to borrow against the asset to invest in the Football or Rugby Club.

The only advantage to theis deal was that directors and chief execs at both the Tigers and City could sit on the board of another registered company and take salaries, benefits expenses etc.

It was a bad deal for all.

Also look into those so called other venues where Rugby and Football share. At all those locations the Football has primacy. The Leicester deal fell through on the demands from Tigers directors to have primacy.

Thats is not acceptable to football authorities and never was going to change.

Its dead, it should stay dead forever. I for one would have never gone back to support the City had it gone through.

You speak with forked tongue you snake in the grass.

It was the RFU who insisted that LFC had primacy of tenure.

The groundshare had been cleared with the FL and the FA

The stadium holding company would have been jointly and equally owned by LCFC and LFC.

The holding company would be able to borrow against its assets for pusposes consistent with its own articles of association.

One of those purposes would have been the completion of the Walkers Stadium (depending on demand for match tickets). This would have involved the creation of a second tier on the East Stand taking stadium capacity to 40,000 (amongst other things this would have enabled the stadium to be considered as a venue for football in the 2012 Olympics)

The failure of the project has made it more difficult for LCFC to discharge its long term debt obligations arising out of administration. LFC is now facing a possible bill of £25 million for the redevelopment of Welford Rd (and the capacity will only be expanded by less than 9,000 seats to 25,000).

Only a tiny minority of commercially illiterate small minded 'chipper' LCFC and 'snotty' LFC die-hards opposed the groundshare (a demo called by some LCFC fans to oppose the groundshare attracted less than 40 fans AFTER A HOME GAME)

Now bog off to Mill Lane and give Lisa her half time muffin you 1880's throwback!

Good luck to the Tigers but this is a football club.

[Disillusioned]

Response to Global Fox below. Sorry but don't know what happened here.

[Disillusioned]

Lets put all these myths to rest once and for all. Read the detail of the proposed so called ground share. LCFC would never have owned the ground. The Walkers would have been owned by a Stadium Company who would then have rented use to both the Tigers and the City.

No ability to borrow against the asset to invest in the Football or Rugby Club.

The only advantage to theis deal was that directors and chief execs at both the Tigers and City could sit on the board of another registered company and take salaries, benefits expenses etc.

It was a bad deal for all.

Also look into those so called other venues where Rugby and Football share. At all those locations the Football has primacy. The Leicester deal fell through on the demands from Tigers directors to have primacy.

Thats is not acceptable to football authorities and never was going to change.

Its dead, it should stay dead forever. I for one would have never gone back to support the City had it gone through.

You speak with forked tongue you snake in the grass.

It was the RFU who insisted that LFC had primacy of tenure.

The groundshare had been cleared with the FL and the FA

The stadium holding company would have been jointly and equally owned by LCFC and LFC.

The holding company would be able to borrow against its assets for pusposes consistent with its own articles of association.

One of those purposes would have been the completion of the Walkers Stadium (depending on demand for match tickets). This would have involved the creation of a second tier on the East Stand taking stadium capacity to 40,000 (amongst other things this would have enabled the stadium to be considered as a venue for football in the 2012 Olympics)

The failure of the project has made it more difficult for LCFC to discharge its long term debt obligations arising out of administration. LFC is now facing a possible bill of £25 million for the redevelopment of Welford Rd (and the capacity will only be expanded by less than 9,000 seats to 25,000).

Only a tiny minority of commercially illiterate small minded 'chipper' LCFC and 'snotty' LFC die-hards opposed the groundshare (a demo called by some LCFC fans to oppose the groundshare attracted less than 40 fans AFTER A HOME GAME)

[Ultra]

The stadium holding company would have been jointly and equally owned by LCFC and LFC.

The holding company would be able to borrow against its assets for pusposes consistent with its own articles of association.

One of those purposes would have been the completion of the Walkers Stadium (depending on demand for match tickets). This would have involved the creation of a second tier on the East Stand taking stadium capacity to 40,000 (amongst other things this would have enabled the stadium to be considered as a venue for football in the 2012 Olympics)

.....as well as a future World Cup...