Council Statement due today (2 Viewers)

[GaryJones]

When you sell a house and you have more than one interested buyer it goes to sealed bids - not rocket science!

 

---

[Captain Dart]

Who approached who?

What do you think.

 

[Nick]

What do you think.

I'm asking you.

It's simple, Wasps or CCC.

 

[Captain Dart]

When you sell a house and you have more than one interested buyer it goes to sealed bids - not rocket science!

 

[duffer]

You really should keep up torch. SISU have already done that.

My comment was aimed at trying to keep the statements and the meeting on the important point of seeing if a deal could be done for CCFC, and not get weighed down by arguing about the history, but you clearly don't care about that. I imagine you're too busy drooling over their statement to post anything sensible.

I thought the approved term for referring to SISU apologists was 'frothing'. It's just a pity that no one here, including Torch, falls into that category.

I'm all for a 'drop hands' settlement that involves the Council helping the club find some way out of this situation, but I'm not daft enough to accept that SISU are the only ones at fault here. I don't see any harm in expressing that.

 

[Captain Dart]

I'm asking you.

It's simple, Wasps or CCC.

So you can't be arsed to fact check but you are sure about your various conspiracies.

 

[Nick]

So you can't be arsed to fact check but you are sure about your various conspiracies.

It doesn't say who initiated the talks in 2012?

You want to push your shit constantly, but you can't be arsed to read threads.

 

[GaryJones]

So it was Wasps that approached the Council.
Opportunist London interlopers!
The Council should have a duty to offer this over to sealed bids with the intrested parties including SISU - thats the correct thing to do for a public elected body.

 

[OffenhamSkyBlue]

So it was Wasps that approached the Council.
Opportunist London interlopers!
The Council should have a duty to offer this over to sealed bids with the intrested parties including SISU - thats the correct thing to do for a public elected body.

That section of the judgement doesn't refer to the 2012 talks that Nick is talking about. That was November 2013.

 

[shmmeee]

Nothing. Blame SISU, fans lap it up, back to square one.

Worked the other way around TBF.

 

[Nick]

That section of the judgement doesn't refer to the 2012 talks that Nick is talking about. That was November 2013.

Richardson also had discussions with Rossborough from Cov RFC in 2012 about how the 2 clubs might work together as well...

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Worked the other way around TBF.

Sorry shmmeee I haven't been to regular on this forum recently, but from what I've seen no one has said SISU aren't at fault, but what has been said is that all parties should be blamed and accounted for.

I don't think any poster deems SISU to have no fault in this, despite being vocal in their demands for CCC or other parties to be held accountable.

 

[shmmeee]

When you sell a house and you have more than one interested buyer it goes to sealed bids - not rocket science!

What about when you rent a house?

It’s a long term relationship not a one off deal.

I got my rental property despite offering less than others because of my personal situation and making a good impression that I’d be a better tenant.

 

[Nick]

Sorry shmmeee I haven't been to regular on this forum recently, but from what I've seen no one has said SISU aren't at fault, but what has been said is that all parties should be blamed and accounted for.

I don't think any poster deems SISU to have no fault in this, despite being vocal in their demands for CCC or other parties to be held accountable.

Nobody at all has said SISU aren't to blame for anything. People have said the council / wasps arent to blame for anything.

He is just making things up again, it's weird and a bit desperate.

 

[shmmeee]

Sorry shmmeee I haven't been to regular on this forum recently, but from what I've seen no one has said SISU aren't at fault, but what has been said is that all parties should be blamed and accounted for.

I don't think any poster deems SISU to have no fault in this, despite being vocal in their demands for CCC or other parties to be held accountable.

You’ve got the wrong end of the stick.

Yesterday Sisu released a statement that just went “it’s the councils fault because reasons” and the thread was full of people frothing about how it’s obviously the councils fault and dragging us back to square one.

This silly “how much blame to each” thing is a red herring.

 

[shmmeee]

Nobody at all has said SISU aren't to blame for anything. People have said the council / wasps arent to blame for anything.

He is just making things up again, it's weird and a bit desperate.

Mate, try this site. Really helped my kids.

Reading | Oxford Owl from Oxford University Press

 

[Captain Dart]

It doesn't say who initiated the talks in 2012?

You want to push your shit constantly, but you can't be arsed to read threads.

No it seems to imply Wasps (and others) approached the council. Wasps were not the first ones interested.

 

[Nick]

You’ve got the wrong end of the stick.

Yesterday Sisu released a statement that just went “it’s the councils fault because reasons” and the thread was full of people frothing about how it’s obviously the councils fault and dragging us back to square one.

This silly “how much blame to each” thing is a red herring.

Not a single person said or implied that SISU had no blame at all.

People do keep saying that CCC / Wasps have no blame at all.

 

[Nick]

Mate, try this site. Really helped my kids.

Reading | Oxford Owl from Oxford University Press

My reading is perfectly fine, hence somebody else pointed it out to you. Looks like it is yours playing up again. Shock.

 

[Nick]

No it seems to imply Wasps (and others) approached the council. Wasps were not the first ones interested.

Yeah, in 2013. A year and a half after it was known they were talking about it.

 

[Captain Dart]

Yeah, in 2013. A year and a half after it was known they were talking about things.

Where are your sources? Something in the public domain.

Anyway if three was public knowledge about this in 2012 apparently SISU didn't know, they just said the sale was a complete surprise to them in 2014.

 

[Malaka]

Because its the sensible thing to do to get the best price for the tax payer! Thats why.

So my car is for sale, you say no I don't want a car, someone offers my say £3k, I go back and say look mate I know you don't want a car but if you give me more than £3k you can have it. I need to sell the car, what should I do?

 

[olderskyblue]

I thought the approved term for referring to SISU apologists was 'frothing'. It's just a pity that no one here, including Torch, falls into that category.

I'm all for a 'drop hands' settlement that involves the Council helping the club find some way out of this situation, but I'm not daft enough to accept that SISU are the only ones at fault here. I don't see any harm in expressing that.

As I said, SISU already did that in their statement.

 

[Nick]

Where are your sources? Something in the public domain.

Anyway if three was public knowledge about this in 2012 apparently SISU didn't know, they just said the sale was a complete surprise to them in 2014.

It is in the public domain that they were talking in 2012 from 2 different sources. 1 is the council lawyer.

Both were published after the move so it doesn't say when it was found out.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

You’ve got the wrong end of the stick.

Yesterday Sisu released a statement that just went “it’s the councils fault because reasons” and the thread was full of people frothing about how it’s obviously the councils fault and dragging us back to square one.

This silly “how much blame to each” thing is a red herring.

The problem is, as it always has been, that we have two sides both stating different versions of the truth.

Ultimately I don't really care who was at fault, both sides have screwed the Club over in my view, but as long as the Club has somewhere to call home permanently then that's the most important thing. I'd like to get back to the days where we can all just talk about the things going on, on the pitch, not the various leeches that have sucked the life out of CCFC off of it.

 

[GaryJones]

When a public body sells or long term leases an asset it has a duty to get the best price. They dont get to pick based on who they like or dont like.
They should have told SISU that Wasps were interested and they have made an offer of £££ and then ask SISU if they want to counterbid or risk losing the Ricoh to Wasps.
I must also say that I dont know why SISU didnt buy the share of The Ricoh when they originally had the chance - they missed a trick there!

 

[vow]

Here we go!

 

[Captain Dart]

More readable

 

[ajsccfc]

I'm just glad that we've had a load of wordy statements and short meetings and absolutely fuck all has happened.

 

[Malaka]

When you sell a house and you have more than one interested buyer it goes to sealed bids - not rocket science!

There wasn't more than one interested buyer though. They were only interested when it was sold. They bluffed and lost. That's poker

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

There wasn't more than one interested buyer though. They were only interested when it was sold. They bluffed and lost. That's poker

Depends what you’re buying though - if it was the 45 year lease then no there was no other buyers - on the other hand if a 250 year extension was up for grabs at a knockdown price I’m sure there would have been more bidders

 

[Nick]

Even though it's been proven they have acted against ccfc interests.

They have missed a trick by not calling their bluff and inviting them in to build relationships.

They aren't going to drop the legals and then wait and see what happens. It needs to be a negotiation both ways.

I expect a trust Statement will follow

 

[Paul Anthony]

So, in a nutshell:

SISU: Help us find Land for a stadium and we'll drop the legals.

Council: Drop the legals and we'll see about helping you.

Same old theme.

 

[vow]

"Drop legals.....blah...blah...fuckin blah"

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

I don’t understand why a conditional deal at the Ricoh can’t be discussed.

Keep the drop the legals but dangle the carrot. Here’s the deal, sign it and when the legals are dropped it commences