Search results

And you know this how?

Depends which version. The original, as written by JH was "sing", but over the years the version sung by the fans changed to "fight" - probably during the 70's :) So take your choice.

Was there too - very sad. Oakey was a fabulous attacking full back.

Congratulations to the organisers and well done to BT for the coverage.

Embarrassed about still not providing the "accurate" statistics?

Odd that when it's so simple, so few have chosen to do it. I guess there must be a reason for that.............

Yes, having reflected, I see that you are quite correct. No blame of any sort can be attached to SISU. All the fault of people posting on a website. Thankyou for helping me to see the light.

Can't they threaten Arsenal with legal action to get more tickets? Isn't that the normal way to do things? :)

As I recall, it was legal fees incurred by Higgs re a proposed sale of their share of ACL to SISU that SISU apparently promised to refund to Higgs if they didn't go through with the purchase.

I think that that was the point that he was making.

I guess that it would depend if the accounts are "a bit of a mess" at that time :)

It seems that we agree that it is not a question of what they have the power to do, but a question of what they have the will to do.

Are you saying that the only sanction that the league can use against any of its members is to expel them? If so, I think that you are wrong. I think that the league has a number of things that it can do. Whether it has the courage to use them against a member that is perceived to be...

If a deal were to be done for the Ricoh, there would appear to be 3 possibilities: 1. A short term deal, pretty much along the lines proposed by ACL. This would allow SISU to benefit from increased revenues and would also massively reduce the risk of alienating a large part of the customer...

Well if ACL and their lease remained in place unchanged, what would be the point of owning the freehold?

We have quite a few that end up as Shambles. I guess it's not really the same thing..........

1&2 could be achieved by a leasehold agreement. I'm not quite sure what you mean by 3.

I can completely understand that stance, but it's the logical leap that this "must/can only" be achieved through freehold ownership that I have yet to see explained.

Why do you consider that to be perjorative? Mr Fisher has frequently stated that the only viable model (my paraphrase) is freehold ownership. It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask why this is so and to point out that "additional income streams" which have frequently been referenced in...

Perhaps your comments should be directed at Mr Fisher given the final paragraph of his comments.