Search results

wasn't this her reply to the observer?

it does seem higgs are getting far less stick than ccc. what i don't get is that for years we had been told that there was a formula they had to follow to reach their sale price - which was implied to be in excess to what they had put in. it does seem remarkable that a charity can justify a 4m...

2 major factors in wasps success or failure will be they do have access to all revenue streams & there is apparently much more Tv money coming into rugby. also i would imagine they will be able to attract better sponsorship deals on the back of the tv deals & having "upgraded" to the Ricoh.

it was in the minutes of one of the recent scg meetings. probably available on the club website ir covmad

but isn't the difference are playing the top sides domestically and from europe regularly?

Invite bids to change use we are told one of the other interested parties was a property developer

I'm curious are rugby fans as fickle as football fans? as a lot of these people attending the wasps games are rugby (rather than wasps ) fans would a run of poor results change the crowds drastically?

then why not send it to joy? she's the decision maker.

which group did the PSB group used to be?

if they represent such a talented (and potentially useful) group of fans how about starting with a letter that focuses on building bridges? don't see this letter achieving anything and seems to be addressed more to the sisu out fans rather than Fisher.

i don't see it as SISU having lost out i see it as the football club having lost out. as I've just posted above I'm not pro council on this issue.just that all parties should have to be openly accountable on this issue. whether i like it or not i haven't seen anything new that makes me...

not nervous about any deal. not sure whether I'm tired, frustrated or maybe even apathetic. don't see why any parts should be left out if an inquiry. for the record I've consistently said i don't see how people can make judgements without knowing all the facts and I've always backed a full...

doesn't one of the articles say that there were at least two other interested parties?

no paying the lease premium removed all rental obligations. that was in some council minutes i found years ago.

still don't get this. council made decisions to sell ACL to a 3rd party as they didn't feel the business could carry on as it was. if it's nothing to do with the football club why is it mainly only ccfc fans complaining and every article about it extensively includes the football club in them...

maybe same problem as on here multiple usernames!!

the point was that the original 1.9m was to allow the council to pay the loan.acl then took out the loan to pay the lump sum which was reportedly costing them 1.7m per year with a commercial lender. now the acl is still at 1.7m a year over slightly longer time frame with the council acting as...

surely any investigation needs to involve ccfc as the council's actions are largely as a reaction to situations engineered by the football club? what's the point of an investigation where only one side is giving their version?

1. it is interesting against the original acl rent fee of 1.9m per year. 2. surprising that Wasps can't refinance this loan at a better rate with a commercial lender. ir may be that is their intention.

my concerns over any independent investigation are: 1. who is actually going to appoint it? 2. what powers it would have? 3. who will pay for it? 4. is it really any different from the current jr or the next one SISU want? 5. what is the timeframe? 6. does it provide the owners with an...