Search results

See I think its hypocritical to pretend to care about what another club is doing as much as your own one. I personally couldn't give a shit about what Wasps have done. I only care about CCFC, and I suspect you do as well. I don't understand the crocodile tears from city fans over Wasps.

The point is you didn't care before 2014 because it had no impact on you or the team you support. City fans going to Wasps games has no impact on our Sky Blues, so there is no conflict of views. Your claiming that franchising is wrong and evil and shouldn't be supported, but didn't care until...

Can I just ask, at what point did you become critical of Wasps for moving out of their home town? 2007 or 2014?

Your doing it again aren't you? Criticising individuals for things someone else said. How about I claim you thought Sixfields was great because RFC posted on here it that he liked it? When did any senior members of the trust criticise anyone for going to Sixfields?

So did any of those members of the trust that you are now criticising, argue that going to Sixfields meant endorsing the move?

Can you find a single statement from the SBT or its senior members where they say franchising in sport/rugby is good?

I wouldn't say the council deserve any credit for this, but likewise they wouldn't deserve any criticism if JLR left. People on here lately effectively having a go at the council for the 70's collapse of British Leyland were laughable.

Browns Lane was a 60 year old plant, part of a failing automotive group. The new JLR plants will be the most modern in the country, and part of a company that is growing rapidly.

In fairness I imagine it is greenbelt land, so it would be a no no for a football stadium anyway imo.

Two more factories in the pipeline, be interesting to see where they are. Two less sites for a football ground.

The current official position of RBC is that no discussions have taken place. Is there any evidence to suggest that isn't the case?

I never said you did say any information was falsified. What you did seem to say was that there were ways of getting around answering the question. What I am saying is in this instance they have given an answer that can't be interpreted in any other way. So its either true or it isn't.

The second it was pointed out a grovelling apology come out and it was explained as a mistake. Due to reacting quickly it seemed to be interpreted as a genuine mistake. I suspect had they not reacted so quickly it would have began to look suspicious and there would have been consequences for CCC.

Q. Are you in discussions with any party about building a sports stadium within your borough. A. No That is a pretty clear response and if that isn't true then that would be illegal.

Of course it is illegal. RBC were asked a straightforward question and gave a straightforward reply. If they have falsified an FOI reply then maximum punishment is a custodial sentence. Why exactly would a council employee risk going to jail in order to help Sisu?

But that would be illegal, and unless we want to start throwing those kinds of accusations around, we have no choice but to accept RBC's reply to the FOI's. TF has nothing to back up his version of events.

I think most of us agree that a successful long term future is only possible with Sisu out of the picture. Therefore the long term aim of a city fans group has to be one that encourages new ownership. That is what is best for CCFC. That doesn't however mean that the trust and Sisu can't work...

Everyone but Mr Fisher understands this it seems. Any chance of a comment from RBC on this?

Shite footballers living this sort of life shows everything that's wrong with the modern game.

So TF seems to be accusing RBC of falsifying a FOI request again. He wants to be careful about those types of accusations. What's interesting though is despite all evidence suggesting that no discussions have taken place, some fans still seem to think they have based on nothing more than TF's...