Search results

<p> You claim the council stole the project. Whoever they stole it off would surely be a victim?

<p> Ive read that all the way through. Ive seen Acl, Tescos and the Council put money in, yet the 'victim' as you claim put in nothing.

<p> My word, have you been to the police with this shocking information? This changes my whole opinion now, I never realised the council forcibly took ownership of the Ricoh against the clubs will. Why have you kept this information to yourself all these years? Has the secret police...

<p> Lighten up. If sisu thought they could make money out of this it would be straight on the shelves anyway (sorry, barrow).

I couldn't see how 2 teams would work in the long term. The new acl utd would get bigger crowds thank sisu fc in Walsall. If the acl team was successful then the sisu team would eventually go out of existence. If sisu fc was successful then someone else would buy them and probably move...

When the location is revealed just tell the telegraph that you've seen bats or adders in the area. Just a mention of an endangered species in the area will mean it all has to be investigated properly, delaying sisus plans and causing them extra cost.

<p> That depends on what their plan is. If it was just to try and get acl on the cheap then this would be game over for them.

Telegraph cried wolf once to often with this sort of thing.

<p> But we would have gone into administration had the higgs charity not took on the clubs share. That was something that took council approval.

How exactly? Remember its a completely different argument from the rent.

That comes from the common belief that the council and acl are the same thing. We need to view them as the separate organisations that they are.

Yes I agree it was a good deal, and had the club been properly run then we would have been the beneficiaries. My whole point was you can apportion blame on the rent agreement if you want, but the council taking control of the construction of the ground had no detrimental effect on Ccfc.

Of course I don't, what is wrong with the council doing that anyway? It wasn't detrimental to Ccfc, and it saved the project.

I'm not talking about acl, I was talking about the council.

As I'm sure your aware the money came from tesco. They got their store, council got their ground. What's the great scandal about that?

As we are talking about the actual construction of the stadium your point is irrelevant.

Your mixing up the rent agreement with the building of the stadium. The council building the stadium was beneficial to the club, not detrimental.

Well the council did build the stadium, that's an indisputable fact. Also the highs charity bailed the club out in 2003. 24 hours away from admin.

But no one was worse off from the council building the stadium.

Shouldn't the council be congratulated on the investment they got on taxpayers money? That is their job after all.