Search results

Another cracking episode last night. I can't remember a lot of the details of the case from when it actually happened so I'm trying to resist the temptation to read up on it.

If you read it not knowing his role you would think he was the council's defence lawyer!

Is it the same number when you want to make a substitution? :D

Have you read the council's code of conduct? In particular section 4. You should give it a read and then look at the 6 points SISU complained about and the evidence presented.

Quite enjoyed this week, things are looking up!

Nothing like what Wasps got. The £24m would give us revenues only from the days on which we play at the Ricoh. You'd probably need to make in the region of £25K a match (profit not revenue) to even break even at that price. That's a lot of pies and pints.

What was termed 'matchday revenues' so you would get parking, pie money (I would assume ACLs cut after Compass as anything else wouldn't be theirs to offer), hospitality. That kind of thing. And of course that was over the original term of the lease so 40 something years.

Could be carrying a knock. Although if he is he shouldn't be playing.

Really? Buying Higgs share wouldn't give them a controlling interest in ACL and wouldn't give them any say in decisions such as rent. Sure they could have made a suggestion that the rent be lowered but with no controlling share and a lease in place it wouldn't have given them a strong position...

To be fair given that they were quoted £24m its not really a surprise they didn't rush to get the chequebook out.

Seem to recall some of them didn't even have seats

:facepalm:

Actually if you look at Wasps previous moves the move to the Ricoh is following a very familiar path. And as we know both their previous moves saw them later walk away for a perceived better option.

And again you twist the narrative to suit. Using your example what if the market value was a fiver and you offered a fiver and got told to get lost. The simple fact is you have no idea what talks took place, as with all of us you can only guess. The difference is whenever someone suggests a...

You might be thinking of the work David Nutt did. He was the governments advisor and wanted things classified based on actual evidence of the harm they caused. Alcohol was right up there (after heroin and cocaine) and above things like acid and ecstasy. He got the push when he stated, IMO...

If that's the best they could come up with they shouldn't have bothered. What an embarrassment, looks like something from a crap heritage line. Reminds me of the football specials when we used to play Villa and they were worried about the trains being smashed up.

The suggestion from SBZ was that Lucas and Sepalla could have discussed the sale of ACL with Lucas dismissing it out of hand. You stated this was not possible as it would have to have gone between the full council. You're now saying that only a formal offer would have to go before the full council.

Sambou posted about young players getting a chance against a big team like Arsenal, obviously referring to Rashford.

How is it clutching at straws? Are you seriously going to say every conversation that takes place about the disposal of any council asset goes before the full council?

Yes it is, if the assertion is that any offer made by SISU would have to be put before the full council then you need to define at what point any talks become an offer.