Search results

Apologies for falsely accusing you of the terrible crime of whistling! My point stands though, how do you get from individuals on the hill using whistles to the implication in the minutes that the trust are somehow responsible and need to be issuing statements about it?

From what I've seen SISU have not suggested the clause doesn't exist. Therefore if we assume SISU did indeed agree a clause that stated they would pay Higgs costs in the event that the deal was not concluded. In that scenario the conclusion is that SISU are trying to get out of paying a debt...

If there is a clause saying SISU pay Higgs costs if they don't complete the deal that is a one way street isn't it, how do you interpret it otherwise? Unless there is an additional clause saying if, in this certain set of circumstances, the deal isn't concluded Higgs are liable for SISUs costs...

If you mean a judgement in favour of Higgs has no influence on the JR then I would absolutly agree. Not sure you could apply the same to this actual case, from what's already been mentioned there is no agreement for Higgs to pay SISUs costs in any circumstances so IMO SISU shouldn't be going...

What I'm not quite understanding is how we get from Dongo and possibly GPE blowing whistles to it being the fault of the trust and them needing to take action on it.

I think a problem with this case is people are already saying if SISU 'win' then clearly they are in the right but to me it's not as black and white as that. If there is a clause that, due to the way it is worded, is not legally binding then IMO that doesn't mean SISU should be trying to avoid...

I think you're quoting the formula price there which was of course set at the time of sale to prevent the club having to pay a huge amount if the value went up and equally prevent the charity from incurring a loss if the value went down. Seem to recall the amount agreed when the HOT was drawn...

I remember a game at HR where the ref had a message put out over the PA asking for people in the crowd to stop whistling, clearly they had been planted there by the trust ;)

No idea on numbers but when I used to go (late 80s, early 90s) the main stand would be roughly half full. Remember one game against Liverpool which was packed as they had some of their big names playing.

The problem I have with the comment in the meeting about the whistling is that it insinuates that it is something done by the trust or at least endorsed by them where there doesn't really seem to be any evidence to suggest that's the case is there? Why is there not something in there with the...

They've got to play Northampton at Sixfields as well. Really struggling to score goals with a very shaky defence. They've loaned their best striker to Oxford as he had a bust up with the new manager and he keeps scoring for them, think he's scored as many as the whole Pompey team since he left...

Things are so bad I can't work out if you're being sarcastic or not!

Great stuff. Wonder what the response will be from the Northampton fans?

The minutes from Garlicks group are so ridiculous they're actually comical. They start off listing attendees including people representing SBITC, SCG and the former players association then say the trust aren't involved as they are only allowing individuals not representatives of organisations...

Nothing seems to make sense unless you work from a viewpoint of SISU exerting pressure over these groups and possibly even controlling them. Garlick has refused the biggest supporters representative group that they can't have a seat in her group. She has now complained that they have passed this...

wouldn't argue with that. it comes across as a rant, and something preplanned. totally out of order, if he had any issues with the Trust he should have requested a meeting with them away from the SCG to attempt to resolve them. his position simply isn't tenable after this.

I can't think of anything that's been on the trust website that's worth getting worked up about. The complaint that they put Garlicks letter up on there without her permission is comical. The trust are fans representatives, they are perfectly correct to publish that information and if Garlick...

They seem to be suggesting in these minutes that anyone on the SCG now shouldn't be there in the capacity of representing any other group which seems a strange idea when surely you want as much input as possible into this kind of thing.

Personally I hope the SBT resign from this. Its clearly now made up of a majority of people who want to position themselves as on the inside and more important than the rest of us. SBT remaining involved just give the SCG some air of legitimacy.

Personally I hope the SBT resign from this. Its clearly now made up of a majority of people who want to position themselves as on the inside and more important than the rest of us. SBT remaining involved just give the SCG some air of legitimacy.