Search results

Ralf Naders niece was on it apparently and he’s raising a lawsuit against Boeing.

Where have I said that? Besides there should only be one condition for dropping the litigation. It’s what’s best for CCFC.

Yeah, that must be it.

Of course they won’t and I’m not suggesting they will. It’s history repeating. SISU doing the same things expecting different results. This is just the same loop as last time, I expect the same results. When we’ve got to 360 degrees we’ll be infinitely worse off than we were at 0 degrees. Same...

Same reason.

It’s pointless. That’s the point. It’s a barrier for the club. That’s the point. Dropping them is the only possible way the club will ever benefit from them. That’s the point. All the legals not just the current round have never done anything other than damage the club. That’s the point. That’s...

I’d love either a new stadium (traditional not bowl, 25K capacity so a proper HR2) or ownership of the Ricoh. Neither are going to happen under SISU though unless someone dies and leaves the Ricoh to them in their will. Of course it matters how we get there. There’s only one way to do it and it...

Are you talking about the council or SISU? It equally applies to both as I’ve already pointed out. You seem unwilling to acknowledge though that SISU started dicking around over two years ago with the woodlands site when they first identified it for another purpose. As NW has pointed out not...

Exactly.

I want SISU to drop the pointless litigation. That will sort it out overnight. I won’t indulge SISU in the continuing saga of imagination stadium. Like the majority of our fans I want these things because I want it resolved in the quickest possible way and possibly the only possible way. I think...

Over two years ago they first identified the site as a replacement for Ryton and joint academy. It was well received because it ties in with the councils long-standing plans for the site. Nothing has happened since on that. Now this. Who is drawing it out exactly? One plan well received, never...

Because it amuses me that it bothers you so much. Clearly you’re a Tad thicker than me as you’ve played your part in my amusement so willingly.

And pretending that you want to build a ground on a site that you already know from previous enquires 2 years prior is highly unlikely for numerous reasons that you’ve already established isn’t pissing around and drawing things out?

Brexit has overtaken politics for three years now at the expense of neglecting everything else. I think you’re quite naive to suggest that they should have got on with it when it’s all politics has been about for three years. Teresa May set out the red lines the leavers wanted within her party...

Not millions then? That’s a surprise ;)

I’ve never claimed to have any figures. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist though to work out that a greenfield site with a few buildings on isn’t going to be anywhere near as expensive to develop at any stage from basic planning and consultation to completion as a heavy industrial site of...

They didn’t want it. Much better to let someone else deliver the reality of leave not the fantasy then claim that they could have done better after the event. Which of course they couldn’t.

I think the point is that they are expected to follow the standard procedures the same as everyone else. No evidence as yet that they’ve done that. You are the one making it about the council not me. I’m making it about the parallels of what happened last time. Forgive me if I don’t go RFC over...

It’s not. So you won’t be able to use it to check what I’ve said as you usually do.

Because Woodlands is a site that’s had decades of heavy industrial use on it, has towers to be demolished, requires major decontamination? If you want accuracies start by comparing eggs with eggs. Woodlands is basically a greenfield site.