Search results

And I quote "I am trying to support the football club against biased "anti "comments". What unproven allegations have been made against the club?

Announcement in three weeks.

If that happens it will be because SISU are a willing victim. SISU already have done more damage to CCFC than all the others combined and they aren't finished yet.

It's not the fact that SISU are doing it that bothers me, it's the fact that there is no coherent plan of how this is going to benefit the club. The fact is that they've done more to convince me that Ryton will be sold and houses will be built on it in the last three weeks than they have to...

Nothing stopping SISU inviting the CT to do an interview to address this stirring and win us all over.

Same old same old. We'll blame RBC for including Ryton in the town plan and WU for being bad landlords and ripping the club of. May as well throw in a JR or two as well while we're at it for good measure.

For the second time in a few weeks. Seriously, have you only just met SISU?

It is the last remaining asset that the club own. Can you not see how this potentially mirrors leaving HR for the Ricoh? Should we not learn some lessons from that?

Read what RBC actually said, not CCFC's spin on it. It says playing surfaces. Nothing more nothing less. It's so ambiguous and by no way confirms us moving to a new training facility owned by the club. We really shouldn't take our eye of the ball on this one.

If there was positive things to say about CCFC we'd all be saying them including you. As none of us including you can find anything positive to say about CCFC (especially the decision making at the club) doesn't mean biased it means reality.

No, no. They lost that deliberately.

...with their pesky paper trails ;)

Doesn't seem an overly tough request, does it...

There must have been a smoking gun with his finger prints on ;)

Be good news if they are. Especially Stokes.

No. Could was always in the original post. I haven't changed anything. Gave out an English lesson yes but not changed anything.

My only mistake was presuming that you knew the meaning of the word could. Don't worry. I'll dumb it down just for you next time :)

Could! Could! You do know what could means don't you? It's a suggestion, not stated as a fact. How could I state facts when as per usual we have none.

The devil is in the detail. It doesn't say that CCFC have replace the training facilities with more training facilities for CCFC it clearly says pitch provision. It's all about maintaining the number of pitches in the borough. Whether they were private previously and public now doesn't seem to...

I never said there was. But unless there's a new training ground actually being built (something there's zero evidence of happening at this point) what else is going to happen with them? It's either that or leave them to rot.