Reading the article it appears not. It would seem that Lucas stated in the recent budget meeting that the loan to ACL did not impact on the ability of the council to use its reserves as the money for the loan had come from borrowing not council reserves. This contradicts what has been said previously be the council (its the same story they came out with when the loan was initially made that was then found to be untrue) and when challenged the council are now refusing to comment.Is the same story as last week by the same paper ?
Same words just moved around a bit ?
In two years, two papers, a twitter feed and fuck knows how many articles, Reid hasn't managed to come up with anything more than "I don't like this council and I'm sure they're doing something dodgy". This article is literally an article about his last article, written as if he wasn't the author of it. Hilarious.I don't see what there is new in this at all. This refers to events in 2013 and the initial ACL loan, which has been through the Judicial review and is subject to another appeal so I can understand the no comment stance at this point and it is Peter Ward making the statement using the word "absurd" and seems to be wanting to shine a light onto the open letter signed by Mr Reid amongst others.
I wish Mr Ried could use his award winning investigative journalistic skills to write a new truly balanced article for once that sheds some light on the situation
Of course but tony shmeee et al will ignore that.Is the 'new' bit not the fact that in a meeting last week Lucas claimed the money loaned to ACL had come from borrowing rather than council reserves and that to say otherwise was a lie?
That would contradict what has been previously stated by the council and it seems when Reid has asked for clarification they've closed ranks and played the can't comment card.
The fact that the money has come from reserves and not borrowing isn't new information it's the fact that Lucas is claiming it to be from other sources.
It's like the hammer on the knee.The new bit is the fact that the leader of the council has been caught in an obvious contradiction regarding where the £14.4m bail-out came from, and when asked to clarify this week has hidden behind 'legal proceedings'.
The "tinfoil hat" and "smoking gun" thing makes me laugh - this coming from people so lazy and set in their opinions that they haven't even troubled themselves to read the article before criticising it.
Why would Les ask those questions it goes against all he stands for????Les how much debt will CCFC be in if we build a new stadium.
How many sites are there of 60 acres within 8 miles of the council house that are for sake or not currently in use? Approach them all to see if they would sell their land to SISU.
How many sites are there combined that equal 60 acres?
How does the FFP benefit add up once the interest is paid on the debt.
Is Wasps model sustainable without CCFC? How much benefit is it to wasps to have a successful CCFC?
What would it be worth to CCFC to bid for half of ACL. In order to get a sustainable benefit without burdening the club with a debt it could never repay
Who will build the new stadium