Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
Hahahaha! He reminds me of Gareth from the Office.
Council Hearing Match Thread (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
Hahahaha! He reminds me of Gareth from the Office.
Moff
Well-Known Member
You do write some utter shit at times.
If you dont like the rational, why react in exactly the same way?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Where is it suggested SISU bid for the council's share of ACL?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
What would that 24 million get you exactly?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
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.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
So would effectively get what Wasps just got but a 40year lease not 200 or are you getting less?
Nick
Administrator
No, it was matchday only..... A lot less.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
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.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
£24m would give you access to things listed above by chiefdave.
You would also get:
0% ACL ownership and as an added bonus
0% non-matchday revenue of any kind.
Seeing as we know what Wasps paid for everything later down the lane you can at least see why that particular deal didn't get done.
You would also get:
0% ACL ownership and as an added bonus
0% non-matchday revenue of any kind.
Seeing as we know what Wasps paid for everything later down the lane you can at least see why that particular deal didn't get done.
Exactly. Lots of repeats on here. SISU lost 6-0 in this one as I understand it. Good. One distraction gone - unless there is some way of appealing or fault finding. I want all the distractions over with. We were once a football club before we got roped into being part of a litigation club and a would-be property speculators association. I hope Anderson comes up with a game plan for the stadium situation and possible Championship survival. That is more important to the club than who said what to whom. They were all looking after themselves anyway.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
I'd assume, given it was always going to go the council's way, there was a higher purpose to it.
Christ knows what but... would be rather surprised if this was the end of it.
(Then again, it's a small insignificant thing really. Does it really deserve any attention at all?)
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It isn't litigation to complain about the conduct of elected representatives
Seeing as there are 2 JRs ( 1 on hold) going on, and that it took 2 or 3 years to become offended victims, in this case it appears to be connected to ongoing litigation. The same people with the same gripes.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I suspect it was character assassination ahead of the JR appeal (although in the end the second round came to late for that) and ahead of JR2. Imagine if it was found against the council and you could reference that even the council found against themselves. That would have been a good weapon in their war chest. Let's face it, with all the money they've spanked on litigation it was hardly a drop in the ocean in terms of cost to do it so well worth the effort and who knows it may have even uncovered something previously unknown to the SISU legal team.
Of course it could be an indication of just how weak SISU's argument is and they just need to throw shit in any direction hoping something sticks.
It also could be an indication of how personal this has become and it's purely been done for theatrical character assassination and nothing else. I guess we'll only find out how successful that was at the next election.
Nick
Administrator
Surely nobody actually thought the council would rule against the council?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Are you saying it was a fix ?
Nick
Administrator
I am saying it was pretty much bang on that when it was said the panel was made up of councillors that you would know what the ruling would be without having to hear any lawyers speak.
It would be like you ruling something against Wasps......
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Surely if you are professional and accountable you just do your job.
Sounds more like sour grapes to me.
Nick
Administrator
Not really, because I don't think anybody thought it would go any other way in the first place?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Probably because nobody did anything wrong.
Sometimes we need to look at without our CCFC hat on to make sense of what happened.
Same for all the JR stuff.
If it was a hedge fund trying to do a hostile take over of the cathedral to knock it down to build houses you might look at it differently.
Nick
Administrator
I agree, so when are we getting outraged about the Maltese outfit actually doing what SISU were "trying"?
It would be like one hedge fund trying to get the cathedral to knock it down, everybody getting angry. Then another coming in and just flattening it and people scrambling to get their names down for a house.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
council clear council
ok
ok
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
We should never have been there, there should have been zero acceptance of that move however temporary.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
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.
Nick
Administrator
I think it was for some sort of pr as well. No chance in hell they would win.
It's like fisher judging whether sisu did anything wrong...
Nick
Administrator
I think the fact they said there was a personal media attack.
In the evidence there is an email saying that a job has been done on her, planning to go to her house and talks of a media war.
I still don't understand why nothing has been said about Mutton being such a player though! "I'm married" He may as well have held his fingers out.
Or Les Reid coming up with an anti SISU exklusive...
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Was the original decision and actual report written by the council?
I thought this Mr Goscher bloke was independent.
Was there any independent people making the decision about whether the appeal against Mr Goachers report having any merit?
Nick
Administrator
Very true, he could take a leaf out of the Telegraph's book and suppress the news though ay
I might be wrong, but wasn't Reid quite anti sisu at the start?
Nick
Administrator
It said they had an independent "advisor".
If you took a step back, took off any hat you had on and read the Goacher blokes words from yesterday and see.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
If you read it not knowing his role you would think he was the council's defence lawyer!
Nick
Administrator
His words weren't "My investigation found this, I found that Mutton said this because.." it was more justifying everything for them.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
But is it right the Mr goacher interviewed both sides and did the original report.
Is independent
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Given the gripe I would say no. From what I read it was pure character assassination. There didn't seem to be any argument of they did this and it breaks the councils ethics code because of X, Y & Z. It was a gripe for the sake of griping, not a structured argument from what I read. Admittedly I haven't read everything but only because the tone seem to be set early doors and I turned off. There was no structure to it. Yes it was like turkeys voting for Xmas but still if you're going to do it seriously at least have a structured argument. The outcome was assured by the approach of the complaint as much as anything else.
