Council Protest (3 Viewers)

Skyblueweeman · May 10, 2014

Kingokings204 said:
I'm sorry Grendel, for all we know you are a Internet troll and have nothing to do with ccfc what so ever and with your comments over astute who strikes me as an genuine honest fan like myself.

We all respect your opinion but it is factually wrong and from behind a keyboard it is not easy to call if you are a genuine warped fan of a troll. I say this because you are very quick to engage into an argument and you always request "proof" of comments and just say things like "comedy gold" which really doesn't assist to the debate or help anyone.

Please remember we are all ccfc fans at the end of the day and want the best for the club. Respect others on here and they will respect you more.

Lastly astute keep up the good work. I see it exactly how you do and it's just common sense and also factually correct. Dont eangae with nasty comments.

KOK...Posts #91 and #94....Grendel is asking for proof....it's exactly the same the other way round. Whilst I don't always agree with Grendels stance, many times he ask the correct question...'where's the proof?'. No harm in that. Easy to jump on and call him a troll....maybe he his, maybe he isn't...but I'd ask the same questions.

Likewise, I've never always agreed with Astute but again, respect his opinions. Grendel asked questions which weren't answered. And Astute labelled his posts 'bullshit'...had that been the other way round, Grendel would've been castigated (further).

I'm not saying either is right or wrong, but FFS, the hypocrisy on here is unreal.

WM

EDIT - I continued to read the rest of the thread and Grendel is calling people 'tossers' and Astute is swerving Nick, also asking for evidence. You can't write this stuff!!

Nick · May 10, 2014

Astute said:
What evidence do you have to say not though Nick? There is more evidence to say so than not.

What evidence?

dongonzalos · May 10, 2014

Grendel said:
Astute and king of very little agree with me. The rules are I make a statement and you have to prove I am wrong. You can't so I am right.

Its called am astute fact (though I think sky blue John may claim title)

...........

hill83 · May 10, 2014

dongonzalos · May 10, 2014

Nick said:
What evidence?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK2Z_63muQ4&sns=em

Nick · May 10, 2014

I have evidence to say that ann Lucas is really a sisu spy, but you won't see it until you show me evidence she isn't.

Is that how it works?

Astute · May 10, 2014

Skyblueweeman said:
KOK...Posts #91 and #94....Grendel is asking for proof....it's exactly the same the other way round. Whilst I don't always agree with Grendels stance, many times he ask the correct question...'where's the proof?'. No harm in that. Easy to jump on and call him a troll....maybe he his, maybe he isn't...but I'd ask the same questions.

Likewise, I've never always agreed with Astute but again, respect his opinions. Grendel asked questions which weren't answered. And Astute labelled his posts 'bullshit'...had that been the other way round, Grendel would've been castigated (further).

I'm not saying either is right or wrong, but FFS, the hypocrisy on here is unreal.

WM

EDIT - I continued to read the rest of the thread and Grendel is calling people 'tossers' and Astute is swerving Nick, also asking for evidence. You can't write this stuff!!

Look a bit harder. I answered all of his questions just for him not to answer any back as usual. He even chased me on another thread for an answer.

Don't worry will ignore him from now. Always seems to catch me when I have had a beer or several. He can find someone else to play with from now.

Grendel · May 10, 2014

Nick said:
I have evidence to say that ann Lucas is really a sisu spy, but you won't see it until you show me evidence she isn't.

Is that how it works?

It is from Astute and King of Very Little.

I actually ran the marathon in one hour and 59 minutes yesterday - - a world record.

Don't believe me? Well....................

Grendel · May 10, 2014

Astute said:
Look a bit harder. I answered all of his questions just for him not to answer any back as usual. He even chased me on another thread for an answer.

Don't worry will ignore him from now. Always seems to catch me when I have had a beer or several. He can find someone else to play with from now.

Nope you didnt answer at all.

hill83 · May 10, 2014

I'm not going to read through the thread as it's usually total bollocks. But I bet the Astute didn't show any proof did he? I don't even know what about, but I reckon I'm right anyway.
Aren't I. I know I am.

hill83 · May 10, 2014

Have I won the thread?

Nick · May 10, 2014

hill83 said:
Have I won the thread?

Only if you post a Vince mcmahan gif

Skyblueweeman · May 10, 2014

I've just landed in Atlanta, GA this afternoon (6.38pm here at the mo). Loving beer induced posts...wait until they start coming through at 5am UK time...my turn for 'beery' posts

hill83 · May 10, 2014

Nick · May 10, 2014

hill83 said:

Pretty much won the internet

duffer · May 10, 2014

limoncello said:
There's some right wankers on here. Why get a bee in your bonnet because some are protesting against one of the parties involved in our sorry affair? 'I want to see the workings of this £2.5m loss for Foleshill'. What is wrong with you people? Idiots.

I haven't got a bee in my bonnet because people are protesting, but I get a little irritated when people throw things around like 'it's costing the city millions' without any attempt to provide evidence.

Let's face it mate, you're the one who gets upset and runs away when challenged to to actually debate something with evidence. You'd rather just throw in a bullshit comment and run away. If we're wankers, I don't know what that makes you.

Astute · May 10, 2014

Astute said:
Are you saying that if CCC wouldn't negotiate with SISU and SISU tried to that Timothy wouldn't let us all know?

Or do you just want to make up excuses for them again?

Grendel said:
Nope you didnt answer at all.

Grendel said:
I'm saying you have no evidence that they haven't - and your lame reply is proof.

There is no evidence they will not negotiate
There is no evidence they only want the freehold and wouldn't actually take a long lease (ML said they would)
There is no evidence they would charge the club millions in rent if they owned the ground
They is no evidence they would pile debt onto the ground
There is no evidence that they couldn't have the unencumbered freehold (before you start ive seen businesses with sub contracts get taken over)

All the evidence you have gathered have been council based quotes. Its not facts and its not evidence.

Astute said:
What a load of bullshit

Grendel said:
Oh really? Provide some evidence to back up the claims then.

Grendel said:
Clearly Astute's Internet connection has deserted him.

Astute said:
I have a life and don't wait for your biased attacks on CCC as you always do.

What proof do you have that they want to negotiate? They asked for a lower rent. They got offered it. Turned it down and said they wanted F+B. Turned it down. Got offered an even lower rent and F+B. Less than paying in Northampton. Worth millions more in income. Turned it down and said they wanted nothing less than the unencumbered freehold. Do you call that negotiating?

Joy said that she would only accept the unencumbered freehold. Are you calling her a liar?

Are you saying you have proof that they won't charge our club a high rent when they charge our club 1.8m interest on the debt they have run up trying to get the Ricoh on the cheap?

Why do they want the freehold when there is no benefit over a long term rental agreement? How will they make money for their investors?

They could have the unencumbered freehold if CCC used taxpayers money to pay off contracts, but as we know SISU wouldn't want them to do this. That is why we await the JR.

Council based quotes? Make your mind up. You normally complain that they never make any comments. Now you say I make my mind up from the comments they make

You say I don't have any proof on anything I say. All we have to do is look at the way they have done everything so far. So what proof do you have that they will suddenly look after our club and fans? None as usual.

Do your contact lenses make you blind to the truth as well as your phone?

Grendel said:
Comedy gold. Keep digging.

Astute said:
And yet again no reply. You can't make one up for them that anyone could even agree with you for. So you make your normal stupid comment which tries to distract from very valid points made.

Or would you like to say what is wrong with the post and why? Now that would be comedy gold.

Grendel said:
When someone says "provide evidence they won't" I geniunely lose interest. You make a statement and then say its correct unless you prove me wrong. In other words you've blagged it.

For your own sake I wish you'd realise how pitiful and pathetic you come across on here. You are the new NLHWC and look what became if him.

Grendel said:
That's interesting. So we do not need proof then that relocation costs the community £2.5 million?

Yes? Do you agree?

I

Astute said:
Of course you lose interest. You always ask for proof, but as someone asks you for evidence......which is less needed than proof you never answer.

So are you going to lose interest on asking for proof all the time?

Pitiful and pathetic? Think you should look at your own posts slightly more. At least I understand what is going on and understand what the JR is all about. You have just shown us all you don't even understand about the JR. And it could easily be the biggest thing to happen to our club for years.

Astute said:
Are you more concerned about the money that might have been lost locally in Coventry than CCFC did lose by being kept in Northampton?

Wassup Grendel no reply to an easy question as usual. The last question will do.

And yes I know I fell for the bait again :facepalm:

Grendel · May 10, 2014

Astute said:
I have a life and don't wait for your biased attacks on CCC as you always do.

What proof do you have that they want to negotiate? They asked for a lower rent. They got offered it. Turned it down and said they wanted F+B. Turned it down. Got offered an even lower rent and F+B. Less than paying in Northampton. Worth millions more in income. Turned it down and said they wanted nothing less than the unencumbered freehold. Do you call that negotiating?

No one know the full details of these offers. They have not been fully disclosed. No one knows if conditions such as dropping the JR were a condition of accepting these deals. Also you conveniently forget the small matter of CVA rejection - a negotiating own goal. So it is very possible they did negotiate but the JR and CVA rejection were obstacles. No evidence they did not negotiate and the fact ACL will not disclose full details of the offer raises questions.

Joy said that she would only accept the unencumbered freehold. Are you calling her a liar?

Did she? Where is the actual quote where she has said that -- is there a link or is this an Astute fact

Are you saying you have proof that they won't charge our club a high rent when they charge our club 1.8m interest on the debt they have run up trying to get the Ricoh on the cheap?

So an Astute fact. You have no evidence whatsoever but it must be right unless it is wrong

Why do they want the freehold when there is no benefit over a long term rental agreement? How will they make money for their investors?

No evidence to suggest they would not consider a long leasehold

They could have the unencumbered freehold if CCC used taxpayers money to pay off contracts, but as we know SISU wouldn't want them to do this. That is why we await the JR.

Where does this evidence come from? The Ann Lucas interview on CWR?
Council based quotes? Make your mind up. You normally complain that they never make any comments. Now you say I make my mind up from the comments they make

I say this as all your "evidence" -- the rent deals, the fact they do not negotiate, that they will not consider leasehold comes from council led information -- not from Seppella or Fisher

You say I don't have any proof on anything I say. All we have to do is look at the way they have done everything so far. So what proof do you have that they will suddenly look after our club and fans? None as usual.

In other words there is no evidence at all just circumstantial judgements

Do your contact lenses make you blind to the truth as well as your phone?

I have an open mind -- I do not just swallow anything I hear

limoncello · May 11, 2014

duffer said:
I haven't got a bee in my bonnet because people are protesting, but I get a little irritated when people throw things around like 'it's costing the city millions' without any attempt to provide evidence.

Let's face it mate, you're the one who gets upset and runs away when challenged to to actually debate something with evidence. You'd rather just throw in a bullshit comment and run away. If we're wankers, I don't know what that makes you.

So how much do you reckon it's costing the city not having Cov at the Ricoh? Care to hazard a guess?

Grendel · May 11, 2014

limoncello said:
So how much do you reckon it's costing the city not having Cov at the Ricoh? Care to hazard a guess?

He's on the phone to Lucas now so he gets the right answer.

Astute · May 11, 2014

limoncello said:
So how much do you reckon it's costing the city not having Cov at the Ricoh? Care to hazard a guess?

How much is it costing our club a season to be held hostage in Northampton? And don't say it is costing SISU because it is all loans they will want back.

limoncello · May 11, 2014

Astute said:
How much is it costing our club a season to be held hostage in Northampton? And don't say it is costing SISU because it is all loans they will want back.

Don't answer a question with a question. How much do you reckon?

duffer · May 11, 2014

limoncello said:
So how much do you reckon it's costing the city not having Cov at the Ricoh? Care to hazard a guess?

I'm not sure I need to have a guess, I'm not the one saying that it's costing the city millions.

However, you could try some sort of equation, Num Supporters * Num Games * Amount Spent. And if you were lazy that could well give you a figure that goes into the millions. Of course though, that doesn't of itself equal the amount of money that the city loses - the public purse would only receive a fraction of that.

An even bigger point is that this also presumes that if people don't go to the football they don't spend their money anywhere else. That's obviously a complete fallacy. In fact the money that some would have spent on tickets, for example, might now be spent in restaurants, bars or shops elsewhere. In which case there might be a net gain to the city's economy. And regardless of that people still drink and eat whether or not they're going to the football.

So the answer is that there's no easy answer - which tends to upset people who quote things like it's costing the council millions, but clam up when pushed as to why. It's certainly costing the club millions though, I can work that out on the back of a fag packet in about thirty seconds.

dongonzalos · May 11, 2014

duffer said:
I'm not sure I need to have a guess, I'm not the one saying that it's costing the city millions.

However, you could try some sort of equation, Num Supporters * Num Games * Amount Spent. And if you were lazy that could well give you a figure that goes into the millions. Of course though, that doesn't of itself equal the amount of money that the city loses - the public purse would only receive a fraction of that.

An even bigger point is that this also presumes that if people don't go to the football they don't spend their money anywhere else. That's obviously a complete fallacy. In fact the money that some would have spent on tickets, for example, might now be spent in restaurants, bars or shops elsewhere. In which case there might be a net gain to the city's economy. And regardless of that people still drink and eat regardless or not of whether they're going to the football.

So the answer is that there's no easy answer - which tends to upset people who quote things like it's costing the council millions, but clam up when pushed as to why. It's certainly costing the club millions though, I can work that out on the back of fag packet in about thirty seconds.

Pretty much wins the thread in my book

hill83 · May 11, 2014

dongonzalos said:
Pretty much wins the thread in my book

No. I've already won it. I rang my mum to tell her and everything.

chiefdave · May 11, 2014

If I recall correctly didn't Sepalla state that we would not return to the Ricoh without ownership and she was not prepared to accept any deal that required CCC involvement.

That would appear to suggest the freehold is the only option and with ACL removed, as if they were still in place that would be CCC involvement.

If SISU are happy to return under a rental deal I suggest they make a statement about it so everyone knows where they are as it seems all other parties involved are working under the assumption this is not acceptable to SISU. If they were to do that then we could put some pressure on ACL to offer a fair and affordable deal.

limoncello · May 11, 2014

duffer said:
I'm not sure I need to have a guess, I'm not the one saying that it's costing the city millions.

However, you could try some sort of equation, Num Supporters * Num Games * Amount Spent. And if you were lazy that could well give you a figure that goes into the millions. Of course though, that doesn't of itself equal the amount of money that the city loses - the public purse would only receive a fraction of that.

An even bigger point is that this also presumes that if people don't go to the football they don't spend their money anywhere else. That's obviously a complete fallacy. In fact the money that some would have spent on tickets, for example, might now be spent in restaurants, bars or shops elsewhere. In which case there might be a net gain to the city's economy. And regardless of that people still drink and eat regardless or not of whether they're going to the football.

So the answer is that there's no easy answer - which tends to upset people who quote things like it's costing the council millions, but clam up when pushed as to why. It's certainly costing the club millions though, I can work that out on the back of fag packet in about thirty seconds.

So it's not costing the city anything, is that your position? Or am I misreading your ad hominems?

You can get as arsey and defensive as you like, it's really no skin off my nose, but the fact is that this situation is causing damage. Damage to the city, damage to the fans' unity. There is a section of our support (you included) who have decided that they are correct in their opinions about the situation. That leads them to see those who differ as being in opposition. Which is really quite weird, because those who contest your absolute faith that you are fully and wholly correct are not actually in opposition, they (me included) are in the middle, ie believe several parties' intransigence have led us to where we are. You pay lip service to the 'all parties are at fault' mantra but defend the council and ACL with an almost religious vigour.

None of the parties involved in getting us where we are today deserve to be defended. I sometimes ponder whether or not it's the tribal element of football fandom that's fucking us all up (the you pick a side and support it 'til you die thing) but I'm not so misanthropic as to truly believe this.

People are just idiots.

dongonzalos · May 11, 2014

The when I am proven wrong I am in the middle and you are too far for one side is getting boring now TBF.

Most accept all parties are at fault. However it seems most apportion the majority of blame in the direction of our owners.

Is that so hard to accept?

limoncello · May 11, 2014

Oh, just fuck off you moron. I give up. Good night to you all.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · May 11, 2014

limoncello said:
Oh, just fuck off you moron. I give up. Good night to you all.

Oh dear. Turning in without qualifying the proof relating to the three fan protest thing. I guess we're going to have to wait; just as with the new stadium location

Sky Blue Pete · May 11, 2014

dongonzalos said:
The when I am proven wrong I am in the middle and you are too far for one side is getting boring now TBF.

Most accept all parties are at fault. However it seems most apportion the majority of blame in the direction of our owners.

Is that so hard to accept?

Bang on!

How did the protest go?

Astute · May 11, 2014

limoncello said:
Oh, just fuck off you moron. I give up. Good night to you all.

Rule one of trying to win an argument that others see as a debate when you back yourself into a corner with the rubbish you come out with. Use select words and also insult the other person/persons. Makes you look like a big boy

BrakesFan · May 11, 2014

Grendel said:
Joy said that she would only accept the unencumbered freehold. Are you calling her a liar?

Did she? Where is the actual quote where she has said that -- is there a link or is this an Astute fact

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-fc-owner-joy-6096912

Do I win a prize, or have all the prizes gone now?

Grendel · May 11, 2014

BrakesFan said:
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-fc-owner-joy-6096912

Do I win a prize, or have all the prizes gone now?

Three things

1. This article was posted by les Reid and widely attacked as being pro sisu
2. The key word which has become similar to cruciate before ligament is missing
3 ML has subsequently stated long lease is the same and would be acceptable

Nice try - better than astute

Spionkop · May 11, 2014

It's pretty obvious Sisu are coining it in Northampton.
Huge attendances, lots of corporate advertising, sponsorship.
Lots of pies sold.
Everything is wonderful there.
Meanwhile in Coventry some pubs adjacent to the Ricoh will have suffered a downturn in trade.
But pubs elsewhere around Coventry will have enjoyed an upturn. (Or supermarket beer shelves, as seems to be the thing these days).
And then a few wannabe clever dicks on here still bat for Sisu.
And if they don't get their way, they get abusive and come out with the verbals.

Council Protest (3 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

limoncello

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

limoncello

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

limoncello

Guest

Well-Known Member

limoncello

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency