What do you think.Who approached who?
You really should keep up torch. SISU have already done that.
My comment was aimed at trying to keep the statements and the meeting on the important point of seeing if a deal could be done for CCFC, and not get weighed down by arguing about the history, but you clearly don't care about that. I imagine you're too busy drooling over their statement to post anything sensible.
So you can't be arsed to fact check but you are sure about your various conspiracies.I'm asking you.
It's simple, Wasps or CCC.
So you can't be arsed to fact check but you are sure about your various conspiracies.
That section of the judgement doesn't refer to the 2012 talks that Nick is talking about. That was November 2013.So it was Wasps that approached the Council.
Opportunist London interlopers!
The Council should have a duty to offer this over to sealed bids with the intrested parties including SISU - thats the correct thing to do for a public elected body.
Nothing. Blame SISU, fans lap it up, back to square one.
That section of the judgement doesn't refer to the 2012 talks that Nick is talking about. That was November 2013.
Worked the other way around TBF.
When you sell a house and you have more than one interested buyer it goes to sealed bids - not rocket science!
Sorry shmmeee I haven't been to regular on this forum recently, but from what I've seen no one has said SISU aren't at fault, but what has been said is that all parties should be blamed and accounted for.
I don't think any poster deems SISU to have no fault in this, despite being vocal in their demands for CCC or other parties to be held accountable.
Sorry shmmeee I haven't been to regular on this forum recently, but from what I've seen no one has said SISU aren't at fault, but what has been said is that all parties should be blamed and accounted for.
I don't think any poster deems SISU to have no fault in this, despite being vocal in their demands for CCC or other parties to be held accountable.
Nobody at all has said SISU aren't to blame for anything. People have said the council / wasps arent to blame for anything.
He is just making things up again, it's weird and a bit desperate.
No it seems to imply Wasps (and others) approached the council. Wasps were not the first ones interested.It doesn't say who initiated the talks in 2012?
You want to push your shit constantly, but you can't be arsed to read threads.
You’ve got the wrong end of the stick.
Yesterday Sisu released a statement that just went “it’s the councils fault because reasons” and the thread was full of people frothing about how it’s obviously the councils fault and dragging us back to square one.
This silly “how much blame to each” thing is a red herring.
No it seems to imply Wasps (and others) approached the council. Wasps were not the first ones interested.
Yeah, in 2013. A year and a half after it was known they were talking about things.
So my car is for sale, you say no I don't want a car, someone offers my say £3k, I go back and say look mate I know you don't want a car but if you give me more than £3k you can have it. I need to sell the car, what should I do?Because its the sensible thing to do to get the best price for the tax payer! Thats why.
I thought the approved term for referring to SISU apologists was 'frothing'. It's just a pity that no one here, including Torch, falls into that category.
I'm all for a 'drop hands' settlement that involves the Council helping the club find some way out of this situation, but I'm not daft enough to accept that SISU are the only ones at fault here. I don't see any harm in expressing that.
Where are your sources? Something in the public domain.
Anyway if three was public knowledge about this in 2012 apparently SISU didn't know, they just said the sale was a complete surprise to them in 2014.
You’ve got the wrong end of the stick.
Yesterday Sisu released a statement that just went “it’s the councils fault because reasons” and the thread was full of people frothing about how it’s obviously the councils fault and dragging us back to square one.
This silly “how much blame to each” thing is a red herring.
There wasn't more than one interested buyer though. They were only interested when it was sold. They bluffed and lost. That's pokerWhen you sell a house and you have more than one interested buyer it goes to sealed bids - not rocket science!
Depends what you’re buying though - if it was the 45 year lease then no there was no other buyers - on the other hand if a 250 year extension was up for grabs at a knockdown price I’m sure there would have been more biddersThere wasn't more than one interested buyer though. They were only interested when it was sold. They bluffed and lost. That's poker
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?