FAO Torch, Grendel, Covcity4life, Mark82 (1 Viewer)

[MichaelCCFC]

The thread this started on has gone off track so I'm posting this as a genuine question in trying to understand different perspectives. General responses like you need to blame both sides are not particularly helpful in trying to build a targeted campaign. So I really would appreciate yes/no answers as to whether or not you agree with these 7 points which are informing kcic strategy. Working out where there are specific points of agreement/disagreement would be really helpful. thx

1. Most fans want us back at the Ricoh asap - yes/no
2. Comments from players like Wilson make it clear they want to be back at the Ricoh too - yes/no
3. The last offer made by ACL was shown by Clive Eakin to be financially beneficial to the club compared with being at NTFC - yes/no
4. It would be good for fans, players and club finances to return to the ricoh even on a short-term rental deal - yes/no
5. The sides could then take as long as needed for a long-term agreement without the damage being done by being at NTFC - yes/no
6. The process is therefore for sisu to say we will return on the basis of the last ACL offer - yes/no
7. If ACL then renege on that deal all fire is aimed at them - yes/no


Cheers

 

---

[Moff]

The thread this started on has gone off track so I'm posting this as a genuine question in trying to understand different perspectives. General responses like you need to blame both sides are not particularly helpful in trying to build a targeted campaign. So I really would appreciate yes/no answers as to whether or not you agree with these 7 points which are informing kcic strategy. Working out where there are specific points of agreement/disagreement would be really helpful. thx

1. Most fans want us back at the Ricoh asap - yes/no
2. Comments from players like Wilson make it clear they want to be back at the Ricoh too - yes/no
3. The last offer made by ACL was shown by Clive Eakin to be financially beneficial to the club compared with being at NTFC - yes/no
4. It would be good for fans, players and club finances to return to the ricoh even on a short-term rental deal - yes/no
5. The sides could then take as long as needed for a long-term agreement without the damage being done by being at NTFC - yes/no
6. The process is therefore for sisu to say we will return on the basis of the last ACL offer - yes/no
7. If ACL then renege on that deal all fire is aimed at them - yes/no


Cheers

Sorry Michael...I think picking out certain posters and bracketing them on their own, thus creating an obvious division is as in your own words, "not particularly helpful in trying to build a targeted campaign'

 

[Nick]

To be fair, just read posts on the forum to understand different perspectives. Asking the same thing over and over until people agree with you won't do much will it?

Questions like "most fans want us back at the ricoh, yes or no" also isn't helpful is it? It is common sense.

 

[torchomatic]

NOthing like a good old fashioned name and shame. Not sure why apportioning blame to both sides regardless of going into the minutiae of percentages isn't "particularly helpful" but you're the boss, I guess.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes. Don't forget ACL refused a three year run-out deal.
5. Yes.
6. Yes, although it depends on what the offer is. The £150K figure wasn't strictly accurate was it?
7. Wouldn't happen as you can see with the court documents. Should be a Yes but it would be a No.

 

[MichaelCCFC]

Geez, this is an honest attempt to understand! The posters I mentioned are regular posters who I read with interest because they have a different view - you don't learn from people just agreeing with each other. Lighten up!

 

[torchomatic]

Can't help but agree. And this is the guy in charge.

Sorry Michael...I think picking out certain posters and bracketing them on their own, thus creating an obvious division is as in your own words, "not particularly helpful in trying to build a targeted campaign'

 

[MichaelCCFC]

NOthing like a good old fashioned name and shame. Not sure why apportioning blame to both sides regardless of going into the minutiae of percentages isn't "particularly helpful" but you're the boss, I guess.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes. Don't forget ACL refused a three year run-out deal.
5. Yes.
6. Yes, although it depends on what the offer is. The £150K figure wasn't strictly accurate was it?
7. Wouldn't happen as you can see with the court documents. Should be a Yes but it would be a No.

sorry Torch and others - absolutely nothing negative intended whatsoever. I actually thought it was a bit of a compliment in terms of being interested in your views! It's like treading on egg shells on here some days

 

[torchomatic]

And now, my responses will be picked apart and analysed and thrown back in my face. It's only a matter on time. As Moff said singling people out isn't too surprising as you don't want to understand anyone else's opinion you just want to get the people who disagree to chant "Way to go, Michael". I ain't gonna do it. I have my opinions on the matter. You just blindly chanting "It's SISU!, it's SISU!" also isn't "particularly helpful".

Geez, this is an honest attempt to understand! The posters I mentioned are regular posters who I read with interest because they have a different view - you don't learn from people just agreeing with each other. Lighten up!

 

[torchomatic]

Yes, it is. And you know how personal some people can get on here and how they rake over ever letter and word.

sorry Torch and others - absolutely nothing negative intended whatsoever. I actually thought it was a bit of a compliment in terms of being interested in your views! It's like treading on egg shells on here some days

 

[ajsccfc]

I guessed who Keyzer Soze was pretty late in the film, although you watch it again and wonder how you could miss the signs.

 

[torchomatic]

"The only thing that scares me..."

I guessed who Keyzer Soze was pretty late in the film, although you watch it again and wonder how you could miss the signs.

 

[hill83]

So you ask for people with a different view to yourself what they think. Then ask very specific questions tailored to meet your own needs. It's your perogitve to do that but I fail to see what you have achieved other than another several page thread.

It's up there with 'Are Sisu shit' to which the answer is of course 'Yes'

 

[rondog1973]

Yes, it is. And you know how personal some people can get on here and how they rake over ever letter and word.

...and the siege mentality and paranoia demonstrated in you and Moffs responses only excacerbates and re-enforces the negative opinions of the stance you take to a sizeable number of contributers on here.

 

[Moff]

Geez, this is an honest attempt to understand! The posters I mentioned are regular posters who I read with interest because they have a different view - you don't learn from people just agreeing with each other. Lighten up!

Fair enough Michael. I just read it differently.

 

[Grendel]

The thread this started on has gone off track so I'm posting this as a genuine question in trying to understand different perspectives. General responses like you need to blame both sides are not particularly helpful in trying to build a targeted campaign. So I really would appreciate yes/no answers as to whether or not you agree with these 7 points which are informing kcic strategy. Working out where there are specific points of agreement/disagreement would be really helpful. thx

1. Most fans want us back at the Ricoh asap - yes/no
2. Comments from players like Wilson make it clear they want to be back at the Ricoh too - yes/no
3. The last offer made by ACL was shown by Clive Eakin to be financially beneficial to the club compared with being at NTFC - yes/no
4. It would be good for fans, players and club finances to return to the ricoh even on a short-term rental deal - yes/no
5. The sides could then take as long as needed for a long-term agreement without the damage being done by being at NTFC - yes/no
6. The process is therefore for sisu to say we will return on the basis of the last ACL offer - yes/no
7. If ACL then renege on that deal all fire is aimed at them - yes/no


Cheers

The answer to 3 from the clubs view is no so the rest become irrelevant.

 

[shmmeee]

Hilarious how only Torch has actually answered the questions. What's the issue guys? Instead of pre-emptively attacking people who might attack, why not put your views out there. I'd agree with Michael that the stock response of "they're all to blame" is too broad and unhelpful.

If we're going to get the fans united on a way forward, and if KCIC are going to do as many of you have requested and target all sides and represent the views of all fans, it helps if people know what these views are.

Otherwise, your views will rightly be ignored as just a few troublemakers with nothing serious to add.

 

[lewys33]

The answer to 3 from the clubs view is no so the rest become irrelevant.

Why so? Because nothing else (like the fans) matter?!

 

[torchomatic]

Reinforces my point. Don't answer, get slagged off. Answer, get slagged off.

My views are "out there" hence why Michael decided to dedicate a thread just for a few. So are you saying my views aren't known? FFS.

And the other view of "it's all SISU's fault" is helpful?

Hilarious how only Torch has actually answered the questions. What's the issue guys? Instead of pre-emptively attacking people who might attack, why not put your views out there. I'd agree with Michael that the stock response of "they're all to blame" is too broad and unhelpful.

If we're going to get the fans united on a way forward, and if KCIC are going to do as many of you have requested and target all sides and represent the views of all fans, it helps if people know what these views are.

Otherwise, your views will rightly be ignored as just a few troublemakers with nothing serious to add.

 

[skybluetony176]

I guessed who Keyzer Soze was pretty late in the film, although you watch it again and wonder how you could miss the signs.

its grendull. with his average amount of post per day he is clearly Verbal

 

[skybluetony176]

being serious for a moment, i doubt there is a ccfc fan out there who wouldn't answer yes to all the OP's questions regardless of who the "appologise" for.

 

[covcity4life]

ill play along

1. Most fans want us back at the Ricoh asap - yes/no
2. Comments from players like Wilson make it clear they want to be back at the Ricoh too - yes/no
3. The last offer made by ACL was shown by Clive Eakin to be financially beneficial to the club compared with being at NTFC - yes/no
4. It would be good for fans, players and club finances to return to the ricoh even on a short-term rental deal - yes/no
5. The sides could then take as long as needed for a long-term agreement without the damage being done by being at NTFC - yes/no - acl/council have been shown to be untrustworthy and simply dont want to sell, have been public about reluctance to sell. they will just string ccfc along as long as they can whilst collecting rent.
6. The process is therefore for sisu to say we will return on the basis of the last ACL offer - yes/no - stop living in past. last courtcase shows that there were shenanigans going on. one of the two parties needs to make first move but there is no reason it must be sisu when they were pretty much forced out when they tried to negotiate for the ricoh.
7. If ACL then renege on that deal all fire is aimed at them - yes/no

 

[shmmeee]

Reinforces my point. Don't answer, get slagged off. Answer, get slagged off.

My views are "out there" hence why Michael decided to dedicate a thread just for a few. So are you saying my views aren't known? FFS.

And the other view of "it's all SISU's fault" is helpful?

I'm not slagging anyone off. Michael has offered an olive branch, he's had it thrown back at him. If you're not willing to engage (edit: scratch that bit, thought I was replying to Nick) then you can't complain if your views aren't represented.

 

[rondog1973]

Reads to me like an olive branch, an attempt to establish some common ground with some posters so we can indeed 'move forward' with protest ideas we can all agree on. The questions are clearly specifically tailored to do this.

 

[hill83]

being serious for a moment, i doubt there is a ccfc fan out there who wouldn't answer yes to all the OP's questions regardless of who the "appologise" for.

Exactly. But that's exactly why those questions were asked. He's now 'proven' himself to be right, an oracle. It's childlike stuff to be honest.

Edit: Or maybe it is a genuine olive branch. Fuck knows. Have a some footage of the gas works being demolished.

 

[rondog1973]

ill play along

1. Most fans want us back at the Ricoh asap - yes/no
2. Comments from players like Wilson make it clear they want to be back at the Ricoh too - yes/no
3. The last offer made by ACL was shown by Clive Eakin to be financially beneficial to the club compared with being at NTFC - yes/no
4. It would be good for fans, players and club finances to return to the ricoh even on a short-term rental deal - yes/no
5. The sides could then take as long as needed for a long-term agreement without the damage being done by being at NTFC - yes/no - acl/council have been shown to be untrustworthy and simply dont want to sell, have been public about reluctance to sell. they will just string ccfc along as long as they can whilst collecting rent.
6. The process is therefore for sisu to say we will return on the basis of the last ACL offer - yes/no - stop living in past. last courtcase shows that there were shenanigans going on. one of the two parties needs to make first move but there is no reason it must be sisu when they were pretty much forced out when they tried to negotiate for the ricoh.
7. If ACL then renege on that deal all fire is aimed at them - yes/no

There is a difference between a long term agreement and selling the ground......

 

[Nick]

This talk of the last deal offer, Tim Fisher came out and made points about it and the fine print in the deal.

Did ACL ever reply about it to confirm?

It is all well and good saying rent free, but IF there is no rent but 1.5million pound a month in admin fees it doesn't make a difference. (I am not saying it was that)

Does anybody know the actual terms of it all?

I wasn't being nasty, I just don't see what those questions will achieve.

It is like me asking if today is Friday, when they say yes then me trying to make out everybody agrees with everything I think / say?

 

[lewys33]

This talk of the last deal offer, Tim Fisher came out and made points about it and the fine print in the deal.

Did ACL ever reply about it to confirm?

It is all well and good saying rent free, but IF there is no rent but 1.5million pound a month in admin fees it doesn't make a difference. (I am not saying it was that)

Does anybody know the actual terms of it all?

I wasn't being nasty, I just don't see what those questions will achieve.

It is like me asking if today is Friday, when they say yes then me trying to make out everybody agrees with everything I think / say?

Nobody knows anything exact really. Bickering and abusive language is just what gets us through the day ........ cock end

 

[sky blue john]

ill play along

1. Most fans want us back at the Ricoh asap - yes/no
2. Comments from players like Wilson make it clear they want to be back at the Ricoh too - yes/no
3. The last offer made by ACL was shown by Clive Eakin to be financially beneficial to the club compared with being at NTFC - yes/no
4. It would be good for fans, players and club finances to return to the ricoh even on a short-term rental deal - yes/no
5. The sides could then take as long as needed for a long-term agreement without the damage being done by being at NTFC - yes/no - acl/council have been shown to be untrustworthy and simply dont want to sell, have been public about reluctance to sell. they will just string ccfc along as long as they can whilst collecting rent.
6. The process is therefore for sisu to say we will return on the basis of the last ACL offer - yes/no - stop living in past. last courtcase shows that there were shenanigans going on. one of the two parties needs to make first move but there is no reason it must be sisu when they were pretty much forced out when they tried to negotiate for the ricoh.
7. If ACL then renege on that deal all fire is aimed at them - yes/no

Lol
When will you wake up and realise that their could have been a deal, but Sisu started to play games.
They withheld the rent, threaten to liquidate the club, delaying tactics to drive the price down. And then act like spoilt brats when they didn't get their own way !!

 

[Nick]

Nobody knows anything exact really. Bickering and abusive language is just what gets us through the day ........ cock end

That's what I mean, it is all well and good saying "agree to this deal" if we don't know what the actual deal is though? Tim Fisher came out and said this is what we think is wrong with it (whether he is wrong or right, I am not saying he is either) but there was no reply.

If ACL were to come out and offer the deal of the century, fully with all terms in public.

 

[Grendel]

Hilarious how only Torch has actually answered the questions. What's the issue guys? Instead of pre-emptively attacking people who might attack, why not put your views out there. I'd agree with Michael that the stock response of "they're all to blame" is too broad and unhelpful.

If we're going to get the fans united on a way forward, and if KCIC are going to do as many of you have requested and target all sides and represent the views of all fans, it helps if people know what these views are.

Otherwise, your views will rightly be ignored as just a few troublemakers with nothing serious to add.

I think you be horrified to know the mainstream views outside this little forum are more reflective of the standpoints taken by torch and others myself.

I have answered. The fall down point he misses is question 3. Clive eakin the last time I looked is not a director of sisu. So the answer to 3 is no as the club will never accept it. They will never pick up the phone and will never negotiate a rent agreement within a company that they no longer will work with on a daily basis.

So as a strategy this whole campaign is flawed. It assumes unless sisu make a move the other sides are not challenged and are not having action against them. Its not us who have nothing serious to add its the kcic campaign that is not serious.

 

[rondog1973]

I think you be horrified to know the mainstream views outside this little forum are more reflective of the standpoints taken by torch and others myself.

I have answered. The fall down point he misses is question 3. Clive eakin the last time I looked is not a director of sisu. So the answer to 3 is no as the club will never accept it. They will never pick up the phone and will never negotiate a rent agreement within a company that they no longer will work with on a daily basis.

So as a strategy this whole campaign is flawed. It assumes unless sisu make a move the other sides are not challenged and are not having action against them. Its us who have nothing serious to add its the kcic campaign that is not serious.

Clearly. The attendance figures at Sixfields demonstrate that...

 

[Grendel]

Clearly. The attendance figures at Sixfields demonstrate that...

Those figures are irrelevant unless you believe sisu will bring the club back as a consequence of those crowds. Do you?

 

[rondog1973]

Those figures are irrelevant unless you believe sisu will bring the club back as a consequence of those crowds. Do you?

I think it may well contribute. Funding them whilst they hold the club hostage certainly won't.

 

[sky blue john]

Those figures are irrelevant unless you believe sisu will bring the club back as a consequence of those crowds. Do you?

Lol priceless.
For someone who only supports ccfc and not Sisu, you don't half defend their actions a lot !!!!

 

[Nick]

Lol priceless.
For someone who only supports ccfc and not Sisu, you don't half defend their actions a lot !!!!

Is that defending though?