Grab a beer or a cup of tea, it’s CCFC!! (1 Viewer)

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
the exchange rate was a problem too if i remember rings bells now, just remember the council wont budge comment fletcher said and was the main down fall to the deal!
Fletcher loved firing out statements about how bids were 'derisory' or similar terms.
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
My point is that it shouldn't really be from any side.

Why is he putting out propaganda like that?
What's the aim?

Its a well written, argued and researched piece, you may vehemently disagree with the conclusions and the tone of the article but I've yet to find any statement of fact that is in error, have you? Actually I find Les Reid articles have a similar style only they generally take the side of SISU but are pretty much factually accurate.

The aims and objectives of JHW are crystal clear, it is on their web site, its the first thing you see, though annoyingly it is in a scrolling segment.

All that is going to do is make other parties look blameless and make sure nobody looks their way.
There is a comprehensive critique about the negative effects the sale of ACL shares by CCC to Wasps would have on CCFC in the middle of the article.
 
Last edited:

Nick

Administrator
There is a comprehensive critique about the negative effects the sale of ACL by CCC/AEHC to Wasps would have on CCFC in the middle of the article.

Which is completely different to the point I made? If that's all you can find you must be scraping the barrell.

The aims of JHW, one person who doesn't know why he boycotts?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
If my memory serves me well, I believe The Manhattan Group were interested in late 2007 all the way untill either, the £ v $ exchange rate had plummetted (making the purchase more expensive for the Yanks) and/or in the Oct 2008 when that crash happened?
I don't remember it doing anything to do with CCC disliking them?

Hopkins who was fronting the bid said the consortium met the council and took the next plane home
 

Nick

Administrator
City council leader Ken Taylor revealed that two other "derisory" bids had been received from two other firms.

One, called Sisu, had offered #15million.

The other was from a firm called Shapiro, which offered #26million but wanted the club to pay off its debts and the city council to give it a longer lease on the Ricoh Arena and some spare land to the north of the site.
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
I don't see how failed bids by parties other than SISU have any bearing on the situation today. That after all is all that matters.
 

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
Note the bid from SISU was derisory. It's simply not true the council encouraged SISU at the expense of others - they didn't encourage SISU either!

The Co-op bank did however, as SISU allowed them to get more of their cash back. Ultimately it was they who pushed SISU into a position of preference. As for the cub, you'd have to ask Joe Elliott why he thought they were our great white hope.
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
Because it's another situation where the council didn't really give a shit. They have also been a factor in our trouble even pre SISU...
Didn't give a shit, that's your idea of analysing the situation is it. Oh dear.

If you could list some pros and cons of each deal indicating in which way the council did not live up to professional standards and clearly disadvantaged CCFC by their choice I would be impressed as well as incredibly surprised that you actually have some capacity of critical thought and an ability to research something.
 

Nick

Administrator
Putting aside your obvious issue with Mr Johnson and any "previous" you may or may not have had with him, what is it you specifically disagree with in his article.

The reasoning behind it, the way it seems to be trying to re-write history by leaving things out ;)

We know fisher is a prick, it doesn't mean others can't be well.
 
Last edited:

vow

Well-Known Member
Aye, so the Manhattan Group was way before the sale of CCFC actually happened.
 

bawtryneal

Well-Known Member
The reasoning behind it, the way it seems to be trying to re-write history by leaving things out ;)

We know fisher is a prick, it doesn't mean others can't be well.

What has he left out specifically ?
Not trying to be clever, just an honest question because I thought his piece was fairly well written
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
The reasoning behind it, the way it seems to be trying to re-write history by leaving things out ;)

We know fisher is a prick, it doesn't mean others can't be well.
What has he left out?
 

Nick

Administrator
What has he left out specifically ?
Not trying to be clever, just an honest question because I thought his piece was fairly well written
Any time any other party has bullshitted. It's very selective.

One example is the butts stuff.
 

bawtryneal

Well-Known Member
We all agree Fisher is a cock but that is not the point
Fisher is just a puppet for SISU. A well rewarded puppet at that.
Until Seppala backs down we are wholly reliant on Wasps owners and management showing some goodwill to CCFC. Without that there will be no Ricoh extension.
 

Nick

Administrator
He explains the Butts situation very clearly in my opinion
As I say I think it is a well written article and is very close to both my opinion and recollection of the facts over the last 5 or so years.
Apart from the bits missed out? That's one example because I looked it up again to see who said what for the other thread a couple of days ago so it's fresh ;)

That's why I have used the words selective rather than factually incorrect or made up.

His boycott reason is what's factually incorrect.
 
Last edited:

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
Apart from the bits missed out? That's one example because I looked it up again to see who said what for the other thread a couple of days ago so it's fresh ;)

That's why I have used the words selective rather than factually incorrect or made up.

His boycott reason is what's factually incorrect.
Any reason one person has for boycotting games is not material to the argument.
Tell me something that is which invalidates or weakens the case made?
 

bawtryneal

Well-Known Member
Apart from the bits missed out? That's one example because I looked it up again to see who said what for the other thread a couple of days ago so it's fresh ;)

That's why I have used the words selective rather than factually incorrect or made up.

His boycott reason is what's factually incorrect.

The article has nothing to do with any boycott.
Anyhow. I think he has summed it up pretty well
Let's all be nice to Eastwood and co or we are going to have a big big problem in 4 or 5 weeks time.
 

Nick

Administrator
Any reason one person has for boycotting games is not material to the argument.
Tell me something that is which invalidates or weakens the case made?
I already have about the butts stuff, there are things missed out. I had to explain the same things in the other thread.

It's not material if it's made up though is it? It's pointing out there's an agenda behind it which is why its selective.
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
I already have about the butts stuff, there are things missed out. I had to explain the same things in the other thread.

It's not material if it's made up though is it? It's pointing out there's an agenda behind it which is why its selective.

I don't deny that there is an agenda, in fact I told you where you could find it, it's here Home

It isn't an answer to say it's hard to explain or the explanation is elsewhere, it is evading the question.

Please try to explain or give me references to specific posts that do explain on the other thread are referring to.
 

Nick

Administrator
I don't deny that there is an agenda, in fact I told you where you could find it, it's here Home

It isn't an answer to say it's hard to explain or the explanation is elsewhere, it is evading the question.

Please try to explain or give me references to specific posts that do explain on the other thread are referring to.
Is this where people play the acting dumb game?
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
I've already given one example of what was being selective as it was discussed a couple of days ago.

Are you saying it isn't being selective with facts?
Where is this mysterious thread you say explains the omissions you claim are made?

No I don' t think a 12,000 word article is terribly selective, in fact it is very comprehensive.
 

Nick

Administrator
Where is this mysterious thread you quoted?

No I don' t think a 12,000 word article is terribly selective, in fact it is very comprehensive.
It was the one that discussed the butts literally days ago. The only mysterious thing about it was Tony also trying to be selective and being corrected then vanishing. Try reading threads properly.

You do realise it could be 400 thousand words and still be selective?

All stuff like this does is give other parties a free pass to do whatever. Same as has gone on for years.
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
It was the one that discussed the butts literally days ago. The only mysterious thing about it was Tony also trying to be selective and being corrected. Try reading threads properly.

You do realise it could be 400 thousand words and still be selective?

Where and which posts show you have a point? You are not explaning yourself, just being evasive.

I don't think the Butts matters anymore, Jon Sharp is not going to agree anything while SISU own CCFC and are perceived as unacceptable.
 

Nick

Administrator
Where and which posts show you have a point? You are not explaning yourself, just being evasive.

I don't think the Butts matters anymore, Jon Sharp is not going to agree anything while SISU own CCFC and are perceived as unacceptable.

I have said he missed things about regarding the butts situation as one example. I literally went through all the details about it a couple of days ago when Tony strangely missed details too.

Where did I say it was still going to happen?

Why are you trying to play dumb again? Is this the new thing?

If fisher bullshits it's all there in details, if the council do its just "public relations" rather then multiple people being bullshitters.

The people bullshitting should all rightly be called out rather than pretending only one side is at it.
 
Last edited:

bawtryneal

Well-Known Member
I have said he missed things about regarding the butts situation as one example. I literally went through all the details about it a couple of days ago when Tony strangely missed details too.

Where did I say it was still going to happen?

Why are you trying to play dumb again? Is this the new thing?

If fisher bullshits it's all there in details, if the council do its just "public relations" rather then multiple people being bullshitters.

The people bullshitting should all rightly be called out rather than pretending only one side is at it.

Who is bullshitting apart from Fisher.
SISU had an agenda. It has failed. They cannot blame anybody else
As I said yesterday evening. Without the goodwill of Wasps we have no home.
I think it is perfectly reasonable for their stance. They warned SISU of the outcome of their ongoing actions last year.
I cannot see your argument.
Sometimes you argue without logic or reason. One of the major reasons I do not post on here very often.
 

SkyBlueZack

Well-Known Member
The council have bullshitted, talking about rebuilding trust while selling to wasps. Saying the future of CCFC and crfc would be secure then saying it was only for four years, that’s bullshit too. The council have had an agenda regarding the club long before Sisu arrived. I don’t find the wasps stance completely reasonable. Do we not remember the bleating about them having no home and it justifying moving miles. Yet here they are not talking to the club about keeping them at the ricoh. The legal action is not against them, they are an interested party. It’s just a convenient excuse that people swallow.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top