MichaelCCFC
New Member
There are often allegations that acl/sisu are lying and then the usual suspects come on defending the party they support, often by throwing in lots more information and making things very complicated.
But will we see in the next few weeks two very clear cut concrete things, rather than just talk, that will determine the honesty of acl-sisu?
First, it has been stated very clearly that acl can survive without ccfc. But the last set of accounts was the first time acl had made a profit net of football income. Either the forthcoming set of accounts will show another profit net of football income or they won’t. If it’s the latter, the claim that acl can survive without football income will look very questionable and some might question the honesty of that claim.
Second, when Fisher announced on 18 May that a new ground would be built he stated that "we retained stadium specialists some months ago to advise us on suitable sites for a permanent club stadium in the local Coventry area”. That suggests that stadium specialists were retained at the latest by Feb 2013. Like the acl accounts, the new ground is a clear cut issue: either it will be built or statements made by Seppala, Fisher and Labovitch will prove to have been untrue. If a full year after retaining stadium specialists a site has not been identified, is that a point at which the building of a new ground will look very questionable and some might question the honesty of that claim?
So before the pro/anti acl/sisu people try and complicate things or dismiss this as nonsense, if the above is wrong can they suggest other concrete examples where truth and lies can be established in a factual, clear cut way not the usual tit for tat claims and counter claims?
But will we see in the next few weeks two very clear cut concrete things, rather than just talk, that will determine the honesty of acl-sisu?
First, it has been stated very clearly that acl can survive without ccfc. But the last set of accounts was the first time acl had made a profit net of football income. Either the forthcoming set of accounts will show another profit net of football income or they won’t. If it’s the latter, the claim that acl can survive without football income will look very questionable and some might question the honesty of that claim.
Second, when Fisher announced on 18 May that a new ground would be built he stated that "we retained stadium specialists some months ago to advise us on suitable sites for a permanent club stadium in the local Coventry area”. That suggests that stadium specialists were retained at the latest by Feb 2013. Like the acl accounts, the new ground is a clear cut issue: either it will be built or statements made by Seppala, Fisher and Labovitch will prove to have been untrue. If a full year after retaining stadium specialists a site has not been identified, is that a point at which the building of a new ground will look very questionable and some might question the honesty of that claim?
So before the pro/anti acl/sisu people try and complicate things or dismiss this as nonsense, if the above is wrong can they suggest other concrete examples where truth and lies can be established in a factual, clear cut way not the usual tit for tat claims and counter claims?