The council might want to present it as that but has anything in the legal proceedings shown that to be the case?best interests of Coventry tax payers.
You mean they should have sold it to ccfc? What would have been in the best interests?Duggins has never shown any evidence to demonstrate why the deal was in the best interests of the Coventry tax payer, perhaps he could do that.
The council might want to present it as that but has anything in the legal proceedings shown that to be the case?
The deal being legal and being in the best interests of the taxpayer aren’t necessarily the same thing.
So onwards to the next appeal.
That’s not what is being said. The council have made, and continue to make, claims about the Ricoh sale which they have presented zero evidence to back up.You mean they should have sold it to ccfc? What would have been in the best interests?
You mean they should have sold it to ccfc? What would have been in the best interests?
It is not hard to understand, he means that Wasps now hold the £13.4M debt previously held by the Council.You mean they should have sold it to ccfc? What would have been in the best interests?
It is not hard to understand, he means that Wasps now hold the £15M debt previously held by the Council.
If Wasps go bust because of that debt it does not effect the taxpayers whereas previously it would have driven a huge hole in Council finances.
SISU were never going to take that debt away.
Wasn't one of the selling points all of the money they would make from that debt?
If Wasps go bust, who then runs the stadium when the lease reverts back to the council?
Do you think I care if Wasps go bust, couldn't give a monkeys.
If they do I'm sure a local football club will find a few pennies to buy the lease at a knock down price.
How many times can a court decision be appealed, surely all appeals are exhausted at some point?I would imagine that SISU wouldn’t be appealing if that was the case. Besides as has been shown countless times on here best value for money for the taxpayer doesn’t have to mean pounds in the bank. Sisu don’t have a case, simple as that even if you try to sharpen the blurred lines.
Best thing for the club is for sisu to throw the towel in and sell the club for what they can get. More likely they’ll carry on with the appeal process and then the best thing for the club would be them losing and the door being shut well and truly in their face forcing them to throw the towel in and selling up.
I corrected an inaccurate number, that's all. I addressed one of 2 points you made, that's all.You must have read the post you quoted completely differently to how it's written as your response isn't related at all?
I corrected an inaccurate number, that's all. I addressed one of 2 points you made, that's all.
I didn't, I don't care about what you think.The only thing corrected was your post, which is why you then tried to make out I give a shit if Wasps go bust. The only people I'd feel for are the actual, genuine lifelong Wasps fans.
I didn't, I don't care about what you think.
It is not hard to understand, he means that Wasps now hold the £13.4M debt previously held by the Council.
If Wasps go bust because of that debt it does not effect the taxpayers whereas previously it would have driven a huge hole in Council finances.
SISU were never going to take that debt away.
Ergo, the best interests of the tax payer were to not take a loan out in the first place back in 2013, that's why that council meeting was such a secret. They really are the most spineless set.
Exactly, so using that logic where did I say you cared? I didn't.
I pointed out what was said at the time as to why it benefited "tax payers" and what would happen if Wasps went bust.
You didn't really reply directly about it though for some reason.
Ergo, the best interests of the tax payer were to not take a loan out in the first place back in 2013, that's why that council meeting was such a secret. They really are the most spineless set.
You have the wrong end of the stick. I simply reaffirmed my own position, if you have a viewpoint it is up to you to express it surely.
No it isn't. I get to say what I want how I want unless or until you ban me.I wasn't asking your position though, I was replying to the things you said. That's how it works.
No it isn't. I get to say what I want how I want unless or until you ban me.
Me too I just wondered what would have been in their best interests?That’s not what is being said. The council have made, and continue to make, claims about the Ricoh sale which they have presented zero evidence to back up.
Not least that it is in the best interest of the taxpayer and that it will not be to the detriment of CCFC or CRFC.
Personally I couldn’t care less how much SISU lose but I do care about the cities own clubs and taxpayers over a rugby club parachuted in from London.
No it isn't. I get to say what I want how I want unless or until you ban me.
All you lot having a spat with each other look at the current facts as of next May we have no home ground, if that stays the case there’s a real chance our football club will cease to exist. Don’t think for one minute this will never happen think again
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?