Indeed. I get massively frustrated here, because people seem to think that challenging how the Council have gone about this seems to imply that this disregards what an absolute mess SISU have made of things. That's lazy thinking, and it's vaguely insulting to my mind - I won't accept being portrayed as a SISU apologist.
I'm quite capable of believing that SISU are entirely woeful in the way that they've run the club, and that the council have acted appallingly with regard to how they've done the deal with Wasps. (I can even simultaneously hold a third concept in my head, that Wasps don't give a bollocks about CCFC, as long as they can pay the rent.)
I can see a justification for what the council and Higgs did, in that they wanted to be rid of dealing with SISU. Who doesn't. However, in itself that doesn't make the rest of the deal right, and the other justifications claimed ("It'll be good for the city, it won't hurt CCFC or CRFC, it's not a franchise") are at best tenuous.
It's also perfectly fair to point out that the same deal wasn't made available to the club, and that in fact that the council clearly suggested when the club returned that it wanted to rebuild trust before discussing ownership - this
at exactly the same time as secretly doing a deal with Wasps.
I'm not anti-Council, but I'm not prepared to accept the Council's thin justifications and that kind of shabby conduct just because it gets one over on SISU - it appears though that some here are.
And on that, I will try to get on and do some real work. I'm sure everyone here is thoroughly bored or p*ssed-off with me, and that internet isn't going to surf itself y'know.