coundonskyblue
New Member
How can that be irrelevant? The ultimate fate of the club lies with the owner, they call the shots, whatever they say happens.
I think anyone who has money invested in a football club should be forced to announce it.
It just shows that the council/acl/ainsworth are hypocrites. Ainsworth tried to imply to the Minister that sisu are asking acl to open up their books but all they have really asked for is the food and beverage figures. Ainsworth was being really clear and transparent there wasn't he.
For me its irrelevant knowing who owns the club.
How can that be irrelevant? The ultimate fate of the club lies with the owner, they call the shots, whatever they say happens.
I think anyone who has money invested in a football club should be forced to announce it.
Bob Ainsworth is the man who once on national television advocated legalising all drugs.
Not to be taken seriously at all.
I think it is irrelevant. Ok so lets say you have the name of the person who runs the club, for example its Rolf Harris? you have the name now so what? Cant do anything with it?
Whats the problem in revealing it then?
Don't you realise its Sisu's secretive nature that is part of the problem. No one, including you, is sure of their true intentions.
Its like knowing for the sake of knowing.
I am not sure of their intention no but i do know they have come here to make money and for them to do that the football club needs to be in the premier league and succesful. The council seem to want to make money if the team are succesful or not as they currently are. As bad as it is that all i have to make my decision on as there is no other conrete evidence out there. its a real shame.
Why shouldn't I know? Why were people forced to give up shares to someone who people who won't reveal who they are?
As for their intentions, I have no problem with them being here to make money. However they shouldn't blame others for their own mistakes. From their starting position in the Championship they have done nothing to get the club in the direction of the PL.
Bob Ainsworth is the man who once on national television advocated legalising all drugs.
Not to be taken seriously at all.
There are many learned people (psychiatrists, biochemists, social reformers and prison governors) the length and the breadth of the land who advocate just that....evidence based too.
You really are an utter plank Grendel. A worm.
Bob Ainsworth is the man who once on national television advocated legalising all drugs.
Not to be taken seriously at all.
There are many learned people (psychiatrists, biochemists, social reformers and prison governors) the length and the breadth of the land who advocate just that....evidence based too.
You really are an utter plank Grendel. A worm.
That's being unfair to planks and worms.
Bob Ainsworth is the man who once on national television advocated legalising all drugs.
Not to be taken seriously at all.
Can I offer you two mediation?
Give it a break!
imp:
Well parliment seem to be taking it seriously.
If he had come out and slated ACL he would have been your hero !!!!
But obviously he has slated Sisu actions and tactics.
Sadly and expectedly you have resorted to discredit Ainsworth !!!!
Noggin - I've worked with drug abusers and have also been a board member of a residential drugs crisis centre and I fully agree with most of what you say.
I'm not sure though about your assertion that:
"The correct solution is to get an independent group together of drug experts, doctors, psychologists, criminologists, etc etc look at the evidence decide what they think is best, implement it despite the political fall out and continue to monitor and tweak."
This has already been done several times and each time the independent reviewing body has recommended some form of decriminalisation (along with other measures). And each time the government of the day has not implemented many of their recommendations, including decriminalisation.
The fact is that decriminalisation is not going to happen in the UK for the forseeable future, because it's simply politically unacceptable - i.e. it'd be a vote loser. You only have to look at some of the comments on here for evidence of that! (Nothing personal Grendel!) This situation will only change if the wider public are educated to understand this complex issue, which involves choosing 'least worst outcomes'. Unfortunately I don't see this happening anytime soon.
Not sure about every drug going but regulated brothels would be a huge improvement on 'illegal' prostitution.
Oh and this is meant to be about football? Whoops.
Noggin - I've worked with drug abusers and have also been a board member of a residential drugs crisis centre and I fully agree with most of what you say.
I'm not sure though about your assertion that:
"The correct solution is to get an independent group together of drug experts, doctors, psychologists, criminologists, etc etc look at the evidence decide what they think is best, implement it despite the political fall out and continue to monitor and tweak."
This has already been done several times and each time the independent reviewing body has recommended some form of decriminalisation (along with other measures). And each time the government of the day has not implemented many of their recommendations, including decriminalisation.
The fact is that decriminalisation is not going to happen in the UK for the forseeable future, because it's simply politically unacceptable - i.e. it'd be a vote loser. You only have to look at some of the comments on here for evidence of that! (Nothing personal Grendel!) This situation will only change if the wider public are educated to understand this complex issue, which involves choosing 'least worst outcomes'. Unfortunately I don't see this happening anytime soon.
No, they are not. It was a debate and it didn't mean a thing. All it does, rightly, was to make the situation known more widely.
So dragging Sisu's name through the mud in parliment makes no difference. Im sure Joy S sees it that way and is happy !!!
Why did Ainsworth refuse to go on CWR this morning to talk about it?
Feels like a long time since this forum was mostly talking about football, it's a shame that we talk about finance more than anything these days.
The drug thing was related though, Grendel tried to use it to discredit Bob Ainsworth when the truth is his opinions on the matter show him to have much better reasoning skills than Grendel.
Fully agree with you on the brothels
Bob Ainsworth is the man who once on national television advocated legalising all drugs.
Not to be taken seriously at all.
Didn't realise he'd suggested that.
Bit of a shock to find a politician who can put forward sensible ideas instead of bowing to the "great" Daily Mail.
Much respect to Mr Ainsworth.
The whole tenure of his debate was that alcohol is a drug and is legal and causes more damage than drugs.
Sadly he omitted two things from his thought process - one that alcohol can be enjoyed by numerous people without addiction and harm (when did you last see a casual heroin user) and two that the decriminalisation would increase use age and therefore ultimately do more damage.
His "reasoning skills" were ripped to pieces in the national media (other than I suppose the Guardian).
For me the bombshell was Bob revealing that SISU were planning on challenging the initial rent agreement when the Ricoh was built, years before they took over.
The words 'due' and 'diligence' spring to mind.
No idea do you think im his PA !!!
I didn't even know he was asked.
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?