rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Left Wing ? I think you will find all decisions taken on all the issues regarding the Ricoh were unanimous and no party politics involved at all.
Rugby Council still denies 'new stadium' contact... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter SimonGilbert
- Start date
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I raise you SG and leaders of the SCG
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
It is strange that 1 thread about a council can create 50+pages in a couple of days and this thread also about a council wont even come close. Even though the details on this thread are not only current but are also directly linked around comments from TF and therefore relevant to CCFC and it's future.
Nick
Administrator
I don't think you see anybody justifying Tim fisher's bullshit, hence they don't get as big. If there were 5 - 10 people on here justifying Tim Fisher in every thread then pretty sure it would go on for longer.
Whereas if everybody just filed the council into the bullshit drawer like they did with Fisher, it wouldn't go on as long as nobody would believe them would they?
No offence to RFC but he doesn't really count.
covmark
Well-Known Member
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason those threads go on forever is because fools like you staunchly defend the council at every opportunity.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
There's a very simple explanation for that isn't there? In the 50+ page thread you had several people vehemently defending the council even after Lucas had been on the radio admitting they had been less than truthful. Compare that to this thread, where are all the 'pro-SISU' people you claim are on this board defending Fisher? It doesn't happen as the reality is people aren't pro-SISU so naturally the thread is quieter.
Gosford Green
Well-Known Member
Because there is no grey area in this. Fisher claims to have contacted RBC over 3 sights, RBC under the FOI state no contact made.
That is probably why this is not yet 50 pages, Fisher has been proven as a fantasist with the help of government, if there was even the smallest ray of Cayman Isles sunlight RFC would be mounting a rigorous defence of TF and SISU.
I agree with Nick (only on this) normally RFC does not count, but his absence pretty much rubber stamps the above.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Precisely, a bullshit that nobody believed in the first place, is still bullshit story, isn't really a massive shock to anybody.
Except, strangely, those who go on and on about Fisher being a bulshiiter about the stadium, appear to be shocked about it.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Did Lucas state that they had been less then truthful; or that the prognosis with regards ACL's health - shared by the JR appeal judge - hadn't turned out to be accurate? There's a big diffeence
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Well this thread may get to 50 pages yet as MMM seems determined to mount another defence of CCC!
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
But that's no more ironic than those who readily acknowledge that Fisher is a bullshitter, and fabricator of myth and fable extraordinaire; yet still castigate CCC for being unable to do a deal with this Walter Mitty character - and subscribe hungrily to any thread that suggests that CCC played a significant role in our downfall..
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
No, it's the defence you couldn't answer last time; yet still trot out innocently now.
Do you want to answer the question I asked?
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
That very much depends, sometimes his word is taken as gospel.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Listen to the interview on Shane O'Connor's show. She stated that it wasn't her fault misleading information had been used, it was the fault of the council officers who supplied the information. Let's leave it at that as we don't need another 50 pages of denial.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Lucas' statement was not a prognosis but stating the status quo at the time. She did not say that ACL *will* be profitable without the club, but *were* profitable without it.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
It should be gospel constantly - he's CEO and has fiduciary responsibility to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence at all times
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
Were people vehemently defending the council or just trying to explain things in the same way 'the balanced ones' do when we used to get the Sisu bashing threads, which in turn seemed to have an awful lots of posters literally frothing at the mouth for Council blood. The previous thread you mention pretty much stopped any chance of us owning the Ricoh. However, the recent fallout from Fisher and stadiums can mount up to us not playing at all. But on the other thread people were screaming and shouting for heads to roll, people to be sacked, investigations to be carried out, criminal convictions to be brought second JR's along with other legal challenges yet I have seen none of that on this thread from the people who were disgusted at the council on the other thread, yet aren't we talking about pretty much the same thing in two people lying about a stadium. No-one is defending Fisher but where is the outcry for his head, a meeting to ask what the fuck is going on and who they hell they have been talking too. But no, what do we get off NW, he said on one post that we should look into FOI requests and how they done, you really couldn't make the fucker up!
Also, recently even you have been using the old 'everyone calls Fisher a liar' but you have even said lately that maybe he has been telling the truth. After these recent events do you still think that?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
No kidding. Although it is nice to have a High Court judge coming to the same conclusion.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Is Waggott not the CEO now?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Pretty simple really, the council are a publically accountable body. There is now a doubt regarding some of their statements of fact and crucially those 'facts' may have been used to support both the granting of the loan to ACL and subsequently the sale to Wasps. As a publically accountable body my feeling is that where doubt exists over such a major issue it warrants further enquiry and if wrongdoing is uncovered there should be consequences.
SISU are a private company so while I would love them to be subject to the same scrutiny, especially regarding the administration process that was carried out, unless there is evidence of illegal activity I am doubtful it will happen.
Whilst it is two people lying about a stadium I would say they are very different circumstances. I'm pretty sure the Ricoh actually exists and I'm also pretty sure the FisherDome doesn't and never will.
What I actually said was that it was generally accepted that everything Fisher, Labovich and Sepalla had said was a lie. That has turned out not to be the case. For example Fisher claimed ACL was unprofitable without CCFC, was accused of being wrong, turns out he was right. Labovich suggested the Reeves and West weren't being up front with the council, Lucas has now intimated the same (assuming they are the council officers she is referring to). That doesn't therefore mean that everything said by Fisher is the truth, it merely suggests that rather than writing off anything he says it may be worth a little more scrutiny before drawing a conclusion.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
The issue of the CCC loan to ACL has been covered off in the Judicial Review. It has been the subject of review too. The judges view was copied and pasted on here last week; specifically with regards the profitability of ACL - in which he gave his 40+ year prognosis.
What more do you expect?
Astute
Well-Known Member
So are you saying that we are only allowed to say that he either always tells the truth or he never tells the truth?
Any sane person would prefer to look at any evidence on each matter before deciding. For instance he looks to be untruthful when he says that they are going to build a new stadium. And he was telling the truth when he said that they were removing our club from Coventry.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
First time you've said fiduciary duty for a while.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
I sometimes forget it exists in CCFC Land. That'll be why
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I think most treated the latter as an empty threat to begin with mind.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It doesn't and hasn't for 20 years in CCFC Land.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Like I did myself. My comment at the time was on the lines of what sane person would take a football club away from where it belongs. He also thought with good results that we would fill the ground. Shows how much he knows.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Who really believed(until it actually happened) that we would move to Northampton though?
He said that ACL wouldn't make any money without the football club - Bullshit - With evidence from Judges, Anne Lucas and Mr and Mrs PWKH to back it up - He was right.
Really don't understand why, if one side is full of shit, it means that the other side are therefore paragons of virtue and unimpeachable?
No reason why both sides can't be full of shit and disingenuous, which is more likely the case.
Astute
Well-Known Member
If you ever took notice of what I say you will have seen that I say they are all full of shit. But it is the same for Fisher. Just because it looks like there is bullshit flying around it is still best to see some sort of evidence before making out something as a fact.
But if you want to make such a comment try and get your comments right. He said that they was running at a loss. When questioned how he knew he said that they might be running at a loss.
But another point you seem to ignore is that did AL know that ACL was making a loss once our club was removed from Coventry or was she given the wrong information? You seem to make out that there is no doubt that she knew the truth. Was she on the ACL board?
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Because your latter statement insinuates there's some sort of evenness of blame. Which there simply isn't. The Judicial Review judges have been absolutely clear in that regard.
With Fisher, there are tens of significant statements which appear to be economies of truth; whereas I can see one, perhaps two from CCC - and people try to suggest that everyone is as bad as each other.
All this has been considered by independent, skilled and qualified judges. Looking at the ACL profitability issue, for example; the judges didn't just fall for Lucas' 'lies' you know.
Seppala's statement, for example, was 350 paragraphs long, taking 110 pages. With regards SISU's view of the ACL business, this was subject to a 45‑page report of Mr James Palmer of Duff & Phelps - specialist Chartered Accountants. It's not like the judge took Lucas' word for it. And afterwards, he stated "The private investor in the shoes of the Council would have been properly entitled to take the view that ACL was capable of servicing a loan for £14.4m over 41 years, and the security was sufficient to make the risk of it failing to do so commercially worthwhile".
The council aren't whiter-than-white; but they were subject to extreme provocation; and the Blame-O-Meter still points very, very much in one direction
Last edited:
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
This bit has always puzzled me in the judgement, why, if it was as he stated, was there no private investor making the loan?
Surely there should have been no reason for the Council to use their funds for a loan to ACL, when private investors would have been willing to and it would have been commercially worthwhile.
Why did the council not issue a loan initially to ACL at the start rather than Yorkshire Bank? Especially as it would have been paid back to them immediately for the cost of the lease(as was the initial £25million from YB I think?).
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Probably a case of the council thinking they were being clever by getting a better return than they could get elsewhere? Didn't they lose cash when those Icelandic Banks all went a bit 'Lenny Bennett' in 2008? Got some back in 2011/12; but would still make them thing of investments closer to home.
From ACL's perspective, they probably got better rates then they would in the private sector. The judgement didn't go as far as stating 'at the same rate', did it? ;-)
As such, the motivation could have been a win:win. I'm not commenting that it was, just what the motivation from both sides could have been
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
To be fair to CCC, think they were one of the few local authorities to avoid the whole Icelandic Banking system clusterfuck.
Agree with you mostly on that, but would think that if given at a rate not available if had to look for a loan from the private sector, then would have thought it would qualify as State Aid.
Not that State Aid is necessarily bad, especially in "propping up" a company they had a 50% interest in, but think that reason for the loan(which I think was mentioned in the judgement somewhere) is now not there.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Lord knows. If you'll forgive the pun! It bored me sufficiently to read the judgement. Let alone thinking about all the supporting documents which gave rise to the judgement as was. Lest to comment that Justice Higginbottom ruled it didn't constitute State Aid for whatever reason. As stated, SISU weren't backward in coming forward with documents which insisted it was, and which highlighted the fragility of ACL.
Being honest, Fisher's comment about ACL being unsustainable without CCFC isn't the work of some great soothsayer - the football club was the anchor tenant and there's huge clue in the title. If they'd have tried their policy much earlier, it's chances of success would have been much higher. Left it too late, then didn't know when to dive back in and cut the deal. You know what the say, it's all about..... timing...
cloughie
Well-Known Member
correct all about timing, yet if nothing else that alone proves sisu were clueless concerning running a football club and nothing has changed unfortunately
