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.
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.Exactly but fans would rather waste their energy on council and wasps bashing. Both have no relevance to ccfc or our club. Sisu have killed this club but fans rather use the council as an excuse because of their left wing political bias
Nick are you happy that Fisher sat in a room of Cov fans and blatantly lied about their efforts regarding a new stadium ?
The silence on this thread is deafening from those who like Sisu blame the council, acl and Wasps for all ccfc's woes !
If Fisher is happy to lie to fans on this issue, which has always been their answer for not purchasing a share in the Ricoh at every turn. Then what are Sisu's motives ?
All i can see is endless futile litigation whilst are club is being neglected !
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Well this thread may get to 50 pages yet as MMM seems determined to mount another defence of CCC!
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..
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?
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
That very much depends, sometimes his word is taken as gospel.
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.
It was quite easy to see SISU`s game plan a long time ago. Some bought into it, literally in some cases.
Previously you (Nick) have always wanted facts to prove any points of view, thanks to FOI there are some provided on the new stadium subject. Now you want facts to prove who the facts might be relevant to. You should go into politics.
It should be gospel constantly - he's CEO and has fiduciary responsibility to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence at all times
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?
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.
That very much depends, sometimes his word is taken as gospel.
It should be gospel constantly - he's CEO and has fiduciary responsibility to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence at all times
First time you've said fiduciary duty for a while.
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.
I sometimes forget it exists in CCFC Land. That'll be why
I think most treated the latter as an empty threat to begin with mind.
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.
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.
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.
. 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".
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?).
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
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.
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...
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?