No, it was my own fault, when I saw Jack posting and the amount of "likes" Astute was throwing around like confetti then I should have stopped reading.
It is very consistent with the observer article the thread is about.
Originally Posted by Astute
ACL owe the loan. Buy ACL you buy the loan. Buy 50% of ACL and you buy 50% of the loan.
That is so wrong
You buy half of ACL shares and that is it
If your 50% partner goes bust it does not change the status of ACL's loan - IT stills owes 100% of the balance
If ACL is generating sufficient to service the loan all well and good
However if it is not doing that and needs a cash injection then the problems arise. It could be the surviving shareholder has to prop up the WHOLE of the loan or fold ACL
Must be ways of Limiting your liabilities to a partner company .
Only with the agreement of the Lender
But a very one sided view.
CCC got questioned.
Higgs got questioned.
Wasps got questioned.
Joy did all the talking. And there were a fair few points that she made that should have been questioned.
That is why Sepalla needs to engage and speak with Wasps the future partner, the only way of bringing a successful deal home and forging a successful partnership otherwise it is doomed to failOriginally Posted by Astute
ACL owe the loan. Buy ACL you buy the loan. Buy 50% of ACL and you buy 50% of the loan.
That is so wrong
You buy half of ACL shares and that is it
If your 50% partner goes bust it does not change the status of ACL's loan - IT stills owes 100% of the balance
If ACL is generating sufficient to service the loan all well and good
However if it is not doing that and needs a cash injection then the problems arise. It could be the surviving shareholder has to prop up the WHOLE of the loan or fold ACL
Must be ways of Limiting your liabilities to a partner company .
Only with the agreement of the Lender
But it was an interview with JS so you would expect it to be one sided - wouldn't you?
The other parties were asked to comment on her interview
If the ACL/CCC press machine interviewed Ann Lucas I would be staggered if that was not similarly one sided
But it was an interview with JS so you would expect it to be one sided - wouldn't you?
The other parties were asked to comment on her interview
If the ACL/CCC press machine interviewed Ann Lucas I would be staggered if that was not similarly one sided
Her quotes would represent her view, but the reporter could elaborate to give the reader a rounded picture of events.
There is no evidence that the other parties were asked to comment on the interview.
Are you saying that Les Reid is part of the SISU press machine?
Her quotes would represent her view, but the reporter could elaborate to give the reader a rounded picture of events.
There is no evidence that the other parties were asked to comment on the interview.
Are you saying that Les Reid is part of the SISU press machine?
Whether you consider it a lecture or an interview he still asked the same pertinent questions that were being posted here!
And not the questions that we want and need answering. That is why he was chosen to report what Joy says. Which is as usual to point the finger at others.
This is needed, but balance is also needed. How about Joy having a meeting with a proper journalist? Won't ever happen will it.
Bet you wouldn't get Ann Lucas and her team answering some of the questions being asked of them either
Ok Duffer point taken.
My main thrust was that given the rarity of Interviews with Joy Sepalla that the focus was on the parties that were not being interviewed or present.
it may have been a factual unbiased representation of what went on , but given the opportunity to quiz the woman in charge was this not a missed opportunity?
There may have been an equal number of "that's commercially sensitive" responses which would have added some balance to the piece.
Given that SISU I believe claimed to "batter people in court" the only think they seemed to have battered is our club and supporters which is the real crime.
I was OK with SISU owning the Ricoh if it was part of a plan to grow the team etc.. but things have now changed and they are still pointing the finger at others without articulating any cohesive plan to move the club forward.
I wish people would step away from the personalities involved here. This was an interview with Sepalla, and she's made her points clearly enough. What we ought to be doing is discussing the merits of her argument, rather than calling it a PR piece, or insulting a journalist who has at various times challenged all of the parties involved.
If you think Rob S or Les Reid are somehow in the pay of SISU, then have the courage to come out and say so. Better still, forget about who you think they work for, and challenge what you think they are saying with facts - far better if everyone moved away from the completely pointless Fisher-rent-boy/Ann-Lucas-love-child rhetoric.
Anyway, back to the article - I'll note that Reid's also asked questions of the other parties, who have either declined to comment completely, or quoted NDAs. You can't class this as an anti-council piece if they've had the opportunity to have their say but declined for whatever reason to do so.
As for the specifics, it continues to p*ss me off enormously that SISU won't drop the new stadium farce. It simply doesn't need to be mentioned here. The council chose to bring Wasps in, but once again SISU are making it easy for them.
I note also that the council have already moved away from Wasps supposedly bringing 28,000 and £6m into the city at game time. Now this is just "a matter for Wasps and ACL". So all of this chat that Councillors made the move being good for the city's economy - it was bullshit, they've just admitted it.
Despite all of the bluster in the council debate, this was nothing to do with getting footfall into the Ricoh for the benefit of the city's economy. However it has got the council out of having to deal with SISU, and it has got CCC out of ACL, which it seems wasn't profitable despite their assertions (lies?) to the contrary. Again, whether that's worth it financially or morally is a matter of opinion I'd say.
And Wasps saying nothing - that says something to me too. I'm sure they'd like all this to go away, and they'd rather not admit that all they want from CCFC is someone who pays the rent on time, rather than being a true partner. That, to me, is the financial reality here.
I had already said that the questions asked were needed to be asked.
And I will say that Les Reid is biased towards SISU. It doesn't mean that he is paid by them. Why is Joy happy to meet with him and no other reporter? Why does he never ask her the questions we want answers to or at least report them? He has come out with claims that don't seem to have any truth like the smoking gun or councillors voting against the wasps deal.
Rob S also seems biased towards SISU. How about his recent meltdown on here on the thread that got deleted? He once had a go at me whilst contradicting news that came out. I admire him for all his hard work he has put in. Maybe he has fell for what Joy has told him. Just like Les Reid has. Don't mean he is getting paid for it though.
The release of what Joy said had her contradicting herself. Why wasn't it questioned? Yes there were questions that needed answering. But what is plan A? Is there more litigation on the way? Do they want 50% or only all of ACL? Would a new stadium come first? Have they got the financial backing now?
I am not pro CCC. It is CCFC I care about. I don't give a shit about all the sides involved. And now it is starting to look like it is too late for us at the Ricoh. And all in the name of trying to save a few millions.
I note you dropped on part of my post but ignored "If the ACL/CCC press machine interviewed Ann Lucas I would be staggered if that was not similarly one sided"
It's OK labelling Reid and Rob as SISU stooges, so by the same token why don't you and tens of others ever ask questions of CCC? Duffer is a shining example to us all, I think.
As it wasnt clear enough for you though, in response to your Lucas point I would say she would give her view and I would expect a reporter to give a rounded picture of events to give balance to the story.
What have the council done wrong in all this? They've been taken to court by sisu and nothing happened. Sisu fucked us off to Northampton which in turn let to the council/ACL having a ground with no tennants. If the council had done wrong, the court of law would have found it.
But he has asked questions. Wasps refused to comment and CCC for the most part hid behind confidentiality. I don't see the same cries of derision when Gilbert gives his view on the matter, which to my mind are skewed pretty much in favour of Lucas and her mates.
Joy gave views on what she wanted by the looks of it, seemingly without challenge. The others were asked specific questions, mostly about the deal, so its not as if they were asked to provide a similar opinion piece. What views has Gilbert given that require more derision?
Here's an idea for Joy to get the ball rolling on making a bid for the Higgs share.
Why doesn't she arrange a contract where if negotiations break down at any point SISU will pick up Higgs cost upto an agreed amount to give Higgs the confidence that the SISU bid is serious. What could possibly go wrong with that?
Joy gave views on what she wanted by the looks of it, seemingly without challenge. The others were asked specific questions, mostly about the deal, so its not as if they were asked to provide a similar opinion piece. What views has Gilbert given that require more derision?
I wish people would step away from the personalities involved here. This was an interview with Sepalla, and she's made her points clearly enough. What we ought to be doing is discussing the merits of her argument, rather than calling it a PR piece, or insulting a journalist who has at various times challenged all of the parties involved.
If you think Rob S or Les Reid are somehow in the pay of SISU, then have the courage to come out and say so. Better still, forget about who you think they work for, and challenge what you think they are saying with facts - far better if everyone moved away from the completely pointless Fisher-rent-boy/Ann-Lucas-love-child rhetoric.
.
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?