Astute
Well-Known Member
It's not a comma, it's an apostrophe
Yeah but comma is easier to type at 3:30 in the morning when you are getting ready for work
SP hoping for clarity on CCFC's future home (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter SlowerThanPlatt
- Start date
Yeah but comma is easier to type at 3:30 in the morning when you are getting ready for work
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
And the atmosphere was fantastic at the Ricoh.
Another thread ruined by John slagging people off.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
According to Pressley it was better than Sixfields. Hence the thread.
I'm not defending the comment, but let's not pretend Sixfields is just as good as the Ricoh, no matter what your issues with the Ricoh are. It's been mentioned by players, managers and opposition as a positive more than any other feature of our club in recent years. Whereas Sixfields has been mentioned as a negative more than any other factor this year by the same group (including the 10 point deduction).
Matty_CCFC
New Member
torchomatic
I agree with you, if not one of these so called "real fans" turned up at sixfiels and it was just a few directors and a handful of away fans we would be sent back to the Ricoh by the FL.
Am sure Fisher and co would like that, he could say " we were doing what was right for the club, but we must do what the FL tell us to do"
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
I agree. I'm not pretending Sixfields is great and better than the Ricoh. Obviously it's not. Similarly let's not pretend the Ricoh was a hotbed of Sky Blue passion with a fantastic atmosphere. It wasn't.
I go to Sixfields will be there with my son today but I'd rather be at the Ricoh, of course I would. However, we won't be there and it's pointless John blaming fellow fans for the situation. His posts get more childish by the day.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Matty_CCFC
New Member
I cannot help blame other fans to some degree.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No we wouldn't be sent back as that would be saying the football league is an organisation which ultimately can force an organisation to accept another's rental arrangement - it shouldn't and it wouldn't.
Its only concern is fixture fulfilment coupled with funding. It has already stated it accepts sisu's arrangements with regard to these conditions.
Your whole argument is flawed and illogical.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Congratulations. That would the same as saying fans refusing to go contribute the the selling of key players. Way to go.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Its a shame that none of the sixfields posse can wake up to this point.
It would send a clear indication to the football league that no fans support the move and they would be forced to take action.
Obviously Torch and his buddies will say the football league is toothless. But we will never know because the sixfields posse gave them a get out of jail free card !!!!
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
John. The "Sixfields Posse" are fans of the football club. No more, no less.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
So what you are saying is the football league don't have the power to withdraw the golden share ??????????
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Why take it out on me just because SP is telling a few home truths !!!
covmark
Well-Known Member
No, what he is saying is the FL cannot force the club into a rental agreement, because sisu will sue their arses.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Lol
Do you really think Sisu would sue the football league ???
I would love to see that because it would bring out all the details in court of the administration process sham !!!
Surely you would also want this out in the open ??
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Correct, they can't force SISU to accept a particular deal but the FL could say CCFC must play all their games in Coventry. If they did that there would be a very good chance SISU would agree a rental deal at the Ricoh.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Oh yes...the administration sham. The process overseen by legal process. Obviously in your learned capacity you have evidence that illegal activity occurred and essentially either fraud or corruption had taken place (maybe both).
So I assume you've taken your evidence to the police? Becuase that's where I would have taken it if I had that kind of evidence.
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
If you feel that the administration process was fully open and transparent, then I would have thought that you were in something of a minority. The position where a legal entity whose accounts had shown it to be a trading football club was suddenly found to be a non-trading property owning subsidiary looked a little odd. That is not to say that it was illegal. If it had been I'm sure that interested parties would have followed it up.
Agree with the poster who said no home fans at Sixfields and we'd be back at the Ricoh pronto.
We'd officially be the club with no fans. An even bigger laughing stock than we are now.
But no, the selfish ones just play their part in prolonging this Sky Blue misery.
Ian, get your head out of the sand. Sisu are devious, scheming - not fit and proper persons.
We don't need a degree in forensic accounting to know which way the wind blows.
We'd officially be the club with no fans. An even bigger laughing stock than we are now.
But no, the selfish ones just play their part in prolonging this Sky Blue misery.
Ian, get your head out of the sand. Sisu are devious, scheming - not fit and proper persons.
We don't need a degree in forensic accounting to know which way the wind blows.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Indeed, and it's worth noting Haskell made a point of acknowledging the administrator's professionalism.
Then again... what administration is transparent? The guilfoyle Plymouth effort certainly wasn't, Christ knows what some of the Portsmouth ones were playing at, too!
It's probably fair to say as a concept administration isn't the clear cut route to a 'preferred' decision where all problems are resolved, that it's sometimes painted as...
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Wasn't Appleton involved with the Portsmouth administration too?
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
I believe Guillfoye was the preferred choice for ACL was it not?
My point was that was is perceived to be shady, morally questionable is very different to what is illegal.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Indeed and indeed.
Safe to say Guilfoyle wouldn't have been ACL's choice, to be entirely fair and reasonable towards SISU, after all!
ajsccfc
Well-Known Member
Fuck off with this bullshit.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No its not the truth.
Samo
Well-Known Member
Not fit and proper owners is one thing... but not fit and proper persons??? And by the way - Poppycock!
ajsccfc
Well-Known Member
It's not polite in any way, you're snidely blaming people who don't do what you want based on little more than guesswork that you put forward as 'truth' that people merely deny.
You're sky blue john with a better grasp of language.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
