skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Fair enough.
Ricoh events and Wasps ticket outlet (26 Viewers)
- Thread starter Otis
- Start date
Fair enough.
Nick
Administrator
It's quite clear you are trying to disprove it though isn't it?
Fletcher quit, which is then when he said most of it. Didn't Robinson also quit and say something? Then you have the council saying things were derisory.
Follow the patterns, then it's not hard to see which is more likely.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No because on everything regarding the future if the club he has been proved wrong. He was wrong about sisu and he was wrong about Haskell. As a witness in a court he'd be easily discredited. Fletcher wouldn't.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
If you want it to, sure.
Like I said, there's nothing factually incorrect with what I've pointed out. There is two different versions and unusually it's from the same side. You believe what you like but not knowing the details there's no grounding for what you believe which is why I don't take either version as fact. Even grendull has admited I'm right and that they're opinions not fact.
Nick
Administrator
Haven't multiple parties made comments about the council, the football club and the ground?
Even dating before sisu so not using them as an excuse for the council not working with the club.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No I think your'e talking out your arse. Everything is based on circumstantial evidence but you consider what's in front of you and then decide.
If you witnessed a building that was burning and a man running away with a petrol can in his hand there is no evidence he actually committed the crime but there is a strong suggestion he did.
Oddly you and Italia frequently make judgements without the facts. There is no evidence that sisu returned to the Ricoh due to any boycott of sixfields is there? You'll have to provide concrete evidence want you?
What everyone can see is you and Italia defending the indefensible.
That most definitely is a fact and the pair of you are on your own and deserve each other.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Well if you want to concentrate on the Manhattan bid then lets look at it.
On one side you have Elliot. Given his role at the time it is highly unlikely he was involved in the negotiations. He has made the claim about interest rates. Nobody else before or since has mentioned anything even remotely similar.
On the other side you have Fletcher and Robinson. Given their roles at the time it is highly likely they were on the frontline of negotiations. The claims they have made are consistent with comments made by the council and reports in local media at the time. They also align with what has been said about other bids and other actions of the council both before and after the Manhattan bid.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
There is no way in a million years Elliot was involved in the bid discussions.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Again. I haven't decided anything. There's two versions of the events being discussed and I've repeatedly said that I'm not taking either as gospel.
You've been dying to say for days now that the boycott didn't bring the club back home to Coventry with you're leading questions that I wouldn't play along with. I guess you've finally given up being a smarmy prick and just come out and said it. Here's all I do know for sure. In no way did boycotting Sixfields facilitate our stay there, attending on the other hand did.
Again, I've defended nothing. Just pointed out that there are more than one version of events regarding the Manhattan failed takeover. Something you seem to have trouble understanding.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
You know that how?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Really? Do you have evidence to support that?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
That wasn't his role? Have you met him and talked to him? Have you met fletcher and talked to him?
I have both by the way.
Nick
Administrator
Have you got any proof of that? Have you got any minutes from SISU meetings that prove this or anything? Or is it your opinion?
You have no way of knowing that as a fact do you? Any proof the boycott brought the club back or just your opinion?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
It put money in the pocket that helped pay the rent at Sixfields. It's a pretty basic principle.
Nick
Administrator
So no facts? No proof? No figures?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
My money stayed in my pocket not the pocket paying the rent at Sixfields therefore my boycotting of Sixfields did not facilitate us being at Sixfields. Pretty simple really. No opinion needed for that one.
Nick
Administrator
Any proof the ticket money went on rent? How do you know it even covered wages?
It is just opinion isn't it? It isn't fact.
Without seeing the bank statements you can't say that.
You should post a link up to prove it, I'd be interesting in reading it. (Then if you do present me with multiple links, various people I am just going to try and make out it is wrong).
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The rent at sixfields was a tiny element of the clubs costs. What has that to do with anything?
How do you know they actually hadn't covered all costs that season in the eventuality no one showed?
It's a bold statement Tony. Basic principle is not evidence that's an assumption based on a belief.
Evidence Tony?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I gave the club £0.00 while we were at Sixfields so contributed £0.00 to the Sixfields rent. It really is simple maths. I can't understand why you're struggling with it.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
That's not even what you said. You said attending sixfields aided in staying there. How do you know that? How do you know they hadn't assumed zero attendance in budget planning?
We need evidence Tony
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
No it's basic maths. If you give someone £0.00 they can't spend your money and therefore you haven't facilitated their activities. Can't see why you're struggling with that.
Nick
Administrator
Erm, how do you know any of the money from ticket sales went on rent? How do you know the rent wasn't already paid?
Surely I can just say that the ticket money went to pay the players, and as we don't know you can't prove it?
Somebody could give me a tenner, doesn't mean it is contributing to my mortgage as I could spend it on beer.
It isn't fact is it, there's no evidence.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
That's not what you said Tony you said those attending sixfields aided in staying there.
Evidence please Tony.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Maybe you still have your ticket stubs from Sixfields. That should be evidence enough.
Nick
Administrator
Who said they were spending the ticket money though?
You have no evidence, you can't prove it. You have no evidence to prove that even with 3 men and their dog they would have come back.
The fact it took a major co-incidence of Wasps buying the stadium for them to come back (3 games into the season), after some absolutely shocking attendances shows they probably weren't that fussed about the numbers.
Nick
Administrator
Do you have a link where it has been proven? Or is it just your opinion or speculation?
Amazing how you can use basic principles to work things out with hard facts and evidence when it suits you...
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So you can prove that the revenue from those tickets went directly to paying the rent? I assumed it was advance paid.
I was wrong. Can you provide a link please Tony?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Maybe it bought joy a new handbag then. Rent is an operating cost, operating costs are payed with income, ticket sales are income. Why are you pretending to be stupid again?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I'd ask why you're pretending to be stupid like Nick but I already know it isn't an act with you.
Nick
Administrator
Your point was that the boycott brought the club home wasn't it?
There are lots of different types of income, still doesn't mean the money from tickets went on the rent. I could say that the ticket money went to pay the players and feed their kids so they were heros for putting money in.
I'd be speculating too.
How have you drawn that conclusion without any solid evidence or proof or facts and figures?
How do you know money from the year before (when you will have paid them) wasn't used? In which case, you would have contributed
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I believe the rent was paid upfront for the whole season.
Again I ask where is the evidence that this isn't the case?
Please provide a link that rent was paid monthly.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Very odd how Tony spends far more time in these sorts of threads than match day ones and very odd how he zealously supports the council stance,
Of course we have no evidence to suggest why he does this. We just have to make assumptions based on the evidence.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Your point was that the boycott brought the club home wasn't it?
There are lots of different types of income, still doesn't mean the money from tickets went on the rent. I could say that the ticket money went to pay the players and feed their kids so they were heros for putting money in.
I'd be speculating too.
How have you drawn that conclusion without any solid evidence or proof or facts and figures?
How do you know money from the year before (when you will have paid them) wasn't used? In which case, you would have contributed
No. That was Grendulls point. My point was that boycotting Sixfields I didn't help fund it.