Should Rasputin be banned? (17 Viewers)

Forums New posts

Should Rasputin be banned?

  • Total voters
    32
  • Poll closed .
Rusty Trombone

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
I also have explained it and unlike you I understand it’s purpose and intent.

You genuinely seem to believe it was available to both sides. The whole turn of events prove otherwise.

Your last sentence is at least funny
Click to expand...
Yeah, I like that little quip, oddly I couldn't have done it without you, what a team we'd make.

The veto wasn't just something that was passively available, just to use if Higgs wanted, or in your mind, if Higgs were brave enough to go against the Council. To make any Board decisions there had to be majority consensus.

Here is what was required for anyone selling their share 'no member shall transfer or dispose of its interest in any share without the prior written consent of the other members'.

You seem to be suggesting Higgs had no say over the veto they had (I'm pleased you accept they had one), so for the Council to sell their share of ACL to Wasps you seem to be suggesting Higgs didn't give their written consent of their own free will, did Ann Lucas have a smoking gun to their head?

Unless I've missed it I haven't seen Higgs complaining about the Councils treatment of them, unless they are using you as their mouthpiece, are you working for PWKH?
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Rusty Trombone said:
Yeah, I like that little quip, oddly I couldn't have done it without you, what a team we'd make.

The veto wasn't just something that was passively available, just to use if Higgs wanted, or in your mind, if Higgs were brave enough to go against the Council. To make any Board decisions there had to be majority consensus.

Here is what was required for anyone selling their share 'no member shall transfer or dispose of its interest in any share without the prior written consent of the other members'.

You seem to be suggesting Higgs had no say over the veto they had (I'm pleased you accept they had one), so for the Council to sell their share of ACL to Wasps you seem to be suggesting Higgs didn't give their written consent of their own free will, did Ann Lucas have a smoking gun to their head?

Unless I've missed it I haven't seen Higgs complaining about the Councils treatment of them, unless they are using you as their mouthpiece, are you working for PWKH?
Click to expand...

I’ve anways says they had one - that’s when you started making absurd noises about they own property so are able to manipulate council thinking.

Higgs can’t and won’t complain about their treatment. The notion they could ever object is absurd. The council set the sale price by a confidential meeting and that at the time did not include the transfer of the loan. They also sold a lease extension which massively enhanced the value after the share disposal.
They were sleeping partners in the arrangement and on one laughable radio interview Pwkh was corrected by Eastwood and virtually told what to say.

Anyone would agree that the valuation of the ground would have hugely been enhanced by a lease extension years before - so oddly the acl board never pushed for it. That’s because the decision making structure was skewed to the council and they wanted the value low. According to you Higgs were actually equal partners so why not demand it or use their rights to appoint additional directors? Everyone knows why.

Lucas oftern regerred yo the ground as the councils - I’ve heard Mutton say directly to me that they (sisu) will not get their hands on MY ground.

Higgs were sleeping partners and it’s why the half share was worthless
 
Rusty Trombone

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
I’ve anways says they had one - that’s when you started making absurd noises about they own property so are able to manipulate council thinking.

Higgs can’t and won’t complain about their treatment. The notion they could ever object is absurd. The council set the sale price by a confidential meeting and that at the time did not include the transfer of the loan. They also sold a lease extension which massively enhanced the value after the share disposal.
They were sleeping partners in the arrangement and on one laughable radio interview Pwkh was corrected by Eastwood and virtually told what to say.

Anyone would agree that the valuation of the ground would have hugely been enhanced by a lease extension years before - so oddly the acl board never pushed for it. That’s because the decision making structure was skewed to the council and they wanted the value low. According to you Higgs were actually equal partners so why not demand it or use their rights to appoint additional directors? Everyone knows why.

Lucas oftern regerred yo the ground as the councils - I’ve heard Mutton say directly to me that they (sisu) will not get their hands on MY ground.

Higgs were sleeping partners and it’s why the half share was worthless
Click to expand...
Excellent, so we're agreed both sides had the veto. It seemed difficult getting it out of you, I feel silly now as you are saying you've always said they both had it.

I leave all the deluded stuff for you to carry on with, there's too much in there, I'll stick to my view based on what Higgs have done and said, and you can stick to your view that they did what the Council wanted and can't say anything bad about the Council, even now.

When Wasps bought the Council share (agreed to in writing by Higgs either by force or of their own free will) I would have thought the correct thing to do would be to agree a price. I think there's been a court case about this, everything was done properly wasn't it?

Certainly the lease extension increased the value of the lease within ACL, maybe if they increased the value of ACL before the sale then it would be too expensive for someone to buy it, and both Higgs and the Council would be left with a 'valuable' but empty and loss making arena. Who knows for definite, certainly not me, and by the sounds of it, certainly not you.

The ground is the Councils, and ACL have a lease that lets them use it, you're not getting confused about freehold and leasehold again are you? I'm not sure I've the time to go through that again for you.
 
usskyblue

usskyblue

Well-Known Member
giphy.gif
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Rusty Trombone said:
Excellent, so we're agreed both sides had the veto. It seemed difficult getting it out of you, I feel silly now as you are saying you've always said they both had it.

I leave all the deluded stuff for you to carry on with, there's too much in there, I'll stick to my view based on what Higgs have done and said, and you can stick to your view that they did what the Council wanted and can't say anything bad about the Council, even now.

When Wasps bought the Council share (agreed to in writing by Higgs either by force or of their own free will) I would have thought the correct thing to do would be to agree a price. I think there's been a court case about this, everything was done properly wasn't it?

Certainly the lease extension increased the value of the lease within ACL, maybe if they increased the value of ACL before the sale then it would be too expensive for someone to buy it, and both Higgs and the Council would be left with a 'valuable' but empty and loss making arena. Who knows for definite, certainly not me, and by the sounds of it, certainly not you.

The ground is the Councils, and ACL have a lease that lets them use it, you're not getting confused about freehold and leasehold again are you? I'm not sure I've the time to go through that again for you.
Click to expand...

I know the difference between leasehold and freehold thanks - stop being deliberately obtuse.

I am talking about comments from councillors saying they won’t be buying my ground - I think both you and I know what was meant.

Shall I dig up other quotes where councillors have made comments on sisu “not getting the hands on the council ground” it being a “community asset” and most famously “build bridges” - by people who are not even on the board of this “equal” management company.
 
M

martcov

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
I know the difference between leasehold and freehold thanks - stop being deliberately obtuse.

I am talking about comments from councillors saying they won’t be buying my ground - I think both you and I know what was meant.

Shall I dig up other quotes where councillors have made comments on sisu “not getting the hands on the council ground” it being a “community asset” and most famously “build bridges” - by people who are not even on the board of this “equal” management company.
Click to expand...

No, but you could bring up comments by Joy about „unencumbered‘ freehold or endless litigation. Or, we’re building our own stadium- plans to be announced in 3 weeks. Or the move to Northampton. Or remind us of your descriptive quotes of „edifice“ or „white elephant“.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
martcov said:
No, but you could bring up comments by Joy about „unencumbered‘ freehold or endless litigation. Or, we’re building our own stadium- plans to be announced in 3 weeks. Or the move to Northampton. Or remind us of your descriptive quotes of „edifice“ or „white elephant“.
Click to expand...

What’s that got to do with comments made even before any of the issues you describe happened?

Or indeed pre sisu?
 
Rusty Trombone

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
I know the difference between leasehold and freehold thanks - stop being deliberately obtuse.

I am talking about comments from councillors saying they won’t be buying my ground - I think both you and I know what was meant.

Shall I dig up other quotes where councillors have made comments on sisu “not getting the hands on the council ground” it being a “community asset” and most famously “build bridges” - by people who are not even on the board of this “equal” management company.
Click to expand...
There you go again, trying to say what I mean. I'm not being deliberately obtuse, and I love the fact you can say it about someone else with absolutely no sense of irony. It's partly why I like to read the forum, never stop posting.

It would be odd for those comments to be talking about not letting SISU have a longer lease, as they had already agreed that they could have one, so I believe they were talking about the freehold, as that makes sense.

They were probably comments from around when Joy invented the term 'unencumbered leasehold', as that doesn't exist, and if it did it would be best described as a freehold, which has never been for sale as far as I know.

Councillors commenting on something major going on in the City, that's their job isn't it. I think there should have been more talk about it, not less. Especially from the ones that weren't 'even on the Board'.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Rusty Trombone said:
There you go again, trying to say what I mean. I'm not being deliberately obtuse, and I love the fact you can say it about someone else with absolutely no sense of irony. It's partly why I like to read the forum, never stop posting.

It would be odd for those comments to be talking about not letting SISU have a longer lease, as they had already agreed that they could have one, so I believe they were talking about the freehold, as that makes sense.

They were probably comments from around when Joy invented the term 'unencumbered leasehold', as that doesn't exist, and if it did it would be best described as a freehold, which has never been for sale as far as I know.

Councillors commenting on something major going on in the City, that's their job isn't it. I think there should have been more talk about it, not less. Especially from the ones that weren't 'even on the Board'.
Click to expand...

One of the examples I am referring to is when Ken Taylor said it was down to him and the council to decide who would purchase the club in 2007 and the only criteria was based around the strategy for the stadium.

Surely according to you that’s a decision for the acl board of directors elected by both share holders isn’t it?
 
Rusty Trombone

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
One of the examples I am referring to is when Ken Taylor said it was down to him and the council to decide who would purchase the club in 2007 and the only criteria was based around the strategy for the stadium.

Surely according to you that’s a decision for the acl board of directors elected by both share holders isn’t it?
Click to expand...
Well the Council own the stadium so it's fair they have the decision on that. If ACL were to buy the club then yes it needed the Board of ACL to agree. Depends what Ken was on about, and to be honest I'm not that bothered, as it didn't happen, maybe because they couldn't agree, which would confirm my point that Higgs shares had equal rights.

Anyway. The point I dived in at was when you said there wasn't equal rights for the shareholders, you now say you knew there were all along (you tease), it's just you believe there's a big conspiracy against Higgs, for which there is no actual evidence. Obviously you're welcome to have that opinion.
 
Astute

Astute

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
One of the examples I am referring to is when Ken Taylor said it was down to him and the council to decide who would purchase the club in 2007 and the only criteria was based around the strategy for the stadium.

Surely according to you that’s a decision for the acl board of directors elected by both share holders isn’t it?
Click to expand...
We could all give examples.

Do we start with Richardson who put us in the shit?

It would have been better to have had owners that wanted to join the stadium and our club. But it didn't happen.

Or how about when you were saying that SISU were the only ones who would be interested in the Ricoh. I was fearful of SISU or another hedge fund taking over the stadium and piling debt onto it. But to you it was a white elephant that nobody was interested in.

How about Fisher saying that they would build a stadium and we would hear in 3 weeks. Still wondering when that 3 weeks is.

How about all the things the CET said. Yes you jumped on that. But each Observer article was great to you.

They all acted like a bunch of twats. But only the CET, council and Higgs were guilty of anything in your eyes. And even now you only quote them and defend the others.
 
Rusty Trombone

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
Astute said:
We could all give examples.

Do we start with Richardson who put us in the shit?

It would have been better to have had owners that wanted to join the stadium and our club. But it didn't happen.

Or how about when you were saying that SISU were the only ones who would be interested in the Ricoh. I was fearful of SISU or another hedge fund taking over the stadium and piling debt onto it. But to you it was a white elephant that nobody was interested in.

How about Fisher saying that they would build a stadium and we would hear in 3 weeks. Still wondering when that 3 weeks is.

How about all the things the CET said. Yes you jumped on that. But each Observer article was great to you.

They all acted like a bunch of twats. But only the CET, council and Higgs were guilty of anything in your eyes. And even now you only quote them and defend the others.
Click to expand...
Fucking hell it was drawing to a close don't start it up again.
 
Captain Dart

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
Its that time of year when reality and pragmatism are drowned out by entrenched positions, bullshit and delusion. Welcome to SBT.

By the way if things go badly today & tomorrow we could be in a relegation position. Win needed.
 
Nonleagueherewecome

Nonleagueherewecome

Well-Known Member
It is really sad to see this in this thread. Such a shame. What a waste, eh? Is this really what we wanted? It's a real missed opportunity................................................................................................... this argument could be in the Chaplin thread driving it towards a 100 pages.
 
Otis

Otis

Well-Known Member
Yeah, changed my mind, definitely ban him, just so we can close the thread already!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 18 (members: 0, guests: 18)
Top