chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Fletcher loved firing out statements about how bids were 'derisory' or similar terms.
Grab a beer or a cup of tea, it’s CCFC!! (19 Viewers)
- Thread starter I was eleven in 87
- Start date
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Its a well written, argued and researched piece, you may vehemently disagree with the conclusions and the tone of the article but I've yet to find any statement of fact that is in error, have you? Actually I find Les Reid articles have a similar style only they generally take the side of SISU but are pretty much factually accurate.
The aims and objectives of JHW are crystal clear, it is on their web site, its the first thing you see, though annoyingly it is in a scrolling segment.
There is a comprehensive critique about the negative effects the sale of ACL shares by CCC to Wasps would have on CCFC in the middle of the article.
Last edited:
Nick
Administrator
Which is completely different to the point I made? If that's all you can find you must be scraping the barrell.
The aims of JHW, one person who doesn't know why he boycotts?
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
I don't see how failed bids by parties other than SISU have any bearing on the situation today. That after all is all that matters.
Nick
Administrator
Of course you wouldn't.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Note the bid from SISU was derisory. It's simply not true the council encouraged SISU at the expense of others - they didn't encourage SISU either!
The Co-op bank did however, as SISU allowed them to get more of their cash back. Ultimately it was they who pushed SISU into a position of preference. As for the cub, you'd have to ask Joe Elliott why he thought they were our great white hope.
The Co-op bank did however, as SISU allowed them to get more of their cash back. Ultimately it was they who pushed SISU into a position of preference. As for the cub, you'd have to ask Joe Elliott why he thought they were our great white hope.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Please explain what bearing they have on today's situation then.
Nick
Administrator
Because it's another situation where the council didn't really give a shit. They have also been a factor in our trouble even pre SISU...
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Didn't give a shit, that's your idea of analysing the situation is it. Oh dear.
If you could list some pros and cons of each deal indicating in which way the council did not live up to professional standards and clearly disadvantaged CCFC by their choice I would be impressed as well as incredibly surprised that you actually have some capacity of critical thought and an ability to research something.
Nick
Administrator
It's simplifying it because nobody really gives a shit.
Plus im focusing on watching the game in the other window
bawtryneal
Well-Known Member
It's simplifying it because nobody really gives a shit.
Plus im focusing on watching the game in the other window
Putting aside your obvious issue with Mr Johnson and any "previous" you may or may not have had with him, what is it you specifically disagree with in his article.
bawtryneal
Well-Known Member
Good 3 points by the way today.
Well deserved and hopefully the start of a decent run and beating Walsall next Saturday.
Well deserved and hopefully the start of a decent run and beating Walsall next Saturday.
Nick
Administrator
The reasoning behind it, the way it seems to be trying to re-write history by leaving things out
We know fisher is a prick, it doesn't mean others can't be well.
Last edited:
bawtryneal
Well-Known Member
The reasoning behind it, the way it seems to be trying to re-write history by leaving things out
We know fisher is a prick, it doesn't mean others can't be well.
What has he left out specifically ?
Not trying to be clever, just an honest question because I thought his piece was fairly well written
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
What has he left out?The reasoning behind it, the way it seems to be trying to re-write history by leaving things out
We know fisher is a prick, it doesn't mean others can't be well.
Nick
Administrator
Any time any other party has bullshitted. It's very selective.
One example is the butts stuff.
bawtryneal
Well-Known Member
He explains the Butts situation very clearly in my opinion
As I say I think it is a well written article and is very close to both my opinion and recollection of the facts over the last 5 or so years.
bawtryneal
Well-Known Member
We all agree Fisher is a cock but that is not the point
Fisher is just a puppet for SISU. A well rewarded puppet at that.
Until Seppala backs down we are wholly reliant on Wasps owners and management showing some goodwill to CCFC. Without that there will be no Ricoh extension.
Fisher is just a puppet for SISU. A well rewarded puppet at that.
Until Seppala backs down we are wholly reliant on Wasps owners and management showing some goodwill to CCFC. Without that there will be no Ricoh extension.
Nick
Administrator
Apart from the bits missed out? That's one example because I looked it up again to see who said what for the other thread a couple of days ago so it's fresh
That's why I have used the words selective rather than factually incorrect or made up.
His boycott reason is what's factually incorrect.
Last edited:
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Any reason one person has for boycotting games is not material to the argument.Apart from the bits missed out? That's one example because I looked it up again to see who said what for the other thread a couple of days ago so it's fresh
That's why I have used the words selective rather than factually incorrect or made up.
His boycott reason is what's factually incorrect.
Tell me something that is which invalidates or weakens the case made?
bawtryneal
Well-Known Member
Apart from the bits missed out? That's one example because I looked it up again to see who said what for the other thread a couple of days ago so it's fresh
That's why I have used the words selective rather than factually incorrect or made up.
His boycott reason is what's factually incorrect.
The article has nothing to do with any boycott.
Anyhow. I think he has summed it up pretty well
Let's all be nice to Eastwood and co or we are going to have a big big problem in 4 or 5 weeks time.
Nick
Administrator
I already have about the butts stuff, there are things missed out. I had to explain the same things in the other thread.
It's not material if it's made up though is it? It's pointing out there's an agenda behind it which is why its selective.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
I don't deny that there is an agenda, in fact I told you where you could find it, it's here Home
It isn't an answer to say it's hard to explain or the explanation is elsewhere, it is evading the question.
Please try to explain or give me references to specific posts that do explain on the other thread are referring to.
Nick
Administrator
Is this where people play the acting dumb game?
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
So no answer because you have none.
Nick
Administrator
I've already given one example of what was being selective as it was discussed a couple of days ago.
Are you saying it isn't being selective with facts?
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Where is this mysterious thread you say explains the omissions you claim are made?
No I don' t think a 12,000 word article is terribly selective, in fact it is very comprehensive.
Nick
Administrator
It was the one that discussed the butts literally days ago. The only mysterious thing about it was Tony also trying to be selective and being corrected then vanishing. Try reading threads properly.
You do realise it could be 400 thousand words and still be selective?
All stuff like this does is give other parties a free pass to do whatever. Same as has gone on for years.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Where and which posts show you have a point? You are not explaning yourself, just being evasive.
I don't think the Butts matters anymore, Jon Sharp is not going to agree anything while SISU own CCFC and are perceived as unacceptable.
Nick
Administrator
I have said he missed things about regarding the butts situation as one example. I literally went through all the details about it a couple of days ago when Tony strangely missed details too.
Where did I say it was still going to happen?
Why are you trying to play dumb again? Is this the new thing?
If fisher bullshits it's all there in details, if the council do its just "public relations" rather then multiple people being bullshitters.
The people bullshitting should all rightly be called out rather than pretending only one side is at it.
Last edited:
bawtryneal
Well-Known Member
Who is bullshitting apart from Fisher.
SISU had an agenda. It has failed. They cannot blame anybody else
As I said yesterday evening. Without the goodwill of Wasps we have no home.
I think it is perfectly reasonable for their stance. They warned SISU of the outcome of their ongoing actions last year.
I cannot see your argument.
Sometimes you argue without logic or reason. One of the major reasons I do not post on here very often.
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
The council have bullshitted, talking about rebuilding trust while selling to wasps. Saying the future of CCFC and crfc would be secure then saying it was only for four years, that’s bullshit too. The council have had an agenda regarding the club long before Sisu arrived. I don’t find the wasps stance completely reasonable. Do we not remember the bleating about them having no home and it justifying moving miles. Yet here they are not talking to the club about keeping them at the ricoh. The legal action is not against them, they are an interested party. It’s just a convenient excuse that people swallow.