Ricoh Lease... (2 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

I mean the financing was uncertain anyway which is why they needed bonds.

Not too sure there being no case against CCC would make much difference to their troubles.

Youd have to ask OSB, as I say I’m not pretending to understand the finance. I do get the general concept that all actions that rely on a third party judgement are inherently full of risk though.

I know I get shit for it and that’s fine, I just try and steer people away from the mental conspiracy theories and towards genuine complaints though. The idea there’s a secret cabal of councillors who hate the club and want it to die and are supported by evil CET reporters doing the same is just too batshit to let slide I’m afraid. Incompetence, intransigence, sure. A secret group of anti-CCFC people woven into the fabric of Coventry civic society? Not so much.

 

---

[Nick]

Youd have to ask OSB, as I say I’m not pretending to understand the finance. I do get the general concept that all actions that rely on a third party judgement are inherently full of risk though.

I know I get shit for it and that’s fine, I just try and steer people away from the mental conspiracy theories and towards genuine complaints though. The idea there’s a secret cabal of councillors who hate the club and want it to die and are supported by evil CET reporters doing the same is just too batshit to let slide I’m afraid. Incompetence, intransigence, sure. A secret group of anti-CCFC people woven into the fabric of Coventry civic society? Not so much.

Plenty of anti CCFC people, sadly.

 

[Liquid Gold]

TBH in the current climate I'm not betting on anything.

But it would have to be a major change in current thinking on the case. Every court that has heard it before has dismissed it and been pretty scornful on SISU in the process.

How do you argue state aid and undervaluing when the same company was arguing that the place was worthless and they should be given it for nothing? So even taking into account the longer lease anyone that agreed to pay anything more than taking on the debt overpaid. Plus you have to add in that if Wasps weren't interested and SISU had been the only potential purchaser the lack of competition drives the price down, not up.

If SISU had been willing to make the same or higher offer yes it'd be an issue - they weren't. Would they have offered it had the lease been extended - almost certainly not. They stated they wanted the freehold and weren't willing to pay as much as Wasps did for a leasehold. It's the bare faced cheek that they spent years deliberatly stressing ACL to get the purchase price down, then when someone else buys it complain the price is low. This is what they wanted and were aiming for, but because someone else was able to take advantage of it they cry and whinge about it.

Of course the current valuation of it does add in questions, but realistically it's not worth anything near that.

UK courts can only rule on UK law being broken. The EC rules if UK law is up to standard with EU law. You can only complain to the EC after you've exhausted national legal processes.

It's perfectly possible that what CCC did was correct under UK law but that law was incompatible with EU law. Something about this particular action has them rattled more than the previous ones.

 

[Liquid Gold]

Youd have to ask OSB, as I say I’m not pretending to understand the finance. I do get the general concept that all actions that rely on a third party judgement are inherently full of risk though.

I know I get shit for it and that’s fine, I just try and steer people away from the mental conspiracy theories and towards genuine complaints though. The idea there’s a secret cabal of councillors who hate the club and want it to die and are supported by evil CET reporters doing the same is just too batshit to let slide I’m afraid. Incompetence, intransigence, sure. A secret group of anti-CCFC people woven into the fabric of Coventry civic society? Not so much.

CET reporters are driven by editors who are driven by management that want to keep revenues as high as possible. Wasps are a large advertiser, it doesn't take a mathematician to put two and two together there.

The council have let genuine hatred and bad blood between themselves and issue get in the way of doing right by the historical cultural institution that is Coventry City.

 

[mr_monkey]

Youd have to ask OSB, as I say I’m not pretending to understand the finance. I do get the general concept that all actions that rely on a third party judgement are inherently full of risk though.

I know I get shit for it and that’s fine, I just try and steer people away from the mental conspiracy theories and towards genuine complaints though. The idea there’s a secret cabal of councillors who hate the club and want it to die and are supported by evil CET reporters doing the same is just too batshit to let slide I’m afraid. Incompetence, intransigence, sure. A secret group of anti-CCFC people woven into the fabric of Coventry civic society? Not so much.

So why don't the telegraph ask the questions about the indemnity to wasps? Why did overton pull out of Hoffman's consortium when he found out Eastwood was involved in it (a fact that wasn't known until he went on record to say it)

You also forget about those leaked emails that show for a fact that the council were acting against the football club in order to get wasps in and try and force sisu out.

It's not a conspiracy theory mate when the evidence is there for all to see that the council of the city of Coventry fucked over both the local football club and the rugby club in order to get a London based rugby franchise into the stadium built for the football club due to the personal vendetta against the owners of the football club

 

[shmmeee]

So why don't the telegraph ask the questions about the indemnity to wasps? Why did overton pull out of Hoffman's consortium when he found out Eastwood was involved in it (a fact that wasn't known until he went on record to say it)

You also forget about those leaked emails that show for a fact that the council were acting against the football club in order to get wasps in and try and force sisu out.

It's not a conspiracy theory mate when the evidence is there for all to see that the council of the city of Coventry fucked over both the local football club and the rugby club in order to get a London based rugby franchise into the stadium built for the football club due to the personal vendetta against the owners of the football club

I don’t want to get dragged back into this. No, the council clearly don’t trust Sisu, not sure you can deny that.

The emails don’t show anything but an email, they’re held up as a smoking gun because you want them to be but honestly, they’re an email asking about something that never happened. There is no clause in the lease, it didn’t happen.

The emotive language you use is ridiculous. You claim a bunch of people want to “fuck over CCFC”, as opposed to say “taking the club at their word that they don’t want the Ricoh” or “got a risky asset off their hands with no alternative buyers”. You’ll claim CCC shouldn’t have taken Sisus stated words but should’ve known they were playing hard to get or whatever, or should’ve just gone “good one Joy you’ve got us have the Ricoh”, I’ll claim it was a reasonable course of action for someone to take. Blah blah blah.

Forget the weeds. The root of this is do you believe there’s a group of people spanning different administrations at both the council and the CET and BBC and Alan Higgs and the Guardian, and God knows who else I’ve seen dragged into this who are actively trying to hurt the club or do you not. Frankly it doesn’t pass the credibility sniff test for me. I’ve spent my entire life witnessing batshit theories about the actions of local councils or media organisations and every single one of them has come down to: not a conspiracy, just plain boring incompetence or a misunderstanding of how these organisations work.

Anyway, I’m not up for playing SBT punching bag today so I’ll leave it at this: think of your blood pressure and think whether your theory requires a shadowy cabal of evil people before you start positing theories when the truth is we’re in a shit sandwich and no side can find a route out.

 

[oldskyblue58]

but what you have said and in several posts was

"Clearly there must be something to investigate otherwise why have WASPS indemnifed CCC"

Which is entirely different to SISU or CCFC being asked to indemnify wasps for any costs/penalties relating from the complaint. An indemnity that is a nonsense and a barrier to CCFC's return to the Ricoh.

So as far as you or anyone else knows wasps havent indemnified CCC then. It is not something that can now be added in to the agreement. What would have been more likely is that CCC had been asked in the sale contract to indemnify wasps against future legal action or process - which is what would really make anyone ask why wasps need an indemnity from CCFC at all.

If the complaint goes against CCC it affects wasps. Check the remedies that must be applied. SISU didnt make the complaint just for something to do, it is actually a clever move by SISU that puts pressure on others, costs little and requires not having to do much. Currently because there is no decision CCC & wasps are in limbo on the matter but to think it doesnt feed into the wasps state of affairs because no decision yet or the complaint is against CCC is wrong

As for no case not affecting wasps Nick well no it wouldn't if that no case was tomorrow and the matter was closed and finished. However if that no case decision comes in two or three years time then yes the uncertainty adds to their problems, because the risk assessment by financiers or investors would be even higher due to the uncertainty, which makes the bond repayment even harder to finance. Clock ticking on refinancing. Let alone if the can survive the health crisis. Not only that but the risk assessment and uncertainty may well be affecting current financing of things like their training ground project. Like i said a clever move by the CCFC owners who had no idea about a health crisis coming, that was just a bonus in terms of pressure on wasps

None of this is a defence of wasps - it is an explanation of the situation as i see it

 

[shmmeee]

but what you said was

"Clearly there must be something to investigate otherwise why have WASPS indemnifed CCC"

Which is entirely different to SISU or CCFC being asked to indemnify wasps for any costs/penalties relating from the complaint. An indemnity that is a nonsense and a barrier to CCFC's return to the Ricoh.

So as far as you or anyone else knows wasps havent indemnified CCC then. What would have been more likely is that CCC had been asked in the sale contract to indemnify wasps against future legal action or process - which is what would really make anyone ask why wasps need an indemnity from CCFC at all.

If the complaint goes against CCC it affects wasps. Check the remedies that must be applied. SISU didnt make the complaint just for something to do, it is actually a clever move by SISU that puts pressure on others, costs little and requires not having to do much. Currently because there is no decision CCC & wasps are in limbo on the matter but to think it doesnt feed into the wasps state of affairs because no decision yet is wrong

As for no case not affecting wasps Nick well no it wouldn't if that no case was tomorrow and the matter was closed and finished. However if that no case decision comes in two years time then yes the uncertainty adds to their problems, because the risk assessment by financiers or investors would be even higher because of the uncertainty, which makes the bond repayment even harder to finance. Let alone if the can survive the health crisis. Not only that but the risk assessment and uncertainty may well be affecting current financing of things like their training ground project. Like i said a clever move by the CCFC owners

None of this is a defence of wasps - it is an explanation of the situation as i see it

Cant believe you’re saying you hate CCFC and work for Wasps.

 

[Nick]

but what you said was

"Clearly there must be something to investigate otherwise why have WASPS indemnifed CCC"

Which is entirely different to SISU or CCFC being asked to indemnify wasps for any costs/penalties relating from the complaint. An indemnity that is a nonsense and a barrier to CCFC's return to the Ricoh.

So as far as you or anyone else knows wasps havent indemnified CCC then. What would have been more likely is that CCC had been asked in the sale contract to indemnify wasps against future legal action or process - which is what would really make anyone ask why wasps need an indemnity from CCFC at all.

If the complaint goes against CCC it affects wasps. Check the remedies that must be applied. SISU didnt make the complaint just for something to do, it is actually a clever move by SISU that puts pressure on others, costs little and requires not having to do much. Currently because there is no decision CCC & wasps are in limbo on the matter but to think it doesnt feed into the wasps state of affairs because no decision yet is wrong

As for no case not affecting wasps Nick well no it wouldn't if that no case was tomorrow and the matter was closed and finished. However if that no case decision comes in two years time then yes the uncertainty adds to their problems, because the risk assessment by financiers or investors would be even higher because of the uncertainty, which makes the bond repayment even harder to finance. Let alone if the can survive the health crisis. Not only that but the risk assessment and uncertainty may well be affecting current financing of things like their training ground project. Like i said a clever move by the CCFC owners

None of this is a defence of wasps - it is an explanation of the situation as i see it

I mean CCC and Wasps didn't really give a shit when they were working with Hoffman to force a takeover. Did they?

Welcome back by the way

 

[oldskyblue58]

I mean CCC and Wasps didn't really give a shit when they were working with Hoffman to force a takeover. Did they?

Welcome back by the way

Cheers

No they didnt, and i do not have any sympathy for either of them

 

[mr_monkey]

I don’t want to get dragged back into this. No, the council clearly don’t trust Sisu, not sure you can deny that.

The emails don’t show anything but an email, they’re held up as a smoking gun because you want them to be but honestly, they’re an email asking about something that never happened. There is no clause in the lease, it didn’t happen.

The emotive language you use is ridiculous. You claim a bunch of people want to “fuck over CCFC”, as opposed to say “taking the club at their word that they don’t want the Ricoh” or “got a risky asset off their hands with no alternative buyers”. You’ll claim CCC shouldn’t have taken Sisus stated words but should’ve known they were playing hard to get or whatever, or should’ve just gone “good one Joy you’ve got us have the Ricoh”, I’ll claim it was a reasonable course of action for someone to take. Blah blah blah.

Forget the weeds. The root of this is do you believe there’s a group of people spanning different administrations at both the council and the CET and BBC and Alan Higgs and the Guardian, and God knows who else I’ve seen dragged into this who are actively trying to hurt the club or do you not. Frankly it doesn’t pass the credibility sniff test for me. I’ve spent my entire life witnessing batshit theories about the actions of local councils or media organisations and every single one of them has come down to: not a conspiracy, just plain boring incompetence or a misunderstanding of how these organisations work.

Anyway, I’m not up for playing SBT punching bag today so I’ll leave it at this: think of your blood pressure and think whether your theory requires a shadowy cabal of evil people before you start positing theories when the truth is we’re in a shit sandwich and no side can find a route out.

Not shadowy cabal, more a group of people with personal vendetta against sisu (which of course we can understand) acting in their own interests rather than the interest of the people of Coventry who they actually work for or in the case of the CET taking the view that their main advertiser is more important than the football club of the city they are based

Same as BBC cwr who were denying things until someone from this forum had to go on there to point out their inaccuracies, or the trust who are the "mouthpiece" of the fans but we all know they were working with Hoffman and wasps to try and starve sisu out so Hoffman could take over.

There are a lot of people who are actively working against the football club they claim to support for their own personal or professional gain and unfortunately us normal fans are stuck in the middle and just want to see things reported on accurately

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Not shadowy cabal, more a group of people with personal vendetta against sisu (which of course we can understand) acting in their own interests rather than the interest of the people of Coventry who they actually work for or in the case of the CET taking the view that their main advertiser is more important than the football club of the city they are based

Same as BBC cwr who were denying things until someone from this forum had to go on there to point out their inaccuracies, or the trust who are the "mouthpiece" of the fans but we all know they were working with Hoffman and wasps to try and starve sisu out so Hoffman could take over.

There are a lot of people who are actively working against the football club they claim to support for their own personal or professional gain and unfortunately us normal fans are stuck in the middle and just want to see things reported on accurately

But were SISU going to offer as much for the stadium, even with a longer lease? Almost certainly not so how would turning down the biggest bid they'd received for it have been not in the interests of the people of Coventry? They'd have been far more questions to ask on doing things right by the people of the city had they turned down the bigger offer just because the owners of CCFC (NOT CCFC itself note) want it for a pittance.

 

[mr_monkey]

But were SISU going to offer as much for the stadium, even with a longer lease? Almost certainly not so how would turning down the biggest bid they'd received for it have been not in the interests of the people of Coventry? They'd have been far more questions to ask on doing things right by the people of the city had they turned down the bigger offer just because the owners of CCFC (NOT CCFC itself note) want it for a pittance.

But way below the value of the stadium and sisu were quoted a hell of a lot more to buy it. Don't get me wrong, the way that sisu went about things was a shady as the council (imo they are all as bad as each other) but I don't see how courting a London based rugby team to come and buy a stadium in Coventry at the expense of the football team that bears the city's name is in the interest of the people of Coventry

 

[luwalla]

But were SISU going to offer as much for the stadium, even with a longer lease? Almost certainly not so how would turning down the biggest bid they'd received for it have been not in the interests of the people of Coventry? They'd have been far more questions to ask on doing things right by the people of the city had they turned down the bigger offer just because the owners of CCFC (NOT CCFC itself note) want it for a pittance.

Lets not try to pretend the CCC were trying to do anything 'in the interests of the people of coventry'...

 

[Senior Vick from Alicante]

But were SISU going to offer as much for the stadium, even with a longer lease? Almost certainly not so how would turning down the biggest bid they'd received for it have been not in the interests of the people of Coventry? They'd have been far more questions to ask on doing things right by the people of the city had they turned down the bigger offer just because the owners of CCFC (NOT CCFC itself note) want it for a pittance.

So you had an asset that 2 party's both wanted so instead of having a bidding war you choose to sell at the lowest price? And that is the reason why we now have the shit fest with the ECJ.

 

[Philosoraptor]

Mediation:

I wonder if any of the parties involved have taken up The Very Rev John Witcombe offer of playing defensive midfield next season?

A Coventry community leader and very neutral.

Seemed to do the trick last time.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Lets not try to pretend the CCC were trying to do anything 'in the interests of the people of coventry'...

Whereas SISU clearly do? Would you have preferred them turning down a higher bid just because it wasn't CCFC that made it? That would be doing more of a disservice to the people of Coventry (which goes far beyond CCFC fans).

If the answer is yes it just shows that your judgement is clouded by being a CCFC fan rather than the actual situation

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

So you had an asset that 2 party's both wanted so instead of having a bidding war you choose to sell at the lowest price? And that is the reason why we now have the shit fest with the ECJ.

What bidding war? SISU had said numerous times the only price they were willing to pay was taking over the debt. Wasps wasn't the lowest price - they offered more than SISU had suggested they were willing to pay and their ongoing behaviour showed every time they got a concession they asked for more. Even had they been told of the bid they wouldn't have met it and looked to block it in the courts for some spurious reason.

If Wasps ask for the deal to remain quiet or they'll pull out the council would've ended up getting less than that bid as SISU are the only party left, have repeatedly said the arena was worthless and wouldn't have the competition for it.

 

[chiefdave]

Wasps wasn't the lowest price

What about SISU's offer for Higgs 50%

 

[Nick]

What bidding war? SISU had said numerous times the only price they were willing to pay was taking over the debt. Wasps wasn't the lowest price - they offered more than SISU had suggested they were willing to pay and their ongoing behaviour showed every time they got a concession they asked for more. Even had they been told of the bid they wouldn't have met it and looked to block it in the courts for some spurious reason.

If Wasps ask for the deal to remain quiet or they'll pull out the council would've ended up getting less than that bid as SISU are the only party left, have repeatedly said the arena was worthless and wouldn't have the competition for it.

Did they? History says otherwise

 

[chiefdave]

Whereas SISU clearly do? Would you have preferred them turning down a higher bid just because it wasn't CCFC that made it? That would be doing more of a disservice to the people of Coventry (which goes far beyond CCFC fans).

Nobody else was ever given a chance to bid on the Ricoh with a 250 year lease. Given that we are told that Wasps were going bust imminently surely the council held all the cards in negotiations so why were they done in secret? How did that get the best return for the taxpayer?

 

[oldfiver]

Nobody else was ever given a chance to bid on the Ricoh with a 250 year lease. Given that we are told that Wasps were going bust imminently surely the council held all the cards in negotiations so why were they done in secret? How did that get the best return for the taxpayer?

Also did they do the best for Higgs Trust?

 

[Senior Vick from Alicante]

What bidding war? SISU had said numerous times the only price they were willing to pay was taking over the debt. Wasps wasn't the lowest price - they offered more than SISU had suggested they were willing to pay and their ongoing behaviour showed every time they got a concession they asked for more. Even had they been told of the bid they wouldn't have met it and looked to block it in the courts for some spurious reason.

If Wasps ask for the deal to remain quiet or they'll pull out the council would've ended up getting less than that bid as SISU are the only party left, have repeatedly said the arena was worthless and wouldn't have the competition for it.

If the council had told Sisu they were not the only show in town, they may have got more money. When you sell an asset you try to realise the best price, Sisu would have had to step up, the bluff and bluster would have been removed as they had a direct competitor, they were told this after the council had sold to Wasps. And your assumptions about going to court to stop the sale is fantasy, if that were the case they could have done it anyway.

 

[Flying Fokker]

It was all part of Fisher et al’s cunning plan. Fisher boasted a out being the only show in town at the forums as well.

Like SISU would spot it as a potential bluff or bridge the gap in the relationship/trust between the parties. They certainly knew a few days after...which is exactly what SISU (Not the fans ) deserved at the time.
Remembering of course that the fans have not really been priority for SISU anyway.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

If the council had told Sisu they were not the only show in town, they may have got more money. When you sell an asset you try to realise the best price, Sisu would have had to step up, the bluff and bluster would have been removed as they had a direct competitor, they were told this after the council had sold to Wasps. And your assumptions about going to court to stop the sale is fantasy, if that were the case they could have done it anyway.

Why do we as a club sell players without revealing the interest? Similarly how do we sign players without anyone having the fainest idea until they're signed? Surely all interest in any player should be revealed publicly by the selling club to get the best price? If they don't they're potentially selling at less than optimum value and thus not doing the best for the club. Clubs offer premiums for confidentiality and exclusivity.

Plus it may have escaped your notice, but SISU did go to court about the issue. People have mentioned the bid for the 50%, but it was stated at the time by the charity the conditions attached to it meant they couldn't legally agree to them. People are quick to mention that Wasps want an indemnity clause and that's stopping a deal yet handily forget that the bid SISU put in for the shares couldn't be accepted. Given their overall behaviour it wouldn't surprise me that SISU knew that and deliberately made a bid they knew couldn't be accepted so they could play the victim and not actually have to pay up.

 

[chiefdave]

Why do we as a club sell players without revealing the interest?

We don't. If there's a chance of a bidding war clubs make it known so they get best return.

Clubs offer premiums for confidentiality and exclusivity.

You arguing against your own point here as Wasps didn't pay a premium for a period of exclusivity.

 

[chiefdave]

but it was stated at the time by the charity the conditions attached to it meant they couldn't legally agree to them.

SISU's bid couldn't be accepted because they wanted Higgs to work with them on community projects? What laws prevent a charity working on community projects in line with their stated aims?

 

[Senior Vick from Alicante]

Why do we as a club sell players without revealing the interest? Similarly how do we sign players without anyone having the fainest idea until they're signed? Surely all interest in any player should be revealed publicly by the selling club to get the best price? If they don't they're potentially selling at less than optimum value and thus not doing the best for the club. Clubs offer premiums for confidentiality and exclusivity.

Plus it may have escaped your notice, but SISU did go to court about the issue. People have mentioned the bid for the 50%, but it was stated at the time by the charity the conditions attached to it meant they couldn't legally agree to them. People are quick to mention that Wasps want an indemnity clause and that's stopping a deal yet handily forget that the bid SISU put in for the shares couldn't be accepted. Given their overall behaviour it wouldn't surprise me that SISU knew that and deliberately made a bid they knew couldn't be accepted so they could play the victim and not actually have to pay up.

Mate if a player becomes available it involves agents, if the asset they represent has a sniff at a move they will let everyone know. It's in their interest to do so to raise the price for better commission. Undisclosed does not mean there has not been a bidding war behind the scenes so your analogy doesn't work. You keep making assumptive statements about Sisu, I am not defending their actions but the deal was done behind closed doors which is a fact.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

Why do we as a club sell players without revealing the interest?

poor analogy because we’re not trying to maximise tax payer money

 

[luwalla]

Whereas SISU clearly do? Would you have preferred them turning down a higher bid just because it wasn't CCFC that made it? That would be doing more of a disservice to the people of Coventry (which goes far beyond CCFC fans).

If the answer is yes it just shows that your judgement is clouded by being a CCFC fan rather than the actual situation

I’m not clouded by anything... do I believe SISU misjudged the situation and tried to string arm a deal to get the stadium for a bargain Price, yep. And before I knew the full facts I blamed them 100% for the situation we were in when moved to Northampton. Now I know that CCC we’re trying to sell the stadium to wasps without even giving OUR football club, who that stadium
Was built for & that our club invested in, the chance to bid for it! I believe that all CCC we’re interested in was fucking over SISU & not giving a shit that the football club would suffer because of it, yep I’m afraid so... it’s with a big sore lump in my throat that I have to say the only people that have seen the light and decided to do the best thing for CCFC after this fiasco is the owners. They have backed robins & helped get us two promotions in 3 years. While CCC have attempted at every junction to keep fucking us over. No communication back on potential sites, no help brokering a peace deal for the Ricoh return etc etc

I just wish the owners had been more transparent & seen the light earlier and maybe we would now own half our stadium and not have suffered even more as fans in recent years... but the club is now trying, which is more than I can say for the council of this city.

Im afriad if anyone is blinded here it’s you, with your obvious unwavering hatred for the owners

 

[shepardo01]

I’m not clouded by anything... do I believe SISU misjudged the situation and tried to string arm a deal to get the stadium for a bargain Price, yep. And before I knew the full facts I blamed them 100% for the situation we were in when moved to Northampton. Now I know that CCC we’re trying to sell the stadium to wasps without even giving OUR football club, who that stadium
Was built for & that our club invested in, the chance to bid for it! I believe that all CCC we’re interested in was fucking over SISU & not giving a shit that the football club would suffer because of it, yep I’m afraid so... it’s with a big sore lump in my throat that I have to say the only people that have seen the light and decided to do the best thing for CCFC after this fiasco is the owners. They have backed robins & helped get us two promotions in 3 years. While CCC have attempted at every junction to keep fucking us over. No communication back on potential sites, no help brokering a peace deal for the Ricoh return etc etc

I just wish the owners had been more transparent & seen the light earlier and maybe we would now own half our stadium and not have suffered even more as fans in recent years... but the club is now trying, which is more than I can say for the council of this city.

Im afriad if anyone is blinded here it’s you, with your obvious unwavering hatred for the owners

Ab-so-fu**ing-lutely Luwalla!!
Spot on!

 

[Bugsy]

I’m not clouded by anything... do I believe SISU misjudged the situation and tried to string arm a deal to get the stadium for a bargain Price, yep. And before I knew the full facts I blamed them 100% for the situation we were in when moved to Northampton. Now I know that CCC we’re trying to sell the stadium to wasps without even giving OUR football club, who that stadium
Was built for & that our club invested in, the chance to bid for it! I believe that all CCC we’re interested in was fucking over SISU & not giving a shit that the football club would suffer because of it, yep I’m afraid so... it’s with a big sore lump in my throat that I have to say the only people that have seen the light and decided to do the best thing for CCFC after this fiasco is the owners. They have backed robins & helped get us two promotions in 3 years. While CCC have attempted at every junction to keep fucking us over. No communication back on potential sites, no help brokering a peace deal for the Ricoh return etc etc

I just wish the owners had been more transparent & seen the light earlier and maybe we would now own half our stadium and not have suffered even more as fans in recent years... but the club is now trying, which is more than I can say for the council of this city.

Im afriad if anyone is blinded here it’s you, with your obvious unwavering hatred for the owners

Agree with this myself...PUSB

 

[shmmeee]

Me sitting back watching someone else get a kicking for not towing the forum line:

 

[mark82]

Me sitting back watching someone else get a kicking for not towing the forum line:

Not sure anyone's getting a kicking, people are just disagreeing. I know that's frowned upon these days but it really is ok.

 

[Nick]

Me sitting back watching someone else get a kicking for not towing the forum line:

Who?