Because it isn't fact - it is an interpretation of the material placed in public.
It is also disingenuous.
The issue here is whether or not we want CCFC to survive as a sustainable club. To do so, they need some sort of Ricoh ownership.
TA that would have been both possible,prudent and achievable if they had made it their priority from the off,it was'nt and thus they appear dissengenuous in appearing to recover their position on the investment through devious means ,they got the cart before the horse .
The sceptical among us see a land grab purely as a tool to rescue their outlay ,nothing to do with benefitting the club.
They have ,however it has occurred created their monster identity ,their PR from day one has been appalling.There are myriad arguments about the benefits of total ownership ,partial ownership ,Investment required to achieve little financial benefit and that is where they become exposed ,because the altruistic intenttowards securing a secure guaranteed future would have required significant ££££££££££ into the infrastructure which was unforthcoming and conveniently through failure on the pitch is now demanded through blackmail,they took a PUNT ,bad mistake.