coundonskyblue
New Member
How can that be irrelevant? The ultimate fate of the club lies with the owner, they call the shots, whatever they say happens.
I think anyone who has money invested in a football club should be forced to announce it.
Ricoh Arena - parliamentary debate (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter SBT
- Start date
How can that be irrelevant? The ultimate fate of the club lies with the owner, they call the shots, whatever they say happens.
I think anyone who has money invested in a football club should be forced to announce it.
elephanttears
New Member
I think it is irrelevant. Ok so lets say you have the name of the person who runs the club, for example its Rolf Harris? you have the name now so what? Cant do anything with it?
coundonskyblue
New Member
Yet people who suggest that the fans can choose the subs should be taken seriously?
coundonskyblue
New Member
Whats the problem in revealing it then?
Don't you realise its Sisu's secretive nature that is part of the problem. No one, including you, is sure of their true intentions.
elephanttears
New Member
Uncanny?
elephanttears
New Member
Its like knowing for the sake of knowing.
I am not sure of their intention no but i do know they have come here to make money and for them to do that the football club needs to be in the premier league and succesful. The council seem to want to make money if the team are succesful or not as they currently are. As bad as it is that all i have to make my decision on as there is no other conrete evidence out there. its a real shame.
coundonskyblue
New Member
Why shouldn't I know? Why were people forced to give up shares to someone who people who won't reveal who they are?
As for their intentions, I have no problem with them being here to make money. However they shouldn't blame others for their own mistakes. From their starting position in the Championship they have done nothing to get the club in the direction of the PL.
elephanttears
New Member
The shares issue does need sorting out as it does leave a bitter taste in my mouth. The people who were asked to hand them over have been treated appallingly. A gesture towards them people is needed form the club.
There are many learned people (psychiatrists, biochemists, social reformers and prison governors) the length and the breadth of the land who advocate just that....evidence based too.
You really are an utter plank Grendel. A worm.
TheRoyalScam
Well-Known Member
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Well parliment seem to be taking it seriously.
If he had come out and slated ACL he would have been your hero !!!!
But obviously he has slated Sisu actions and tactics.
Sadly and expectedly you have resorted to discredit Ainsworth !!!!
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Most of the time you sound fairly addled yourself. Perhaps it explains your lack of memory retention when it comes to identifying Coventry goalscorers.
May also explain why you are now down to one brain cell and are never capable of having a debate on anything.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
That's being unfair to planks and worms.
Wow must have really worked hard to come out with that one. Well done.
Of course as you ignore me and everyone else whose views you do not concur with you will not even see my praise for you marvellous efforts.
Even if you are strongly against taking drugs you can very easily make a very strong argument towards legalising them all. There are some downsides to do doing so of course but it would solve a very significant ammount of the problems drugs currently cause and its almost certainly better than the solution we have now. That doesnt necessarily mean its the best solution of course, one that legalises some drugs, decriminalizes others and bans production and sale of others might well be better.
There are downsides to every solution but the current one is almost certainly the worst of them all and the unwillingness to change it shows just how little respect governments (labour just as bad) have for science, evidence and logic, it's all about what they think is best for themselves rather than what is best for the country.
The correct solution is to get an independent group together of drug experts, doctors, psychologists, criminologists, etc etc look at the evidence decide what they think is best, implement it despite the political fall out and continue to monitor and tweak.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Can I offer you two mediation?
Give it a break!
Arbitration would be better legally binding
Pete in Portugal
Well-Known Member
Noggin - I've worked with drug abusers and have also been a board member of a residential drugs crisis centre and I fully agree with most of what you say.
I'm not sure though about your assertion that:
"The correct solution is to get an independent group together of drug experts, doctors, psychologists, criminologists, etc etc look at the evidence decide what they think is best, implement it despite the political fall out and continue to monitor and tweak."
This has already been done several times and each time the independent reviewing body has recommended some form of decriminalisation (along with other measures). And each time the government of the day has not implemented many of their recommendations, including decriminalisation.
The fact is that decriminalisation is not going to happen in the UK for the forseeable future, because it's simply politically unacceptable - i.e. it'd be a vote loser. You only have to look at some of the comments on here for evidence of that! (Nothing personal Grendel!) This situation will only change if the wider public are educated to understand this complex issue, which involves choosing 'least worst outcomes'. Unfortunately I don't see this happening anytime soon.
I'm not sure though about your assertion that:
"The correct solution is to get an independent group together of drug experts, doctors, psychologists, criminologists, etc etc look at the evidence decide what they think is best, implement it despite the political fall out and continue to monitor and tweak."
This has already been done several times and each time the independent reviewing body has recommended some form of decriminalisation (along with other measures). And each time the government of the day has not implemented many of their recommendations, including decriminalisation.
The fact is that decriminalisation is not going to happen in the UK for the forseeable future, because it's simply politically unacceptable - i.e. it'd be a vote loser. You only have to look at some of the comments on here for evidence of that! (Nothing personal Grendel!
) This situation will only change if the wider public are educated to understand this complex issue, which involves choosing 'least worst outcomes'. Unfortunately I don't see this happening anytime soon.
Last edited:
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
No, they are not. It was a debate and it didn't mean a thing. All it does, rightly, was to make the situation known more widely.
Why did Ainsworth refuse to go on CWR this morning to talk about it?
Why did Ainsworth refuse to go on CWR this morning to talk about it?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Not sure about every drug going but regulated brothels would be a huge improvement on 'illegal' prostitution.
Oh and this is meant to be about football? Whoops.
Oh and this is meant to be about football? Whoops.
Noggin - I've worked with drug abusers and have also been a board member of a residential drugs crisis centre and I fully agree with most of what you say.
I'm not sure though about your assertion that:
"The correct solution is to get an independent group together of drug experts, doctors, psychologists, criminologists, etc etc look at the evidence decide what they think is best, implement it despite the political fall out and continue to monitor and tweak."
This has already been done several times and each time the independent reviewing body has recommended some form of decriminalisation (along with other measures). And each time the government of the day has not implemented many of their recommendations, including decriminalisation.
The fact is that decriminalisation is not going to happen in the UK for the forseeable future, because it's simply politically unacceptable - i.e. it'd be a vote loser. You only have to look at some of the comments on here for evidence of that! (Nothing personal Grendel!
Oh sure I 100% realise my solution won't happen, but I think thats what needs to be done, the government would need to commit to implementing the suggestions of the board before hand and then implement whatever they come up with. But as you say it's a vote loser, Labour even fired professor nut for saying they were doing the wrong thing. The same evidence based change despite what the uneducated voters want is the solution to lots of things including prostitution.
But as you say, while it shouldn't be true, perfection is the enemy of good and so we will stick with terrible solutions over better ones just because the new ones would have downsides too.
but yes we should stop talking about this here, sorry.
Feels like a long time since this forum was mostly talking about football, it's a shame that we talk about finance more than anything these days.
The drug thing was related though, Grendel tried to use it to discredit Bob Ainsworth when the truth is his opinions on the matter show him to have much better reasoning skills than Grendel.
Fully agree with you on the brothels
Noggin - I've worked with drug abusers and have also been a board member of a residential drugs crisis centre and I fully agree with most of what you say.
I'm not sure though about your assertion that:
"The correct solution is to get an independent group together of drug experts, doctors, psychologists, criminologists, etc etc look at the evidence decide what they think is best, implement it despite the political fall out and continue to monitor and tweak."
This has already been done several times and each time the independent reviewing body has recommended some form of decriminalisation (along with other measures). And each time the government of the day has not implemented many of their recommendations, including decriminalisation.
The fact is that decriminalisation is not going to happen in the UK for the forseeable future, because it's simply politically unacceptable - i.e. it'd be a vote loser. You only have to look at some of the comments on here for evidence of that! (Nothing personal Grendel!
Brilliant post and valuable contribution to a thorny issue.
Noggin too.
I could say more, much more, but pushed for time.
The point they do illustrate perfectly though is why Grendal is a worm.
Evidence based, ;-)
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
ashbyjan
Well-Known Member
Full transcript of speech can be found at link below
http://www.publications.parliament....30312/halltext/130312h0002.htm#13031245000338
http://www.publications.parliament....30312/halltext/130312h0002.htm#13031245000338
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The whole tenure of his debate was that alcohol is a drug and is legal and causes more damage than drugs.
Sadly he omitted two things from his thought process - one that alcohol can be enjoyed by numerous people without addiction and harm (when did you last see a casual heroin user) and two that the decriminalisation would increase use age and therefore ultimately do more damage.
His "reasoning skills" were ripped to pieces in the national media (other than I suppose the Guardian).
No doubt you subscribe to the professor Nutt school of thought. I don't. The passive approach over the years has led to casual acceptance and societal damage.
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
Didn't realise he'd suggested that.
Bit of a shock to find a politician who can put forward sensible ideas instead of bowing to the "great" Daily Mail.
Much respect to Mr Ainsworth.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Oh yes lots of respect - "Peace Man"
Also they have categories of importance for ministerial roles. Defence minister was always one of the most important. After he blundered into the role it got downgraded. It's the only thing he managed to he declassified.
Which it does. some drugs anyway, but the legality of alcohol just shows that the current solution makes no sence.
There are multiple other drugs that can be enjoyed like alcohol by massive amounts of people without addiction and harm (well less than alchohol anyway) like weed . There is no question that some of the harder drugs are seriously nasty and life ruining, everything should be done to discourage people from using them. But the current situation is people get them anyway, they don't know what they are getting, it might be cut with nasty stuff or just having varying degrees of potency that make overdosing more likely, it brings in massive money for gangs, organised crime, perhaps even terrorists. It causes thefts, violence, gang wars. It's a big drain on the nhs, it fills our prisons with users who have done little wrong. There is also the massive taxs that could come from weed etc to the government instead of to criminals.
I'm not convinced legalising heroin is a good idea (I am sure about some drugs though) but doing so has MASSIVE upsides with the one downside being the potential for some more people to use heroin, I'm far from convinced the reason that people don't take heroin is because it's illegal. So even though heroin is terrible and using it often ruins your life you can make strong arguments that the damage caused by it's illegality far far dwarf the damage it would cause if legal, or decriminalised.
Since when are the media right on anything? the state of science reporting in this country is appalling.
I don't take drugs, nore do I want to take drugs, but the current situation benefits the criminals rather than people. It causes massively more harm than it prevents and it needs to be changed.
but anyway, feel free to have the last word if you like, I won't post again on this because it isn't the place.
Last edited:
Sky Blues
Active Member
That was the impression I got too; that he wanted to get this nugget of information out into the public domain.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Just some thoughts/opinions
The reason that they are challenging the original agreement is because if they are successful they could potentially, break the lease, obtain refunds of rent, structure a deal to buy into ACL who probably couldnt afford to repay rent, and or distress ACL to the point that they pick up the company for nothing. It is still about control.
I would imagine they are trying to prove that those who signed the contract either had a material conflict of interest or were not sufficiently knowledgeable to sign. Would have to prove things like being deceived, onerous terms, personal benefit, badly advised or informed, that no benefit accrued to ccfc, that they have been unaware of the terms etc etc ................ and it would have to be in context of the time it was signed not the current circumstances. Conflict of interest is not a deal breaker unless they can prove that whoever had the conflict unfairly prejudiced the rights of CCFC
On the other side of that the characters involved were not new to business, several were involved in the property business, the deal was approved by two seperate boards of directors that may well have each contained a majority of directors with no conflict of interest. The deal has been performed for 11 years openly, and subject to some form of due diligence on behalf of the current owners, and circumstances for both club and ACL are very different now.
The arbitration document I believe focussed not on the rent dispute but on the control and basis of ACL, at least that is what i took from Mr Ainsworths comments. Arbitration is being put forward to settle the rent dispute not for any other purpose.......... how ACL is structured, or operates, whether ACL got a good deal from the Council or Yorshire bank is not requiring a decision by an arbitrator...... yet that is what SISU are calling for in my opinion
Looking at it in a legal sense then you have a rent dispute involving amount and the the amount of arrears. That is the only leverage SISU have. The F&Bs unless forming part of the lease or Licence are actually not part of the dispute (they are a seperate negotiation or concession if so) - do we know if they do form part of those agreements ? The rent dispute can only be settled by reference to the contract signed ....... which is why discrediting it is so important to sisu, because it could unlock so much more
Unless the subject of arbitration is focussed then it becomes a pointless exercise because both sides will twist it and use it or even refuse to join in it.
The reason that they are challenging the original agreement is because if they are successful they could potentially, break the lease, obtain refunds of rent, structure a deal to buy into ACL who probably couldnt afford to repay rent, and or distress ACL to the point that they pick up the company for nothing. It is still about control.
I would imagine they are trying to prove that those who signed the contract either had a material conflict of interest or were not sufficiently knowledgeable to sign. Would have to prove things like being deceived, onerous terms, personal benefit, badly advised or informed, that no benefit accrued to ccfc, that they have been unaware of the terms etc etc ................ and it would have to be in context of the time it was signed not the current circumstances. Conflict of interest is not a deal breaker unless they can prove that whoever had the conflict unfairly prejudiced the rights of CCFC
On the other side of that the characters involved were not new to business, several were involved in the property business, the deal was approved by two seperate boards of directors that may well have each contained a majority of directors with no conflict of interest. The deal has been performed for 11 years openly, and subject to some form of due diligence on behalf of the current owners, and circumstances for both club and ACL are very different now.
The arbitration document I believe focussed not on the rent dispute but on the control and basis of ACL, at least that is what i took from Mr Ainsworths comments. Arbitration is being put forward to settle the rent dispute not for any other purpose.......... how ACL is structured, or operates, whether ACL got a good deal from the Council or Yorshire bank is not requiring a decision by an arbitrator...... yet that is what SISU are calling for in my opinion
Looking at it in a legal sense then you have a rent dispute involving amount and the the amount of arrears. That is the only leverage SISU have. The F&Bs unless forming part of the lease or Licence are actually not part of the dispute (they are a seperate negotiation or concession if so) - do we know if they do form part of those agreements ? The rent dispute can only be settled by reference to the contract signed ....... which is why discrediting it is so important to sisu, because it could unlock so much more
Unless the subject of arbitration is focussed then it becomes a pointless exercise because both sides will twist it and use it or even refuse to join in it.
Last edited:
coundonskyblue
New Member
Not sure I would agree with BA on drugs, but I fail to see what that has to do with anything. Just because someone has a different opinion to me on one issue doesn't mean their wrong on everything.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Sometimes when someone stance on a debate is taking a battering. They look for a diversion away from the main topic.
Anyone got an opinion on legalising drugs, within a thread about SISU getting discussed in parliament?
Anyone got an opinion on legalising drugs, within a thread about SISU getting discussed in parliament?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
just another thought on conflict of interest
A director/shadow director of a company has a duty to only do what is best for the company of which he/she is director or shadow director
when making decisions for that company
I would imagine the costs of this dispute are chanelled through either CCFC or CCFCH. So if the guess is that it is still about the stadium control and SISU are successful we would expect either CCFC or CCFCH to own the stadium at the end of it and at least have all income streams not to mention low or no rent...... wouldnt we ? But say they are successful and that doesnt happen, That CCFC never owns the ground, certain parties receive large bonuses (paid from elsewhere or even CCFC) and the stadium not the club is sold to an Arena operator so clearing SISU's debts. Is that good/clever business or a conflict of interest?
all just thoughts, might be a million miles away from the eventual "truth":thinking about:
A director/shadow director of a company has a duty to only do what is best for the company of which he/she is director or shadow director
when making decisions for that company
I would imagine the costs of this dispute are chanelled through either CCFC or CCFCH. So if the guess is that it is still about the stadium control and SISU are successful we would expect either CCFC or CCFCH to own the stadium at the end of it and at least have all income streams not to mention low or no rent...... wouldnt we ? But say they are successful and that doesnt happen, That CCFC never owns the ground, certain parties receive large bonuses (paid from elsewhere or even CCFC) and the stadium not the club is sold to an Arena operator so clearing SISU's debts. Is that good/clever business or a conflict of interest?
all just thoughts, might be a million miles away from the eventual "truth":thinking about:
Last edited: