Vote Them Out. Demo on Sat 10 May & campaign aimed at getting councillors to speak. (16 Viewers)

[Grendel]

Great point:thinking about:Until you think back and didn't a member of Sisu say that the rent wasn't a problem? Perhaps you can remember who that was because I can't,whoever it was,was not telling the truth or was he?

Do you think it was fair?

 

---

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Do you think it was fair?

Wether I do or not is not relevant, they obviously thought it was!

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Surely Higgs legal team would have complained if Sisu's portrayal of events was that wide of the mark? Or are you allowed to come out with any old bollocks in court and it goes unchallenged?

Deering came out with some 'old bollocks', the bit where she said Joy would pay £2m for something worthless, because she recognised it was for a charity. To be fair the judge did say it was a load of old bollocks, although he said it in judge speak rather than using those actual words.

 

[Grendel]

Wether I do or not is not relevant, they obviously thought it was!

Of course it is relevant as it already bust one owner and bought sisu here. People have views on everything - what's yours on the rental arrangement the club had?

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Of course it is relevant as it already bust one owner and bought sisu here. People have views on everything - what's yours on the rental arrangement the club had?

So one owner went bust because of the rent and not the spending spree they went on? Remind me how many years at the Ricoh they had been paying rent to rake up a debt of 60 million!

 

[duffer]

Robbie, where have you been for the past week? Didn't you read about the Higgs vs Sisu case? Didn't you hear Higgs agreed to sell their shares and that they even agreed a price with sisu? Didn't you hear that CCC agreed to let sisu buy the Higgs shares and accept sisu as partner of ACL? Didn't you hear about all the meetings, the mails, the txt messages and telephone conversations? Didn't you hear how it all started in September 2011 and ended in January 2013?

I would say that there are no basis to say sisu do not 'negotiate'.
Or that they want the Ricoh (they negotiated for half of ACL).
Or that they want it for free - they did offer to pay out the Mortgage (stood at £19m) and to pay £5.5m for Higgs shares. That is not 'nothing'.

I'd agree it's not 'nothing', but they certainly didn't offer to pay out the mortgage at anything like full value, and the Higgs offer was for £1.5m up front with £4m over the next ten years (without ever offering sufficient guarantees to the seller). There was, obviously, never an agreement on these terms (or likely to be if you read through the court transcripts).

Whatever negotiation SISU carried out towards any of this seems (imho) to be on a 'take it or leave it' basis rather than a true negotiation in good faith. That kind of figures - in JS's own words, "I don’t posture. I always tell people what it is I need. I don’t go for wasting time in negotiations."

The frustrating thing is, if you take away the bullshit, there was something close to a reasonable plan on the table. But the essence of negotiation is finding something that everyone can accept, and it seems that SISU weren't willing to offer some fairly key stuff - business plans, security, proof of funding. I still don't think that the mortgage could have been bought out for anything like the figure that SISU seem to suggest (£2m-£5m), but a joint deal with the Council for something closer to the full value might have benefitted all parties.

If SISU could wind their necks in a bit I think something like that could still come to pass - but they'd have to stop this pathetic 'we can't trust CCC/ACL' crap first. You don't need trust, you need contracts. It seems that ACL would be willing to have the club back, even with SISU as owners, even after they've manouvered to break a 42-year lease.

If CCFC came home, then once everyone's back playing nicely you can build trust... and then try negotiating again without any side playing silly buggers.

In meantime I'm far from convinced that this one-sided anti-council thing helps at all, to me the pressure here is in the wrong direction.

 

[chiefdave]

Surely this campaign is going to fall at the first hurdle on that basis. Why should CCC or ACL,a separate business with no connection to our Club, other than being a landlord for them until recently, have to do anything to make life easier for SISU? SISU have made their decision and must now face the consequences of that, and sink or swim.

I feel a full manifesto needs to be published as quickly as possible, that way people might make their choice based on what is actually being proposed. The longer that isn't available the greater the number of people who will have already made their minds up. A clear case for putting pressure on the council and what it is hoped to achieve needs to be made but also they will need to be prepared to field questions on all other local issues.

A valuation, even on this basis, will cost a few thousand. I doubt these guys are stupid enough to waste their money (I hope I'm right). They would need to know what's being valued as well, it's been discussed many times that there is no point owning the ground without at least a share in the lease.

Maybe approach SISU and ask them to fund it, if they say yes ask the council to agree to open negotiations based on the valuation.

Didn't SISU suggest the valuation stuff also?

There's nothing stopping them getting a valuation done. This is another situation where SISU could quite easily give themselves some positive PR. Get a valuation done, make it known publicly and also make it known publicly they are prepared to meet that valuation.

 

[Nick]

Won't they need permission for a valuation? I have no idea about how they would value the business / stadium or whatever but surely they would need to see the books / building etc?

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Sandra Garlick must be pretty peeved with all this talk of getting back to the Ricoh.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Won't they need permission for a valuation? I have no idea about how they would value the business / stadium or whatever but surely they would need to see the books / building etc?

To get a proper valuation they would, but I think this really all started with pointing out the flaw(s) in Rob's plan. What point is there in standing for election over this issue when you don't even know if the clubs owner is a willing buyer.

 

[Bennets Afro]

What bloody email that nobody but you has mentioned? Seems as though nobody gives a fuc£ about it. You seem to know more than anyone else on what SISU do.

I'm on about the leaked email from Labovitch to Jan from the trust as mentioned before

 

[duffer]

Sandra Garlick must be pretty peeved with all this talk of getting back to the Ricoh.

Brilliant!

"Oh for for f*ck's sake Tim, why didn't you tell me earlier. I've just finished painting it!".

 

[Astute]

This one here, the one you commented about

http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/43356-Labovitch-email

Glad to see just about everyone commented and nobody complementary on SISU for it. Big difference is that the complete email was there and not just bits for court.

 

[RegTheDonk]

How many independents are on the council?

 

[Astute]

I'm on about the leaked email from Labovitch to Jan from the trust as mentioned before

Yes full email and not just bits of a few that were not leaked but handed over. Why didn't they use all of them completely?

 

[Bennets Afro]

But we never heard teh reply from the other side so can't use it as proof according to your logic Astute

 

[wingy]

I feel a full manifesto needs to be published as quickly as possible, that way people might make their choice based on what is actually being proposed. The longer that isn't available the greater the number of people who will have already made their minds up. A clear case for putting pressure on the council and what it is hoped to achieve needs to be made but also they will need to be prepared to field questions on all other local issues.



Maybe approach SISU and ask them to fund it, if they say yes ask the council to agree to open negotiations based on the valuation.



There's nothing stopping them getting a valuation done. This is another situation where SISU could quite easily give themselves some positive PR. Get a valuation done, make it known publicly and also make it known publicly they are prepared to meet that valuation.

I'm pretty sure It's been suggested that ACL/CCC had CBRE doing some form of Valuations and SISU ,although i don't know with what authority had had them do a simultanious Valuation ,can't recall where though ,deffo read It.

 

[Godiva]

I'd agree it's not 'nothing', but they certainly didn't offer to pay out the mortgage at anything like full value, and the Higgs offer was for £1.5m up front with £4m over the next ten years (without ever offering sufficient guarantees to the seller). There was, obviously, never an agreement on these terms (or likely to be if you read through the court transcripts).

I never said full value - I mentioned the balance. It was no secret that they would seek a discount - that was known to all and it seems they all agreed the plan hinged on a discount. Even when it all fell apart CCC started negotiation with YB at £8m.

Whatever negotiation SISU carried out towards any of this seems (imho) to be on a 'take it or leave it' basis rather than a true negotiation in good faith. That kind of figures - in JS's own words, "I don’t posture. I always tell people what it is I need. I don’t go for wasting time in negotiations."

We don't know that - do we? It's where we need to hear from CCC. And if you insist we can't form opinion about CCC and their actions until the JR, then surely we can't form opinion on sisu and their actions until after the JR?


The frustrating thing is, if you take away the bullshit, there was something close to a reasonable plan on the table. But the essence of negotiation is finding something that everyone can accept, and it seems that SISU weren't willing to offer some fairly key stuff - business plans, security, proof of funding. I still don't think that the mortgage could have been bought out for anything like the figure that SISU seem to suggest (£2m-£5m), but a joint deal with the Council for something closer to the full value might have benefitted all parties.

Yes - this is the frustrating part - the plan was really reasonable and there to follow through.
You are wrong about the discount they wanted. Sisu would offer £6m-£8m. And I repeat - CCC offered £8m when they first went to YB.


If SISU could wind their necks in a bit I think something like that could still come to pass - but they'd have to stop this pathetic 'we can't trust CCC/ACL' crap first. You don't need trust, you need contracts. It seems that ACL would be willing to have the club back, even with SISU as owners, even after they've manouvered to break a 42-year lease.

Why would sisu have to trust CCC when clearly nobody trust sisu??? Trust works both ways and so far sisu feel they have been royally screwed by CCC. But we can't talk about that because that is what the JR is all about and we cannot form opinion until CCC have spoken.


If CCFC came home, then once everyone's back playing nicely you can build trust... and then try negotiating again without any side playing silly buggers.

Well if only it was that easy. If the club returned - rental basis or part owners - the sisu out campaigners will continue.
If only ACL had followed through the idea of buying the club!

In meantime I'm far from convinced that this one-sided anti-council thing helps at all, to me the pressure here is in the wrong direction.

One sided anti-council? Really? Are you convinced one sided anti-sisu things helps at all?

 

[duffer]

One sided anti-council? Really? Are you convinced one sided anti-sisu things helps at all?

SISU have the power to immediately bring the club back. Something that, were they not determined to pressurise/distress ACL, would make tremendous financial sense to the club.

As for the rest of your comments, forgive me Godiva but it's really hard to address them if you enclose them in quotes within quotes. But can I ask where you got the idea that SISU would spend £8m on the loan, and what makes you think that the bank would have been prepared to accept it given they turned down higher offers from CCC?

 

[shmmeee]

One sided anti-council? Really? Are you convinced one sided anti-sisu things helps at all?

Just one point, cos frankly I can no longer follow what the fucks going on in this thread.

then surely we can't form opinion on sisu and their actions until after the JR?

Isn't the point that we have Sisu's side of the argument, and to some extent we have Higgs', but so far we have absolutely nothing from the council apart from the bits quoted by Sisu?

 

[Godiva]

SISU have the power to immediately bring the club back. Something that, were they not determined to pressurise/distress ACL, would make tremendous financial sense to the club.

As for the rest of your comments, forgive me Godiva but it's really hard to address them if you enclose them in quotes within quotes. But can I ask where you got the idea that SISU would spend £8m on the loan, and what makes you think that the bank would have been prepared to accept it given they turned down higher offers from CCC?

Sorry - I usually cut up longer posts and reply outside quotes. But I got lazy

The £6m-£8m is from the transcripts - forgive me for not trawling through some 400 pages to find it. But maybe you will agree that it seems plausible as CCC went to YB with an offer of £8m.

And actually I have my doubts if YB would have accepted anything like that. Mostly because the former ACL chairman David Allvey knew the roadmap when he left - and we know he ended up at YB. I don't know if he told YB, but at least it is a possibility and if he did that could explain why YB held on till the number reached £14m.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

The irony being of course that Farage is as much part of the old boys club as anyone.

Oh for a proper working class party of the left.

Left Unity got any hope?

 

[shmmeee]

Left Unity got any hope?

I dunno, not quite sure what their policies are. I'm a bit concerned about the prominence of feminism, like the vegans in the Greens, might end up with it being a wanky Guardian party rather than something that the majority can actually get behind.

A Workers UKIP is what's needed IMO.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I dunno, not quite sure what their policies are. I'm a bit concerned about the prominence of feminism, like the vegans in the Greens, might end up with it being a wanky Guardian party rather than something that the majority can actually get behind.

A Workers UKIP is what's needed IMO.

Yeah I have to say, I signed up to get updates, whenever they had their founding conference they seemed to end up with a couple of angry angry policies motivated by anger rather than constructiveness.

Strangely though, it made my concern not wanky Guardian, more that it'd become like the Socialist Workers I used to pass in the street, where just everything had to come down to the oppression of the proletariat, even if it was just tripping over a loose paving slab!

 

[Astute]

But we never heard teh reply from the other side so can't use it as proof according to your logic Astute

So are you saying that bits taken out of emails so you don't know the context of the whole email are the same as a whole email where you know everything that is said?

 

[Samo]

Yeah I have to say, I signed up to get updates, whenever they had their founding conference they seemed to end up with a couple of angry angry policies motivated by anger rather than constructiveness.

Strangely though, it made my concern not wanky Guardian, more that it'd become like the Socialist Workers I used to pass in the street, where just everything had to come down to the oppression of the proletariat, even if it was just tripping over a loose paving slab!

Those fucking slabs... It's a conspiracy

 

[shmmeee]

Yeah I have to say, I signed up to get updates, whenever they had their founding conference they seemed to end up with a couple of angry angry policies motivated by anger rather than constructiveness.

Strangely though, it made my concern not wanky Guardian, more that it'd become like the Socialist Workers I used to pass in the street, where just everything had to come down to the oppression of the proletariat, even if it was just tripping over a loose paving slab!

Well it's that sort of obsession about an issue that most don't care about that I was driving at, yeah.

Most people I see just want a bit of nationalisation, strong public services in public hands, and work to pay a living wage. Run on those, without the links to big business, and you've got my vote. Maybe a bit of renewable energy and parliamentary reform too. I've got my own issues like LVT or drug reform, but I'm aware enough to realise that they wouldn't be vote winners and would need to be achieved incrementally.

The left's problem seems to be that inability to see which of their policies are actually popular and which only they care about.

 

[Gary.j]

While most of us would probably like to see the FC and the stadium united, I'm yet to hear any compelling argument as to why CCC should sell to the current CCFC owners! Just look at the way sisu/oeg have (mis)managed CCFC, incompetence beyond belief, does anyone really think they will be anymore responsible with the stadium?

Can anyone give any decent reason why sisu/oeg (not the football club) should be trusted with the ricoh? Any reason?




Rob C, quote from your statement: "The club’s owners have repeatedly said they will not return as tenants"

This is the easiest way back to the Ricoh, only one organisation can make it happen, sisu/oeg, this is where you should be focusing your energy.

I normally don't have any interest in local elections, however, If you put forward any candidates in my ward, I will vote against them!

Wether or not people support CCC's stance on this matter, they are ultimately answerable to us, the voter, sisu/oeg are not!

 

[Samo]

Yeah I have to say, I signed up to get updates, whenever they had their founding conference they seemed to end up with a couple of angry angry policies motivated by anger rather than constructiveness.

Strangely though, it made my concern not wanky Guardian, more that it'd become like the Socialist Workers I used to pass in the street, where just everything had to come down to the oppression of the proletariat, even if it was just tripping over a loose paving slab!

You signed up for UKIP updates?

 

[wingy]

Those fucking slabs... It's a conspiracy

Sounds like a job for claims are Us rather than a political party.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Well it's that sort of obsession about an issue that most don't care about that I was driving at, yeah.

Most people I see just want a bit of nationalisation, strong public services in public hands, and work to pay a living wage. Run on those, without the links to big business, and you've got my vote. Maybe a bit of renewable energy and parliamentary reform too. I've got my own issues like LVT or drug reform, but I'm aware enough to realise that they wouldn't be vote winners and would need to be achieved incrementally.

The left's problem seems to be that inability to see which of their policies are actually popular and which only they care about.

I'd add be prepared to enact a tax and spend policy while at it too. Politics is supposed to be about choice after all. Show how you'd spend the money, it's not automatically a vote loser given the right conditions, it's just the argument's been handed over without debate.

It's not about compromising principles either, it's just that unfortunately the 'sane' left wingers end up toeing the line at Labour, leaving the mentalists to see a New York Cheesecake as some kind of deconstructivist comment on globalisation!

 

[wingy]

Just sort housing and utilities ,transport out and you're home .

 

[Samo]

I'd add be prepared to enact a tax and spend policy while at it too. Politics is supposed to be about choice after all. Show how you'd spend the money, it's not automatically a vote loser given the right conditions, it's just the argument's been handed over without debate.

It's not about compromising principles either, it's just that unfortunately the 'sane' left wingers end up toeing the line at Labour, leaving the mentalists to see a New York Cheesecake as some kind of deconstructivist comment on globalisation!

A little late night intellectual masturbation. Feel better?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

A little late night intellectual masturbation. Feel better?

Much.

Thanks!

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Well it's that sort of obsession about an issue that most don't care about that I was driving at, yeah.

Most people I see just want a bit of nationalisation, strong public services in public hands, and work to pay a living wage. Run on those, without the links to big business, and you've got my vote. Maybe a bit of renewable energy and parliamentary reform too. I've got my own issues like LVT or drug reform, but I'm aware enough to realise that they wouldn't be vote winners and would need to be achieved incrementally.

The left's problem seems to be that inability to see which of their policies are actually popular and which only they care about.

1. Scrap Trident.

2. Reduce the military from an overbloated attempt at colonialism to a national defence force.

3. Scrap the monarchy.

4. Scrap hereditary peerages.

5. Plough the proceeds into minimum wage rises and the industries of regions outside SE England.

6. Where do I sign?