Yet this effort to “distress” ACL was unsuccessful, because the council and charity dug in.
So if it wasn't distressed, why was it sold so cheap?
It was dire, particularly when compared with the Wasps match which really was a fantastic sporting occasion
So if it wasn't distressed, why was it sold so cheap? If ACL was still getting stronger and stronger, surely it wasn't such a great deal for the "tax payers" and they didn't HAVE to sell?
We need a reporter to try and ask about that.
If it was distressed, then why are people going on about how great it was doing etc.
If it wasn't, then why was it sold so cheap when it didn't need to be?
The key was taking on the £14M debt!
Original terms 43 year repayment now Wasps have just 20 years? Wonder Why?????
What happens if they default.
The key was taking on the £14M debt!
Original terms 43 year repayment now Wasps have just 20 years? Wonder Why?????
What happens if they default.
So much for “two sides to every story”, eh?
Simon Gilbert would be proud of that one-sided claptrap. No mention of the Council wanting to “rebuild trust” and “talk about ownership in the future” while negotiating with Wasps. No mention of Lucas saying teams’ moving rips the heart out of communities. No mention of Higgs’ shafting the club on the “first option” for ACL.
And as for Jan and the Trust. Fucking hell they are embarrassing. Again, not a peep from them about Wasps and the Council and their part in this shit storm. Not a word of support for the club and the fans they apparently represent.
“Fantastic sporting occasion”? Fuck off.
How do they know what their members think? I have never been asked anything.
What it probably means is "us lot who go down the pub together every week think....."
How do they know what their members think? I have never been asked anything.
What it probably means is "us lot who go down the pub together every week think....."
Is that official then? You believe that SISU will build an new ground?
David Conn has confirmed that Sisu didnt want to take the debt on.... with all other terms being the same as what Wasps took on.
No he doesn't confirm it at all
well as CCC would seem to currently have a charge over everything what do you think would happen?
of course they have to default first don't they ...... will wait and see but they seem to have taken all the right actions so far to ensure that wont happen
So you are saying that Tim is bullshitting again?
The key was taking on the £14M debt!
Original terms 43 year repayment now Wasps have just 20 years? Wonder Why?????
What happens if they default.
well as CCC would seem to currently have a charge over everything what do you think would happen?
of course they have to default first don't they ...... will wait and see but they seem to have taken all the right actions so far to ensure that wont happen
David Conn has confirmed that Sisu didnt want to take the debt on.... with all other terms being the same as what Wasps took on.
Ah ok so they can assume without asking?
Hold on I am just going to go to the telegraph to tell them that the members of Sky Blues Talk think something without actually asking what they think.
I think its pretty clear what the majority off fans think dont you? Aside from RFC do you think you could scrape the names of 10 or more posters on here who believe its going to happen? I doubt it and it doesn't even matter whether you're apparently a council lover or SISU lover either does it?
So you go ahead and tell the telegraph what the majority of posters on here think without asking us and give them the same answer as Jan as you couldn't possibly say anything else could you?
Still it was a cheap easy dig at the trust and thats all that counts.
No, it was a fact. Members haven't been asked, so it is making an assumption isn't it and going to the press stating it?
Thing is, I wouldn't go to the press with anything and speak on behalf of other people without asking them.
So you dont believe it but the majority do? Is that what you're saying?
So you dont believe it but the majority do? Is that what you're saying?
So you dont believe it but the majority do? Is that what you're saying?
So you dont believe it but the majority do? Is that what you're saying?
No, I am saying that they can't / shouldn't make statements on behalf of their members without asking the members.
No, I am quite clearly saying the trust haven't asked it's members what they believe so can't make statements based on it.
Stop being an arsehole its becoming really tiresome.
A majority is derived from a formal ballot of members. There hasn't been so this is an assumption not a statement of fact.
Did they not do an email SUrvey sometime in September to get the views of all members
I filled one In
If you wish the Trust to participate with the committee send an email to [email protected] with YES in the subject line
If you wish the Trust not to participate with the committee send an email to [email protected] with NO in the subject line
When something is as blatently obvious as this do they really need to?
You'd only moan if they replied no comment to any questions while they wait for all the members to reply anyway.
You have passed tiresome, you're just ammusing now.