Just seems to be a repeating again and yet again of the original article. Is the thought sticking in the public psyche? haven't found much evidence of it myself - most people are sick and tired of it all is what I have found, with a fair number moving on from it. See no evidence of a ground swell of high emotion to be honest.
There does seem to be two thrusts to the articles, firstly the challenge to CCC but also the challenge as to the actions of the Trust. I am not saying both should not be challenged in a reasoned reasonable and fair way.
I would like to know what went on certainly. Do I believe that CCC have done the best they can for the city? I think they believe they have I don't know myself only time will tell. Do I think that CCC have done the best for CCFC? I am sure they haven't but then again what exactly is their legal duty to do so? I am not comfortable with deals done by public bodies behind closed doors but come on in the real world that must happen often and in most if not all councils. Should they be held accountable - certainly, the first way you do that is at the ballot box surely?
Would an inquiry make a jot of difference other than to give a relatively small number of people something to analyse, opionate, argue about? What would the terms of reference be? Hasn't the original loan deal been covered by the original JR & appeals? Isn't the Wasps deal subject to a second JR application? Would an inquiry before the settlement of both of those cases be possible, likely, or be cost effective? Who would conduct such an inquiry, what powers to obtain evidence would they have, and who would pay for it? Would it be binding? What would be the options on the outcome? What are the outcomes looked for and by who? Why is it assumed that there is wrong doing when nothing is said it might be everything was above board? Are we to have an inquiry every time a councillor or politician says something and then months later has to back track? What was actually said in the council chamber (that's the important thing not press sound bites)?
That's just some of the questions isn't it.
What are the sources of Mr Reids information. With the greatest of respect to Nii Lamptey and GMK they do not carry much weight as sources and to be fair nor would I on here. As it stands you cant see that CCC, Lucas, West, Reeves, ACL, AEHC & trustees/officers, Wasps, Eastwood/Richardson etc are going to be falling over themselves to give him frank interviews can you?
As for some of the "facts" then you have to look at the context of said quotes/facts.
Take the Wasps "high risk of going bust" for instance. The official quote actually read about staying at Wycombe “Option 1 – Stay as we are, losing £3 million a year. Outcome – high risk of going bust.” OR “Option 2 – Stay where we are but cut the squad budget in half to survive financially. Outcome – high risk of being relegated.”
ACL is loss making. Well yes in 2 of the 8 years+ it has been operating. One of those when there was next to no stadium bowl usage and there were exceptional costs to account for. Ah but they would have made a bigger loss without the £961k lease appropriation each year except 1, well yes if you rewrite established accountancy rules (UK GAAP as established by the ICAEW/ACCA etc) to suit the argument that might be true. Except both 2007 and 2008 would be unaffected and 2009 accounts would have shown a profit of £9.8m and 2012 a small profit still
The Wasps structure is so secretive that the 2013 accounts for London Wasps Holdings limited give the following address where copies of the Moonstone Group accounts can be obtained Sardonyx, Triq Ghanj, Tuffieha, Mgarr, Malta. But relying on out dated 2013 accounts to prove a point about viability in a completely different set up is stretching a point isn't it. But surely that has to lead you ask how could CCFC be considered with the level of debt developed and retained by SISU (which seems to lack a business plan)
The poll by the Trust may have been flawed in some ways but the one thing they have done is to ask questions and get a mandate from its members. Sorry if you are a member and chose not to have your say then that doesn't actually mean the mandate is not there. To suggest the Trust are pursuing an agenda without support is wrong.
The stadium was built for CCFC. Well you could argue the stadium bowl was intended for CCFC certainly. But the exhibition halls etc that form over 50% of the building? The net cost of CCFC involvement in the project was 300k, and that could easily be said to be accounted for as interest paid on the loans they never actually paid off. You see CCFC might have contracted for costs but CCFC never actually paid it all off so the asset and the liabilities were transferred in to the project and CCFC played no further part (details are in the published accounts)
There are other "facts" I would debate or query. But do the "facts" being capable of reasonable challenge weaken or strengthen what is said in this challenge to CCC?
What is hoped to be achieved by this debate/challenge. We get to know the truth perhaps, we might learn a truth certainly but then what. I really do not see how the deal with Wasps can be set aside legally. The Charity would not be subject to such an inquiry and could sell its shares to who it wants. Wasps of course now hold the deciding shareholder and board votes.
Surely what we as fans want to know is how does it change things for CCFC - not CCC, not ARVO, not SISU, not Wasps. So far there has been no mention of how CCFC benefits so what is the purpose and result aimed for of such a process. Or is it just the admirable pursuit of the truth?:thinking about:
