You keep on making the same mistake, time and time again. You think that just because someone supports CCFC, they should do right by the clubs owners and that good will follow. Historically, it hasn't. SISU will act in the best interests of SISU. Sometimes at the expense of the football club. Have you not seen the last few years?
No that is not what I think at all. What I do think is that SISU are only here temporarily while the club are, hopefully, here permanently. I think it is the responsibility of the local council to act in the best interests of organisations who have been part of the community for over 100 years. I certainly think they should be more concerned about them than rugby clubs from London. No matter how bad SISU have been as owners what happens when they leave? Normally new owners bring some hope of things changing for the better, not for us anymore, we are still screwed for decades to come thanks to the actions of CCC.
Now of course you may make the argument that CCC and Higgs had to sell ACL. That may be true but if it is I would argue that it should have been done in an open manner. In order to maximise the return for CCC and Higgs it should have been placed on the market with any interested party able to bid. It most certainly shouldn't be done behind closed doors and hidden behind confidentiality. I wonder, if SISU weren't involved, if opinions might be different. What if CCC sold off the Memorial Park in secret, would that be OK as well? Where do you draw the line?
Then you have to consider that if it was the case that ACL needed to be sold it follows that CCC and Higgs have repeatedly lied about the state of ACL, so again I would take issue with CCC who should, at least in theory, be answerable to the population of the city in a way that the likes of SISU aren't. We know SISU, or any other similar organisation, are in it for what they can get out. Local councils should be approaching things from a very different standpoint.
There is an assumption the souring of the relationship is all down to SISU. That may very well be correct but for all we know the claims about the health of ACL could be the root cause.
Put yourself in Fisher's position. You know the rent is too high, you know ACL are reliant on that high rent, you know ACL are basically sat around twiddling their thumbs rather than trying to grow the business as they have the security of the clubs rent. Those are all things Fisher publically said, and was ridiculed for, when he first joined the club.
What if he went into the first meeting, laid out his stance based on the above and ACL, Higgs, CCC or all of the above said what they said in public. That he was talking rubbish, ACL was in rude health, CCFC was a tiny fraction of its business and it could quite happily survive without them.
How do you negotiate from there with the other side holding a false stance. That's not a bit of a bluff that's outright lying.
How different would things have been if in that first meeting CCC and Higgs had conceded that ACL was in a mess, was reliant on CCFC and weren't maximising the use of the facilities on non-matchdays? Of course we will never know but I can imagine there is a chance things could be very different now.
And yet still, you harshly judge the council for not stepping outside the terms of a confidential negotiation with Wasps, and think it would make any difference?
Just how exactly? Please tell me
Firstly CCC should never had agreed to confidentiality, I suspect the confidentiality is of greater benefit to CCC than it is to Wasps.
As I have repeatedly said if ACL needed to be sold, of course meaning CCC and Higgs had been somewhat economical with the truth, it should have been an open and transparent process. ACL should have been placed on the market allowing any interested parties to bid.
Any organisations that potentially could be adversely affected by any bidder winning the process should have been given fair opportunity to air their objections. Its not really a complicated concept.
Christ you can barely order a ream of printer paper in the public sector without having to get multiple quotes to prove you're getting best value for the taxpayer but you can sell off a £120m stadium on the cheap in secret? The whole thing stinks to me, we've already found several areas where CCC, Higgs and Wasps have been less than truthful and that's with everything hidden behind a wall of confidentiality. What else would we find if that wall came down?
I think I'm done with this, we're never going to find out what happened. We're never, in all likelihood, going to own the Ricoh or any other stadium. There seems to be little appetite from the majority of the fan base to do anything but applaud CCC and Higgs for getting one over on SISU irrespective of the damage done to the club. We're now just going round in circles. There are many on here, just look at this thread, who will for some reason defend the council and / or Wasps to the hilt no matter what evidence is presented to them.
