Club aims to raise £35m from bond (18 Viewers)

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Well. that's where the Council can help then, isn't it? If they can help a team from London move in then I'm sure they can help a team who have been in the city for 132 years to find a suitable home. You would have thought that they would be bending over backwards to stop their team either going under or moving out of the city, wouldn't you?

After all, SISU won't be here for ever, will they? The club, hopefully, will be.

But I am only really interested in my football team staying in the city of its birth.
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
Well. that's where the Council can help then, isn't it? If they can help a team from London move in then I'm sure they can help a team who have been in the city for 132 years to find a suitable home. You would have thought that they would be bending over backwards to stop their team either going under or moving out of the city, wouldn't you?

After all, SISU won't be here for ever, will they? The club, hopefully, will be.

We are stuck at the Ricoh I'm afraid.
Lets make the most of it.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Well. that's where the Council can help then, isn't it? If they can help a team from London move in then I'm sure they can help a team who have been in the city for 132 years to find a suitable home. You would have thought that they would be bending over backwards to stop their team either going under or moving out of the city, wouldn't you?

After all, SISU won't be here for ever, will they? The club, hopefully, will be.

You best start campaigning for SISU to go sooner than later. Given that there investors won't deal with CCC.
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
You best start campaigning for SISU to go sooner than later. Given that there investors won't deal with CCC.

It may be their investors but it is more likely that TF and Co have been outmanoeuvred by CCC and now need to save face.
The fans don't come into it as they try to save face.
Sisu can do what they like in financing a new stadium but as long as the club does not pay for it we can just move back to the Ricoh when they leave.
If the club finances it we are finished.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Also provides ability for council to reinvest money.

Is that an assumption or something that has come directly from the council as it contradicts what they have said previously. When Dave Nellist questioned the loan to ACL whilst cuts were being made the response he was given was that the money used to facilitate the loan was already assigned for various uses, those uses would remain in place on repayment, and therefore if the loan was recalled the funds could not be used for any other purpose.
 

hutch1972

Well-Known Member
You would certainly hope it is a silly conspiracy theory. One easily ruled out by the CT asking the question of the council. Best to do that before the rumour spreads. You know how these things go!
Problem with asking AL anything is she hides behind the confidential bullshit.
If she does it may be wrong ( as in acl washing its face fiasco)
 

Noggin

New Member
What a pathetic post.

You decry others as nuts and come out with something as childish as this. You really shouldnt have bothered.

of course it was completely childish and intentionally so, it was in response to him saying the council were in my bed, the childish response was the sensible one.

As per usual you only comment on me and not on Grendel.

He had made a false post, been called out on it and instead of responding to that acknowledging his "mistake" (actually a lie of course, Nicks was a mistake) he just said something childish, any reasonable discussion was clearly done and so I responded in kind.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member

Grendel

Well-Known Member
of course it was completely childish and intentionally so, it was in response to him saying the council were in my bed, the childish response was the sensible one.

As per usual you only comment on me and not on Grendel.

He had made a false post, been called out on it and instead of responding to that acknowledging his "mistake" (actually a lie of course, Nicks was a mistake) he just said something childish, any reasonable discussion was clearly done and so I responded in kind.

Where have I lied?
 

Noggin

New Member
I think Tony writes his scripts.

Says the guy who responded with a "no you are" type response that the average 5 year old thinks is low wit. The obvious continuation was with a "your mum" I'd have been remiss not to play along.

moving back from your diversion, you now accept that you made it up that intheknow inferred that the council were buying up wasps bond issue?
 

Noggin

New Member
Where have I lied?

saying intheknow inferred that the council were buying up wasps bond issue. It should only take you 10 seconds to read through his posts again and see not a single one of them can be considered that way at all. Nick said it too, he was mistaken, you though are being mischievous which seems to be your raison d'etre
 

Nick

Administrator
saying intheknow inferred that the council were buying up wasps bond issue. It should only take you 10 seconds to read through his posts again and see not a single one of them can be considered that way at all. Nick said it too, he was mistaken, you though are being mischievous which seems to be your raison d'etre
But you don't think intheknow is being a bit naughty? I think his whole purpose on here is a bit cheeky. If tim Fisher was posting on here under a false name there would be outrage
 

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
saying intheknow inferred that the council were buying up wasps bond issue. It should only take you 10 seconds to read through his posts again and see not a single one of them can be considered that way at all. Nick said it too, he was mistaken, you though are being mischievous which seems to be your raison d'etre

intheknow is prone to dropping in the occasional clue to what he's actually talking about, inferring things rather than saying them, it's fair enough to question whether this was another such occasion.
 

Noggin

New Member
But you don't think intheknow is being a bit naughty? I think his whole purpose on here is a bit cheeky. If tim Fisher was posting on here under a false name there would be outrage

I'm just judging on what he has posted over the past few days which is completely fair and reasonable, none of it is naughty or inferring anything.

His whole purpose here isn't my business, nore do I have any knowledge of what he previous has done or said, having been accused of being other people myself multiple times (at least twice by Grendel alone) I don't judge others, you of course are in a unique position of having more information, personally I think you should act on such information, I would ban those with multiple accounts and those who only post to wind people up as well not allow people important to the saga to be anonymous. The complete accept that opposite viewpoint to that is also completely fair, however I'm not sure your half ground is where you discredit people with inferences.

However this is a completely separate topic, both you and Grendel have said he inferred that the council was buying up wasps bond issue and he didn't. Thats simply a fact, that wouldn't change even if he were Ann Lucas.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
saying intheknow inferred that the council were buying up wasps bond issue. It should only take you 10 seconds to read through his posts again and see not a single one of them can be considered that way at all. Nick said it too, he was mistaken, you though are being mischievous which seems to be your raison d'etre

I didn't say he inferred it - you accused me of saying the council had purchased the bonds - it was you making accusations not me.
 

Noggin

New Member
intheknow is prone to dropping in the occasional clue to what he's actually talking about, inferring things rather than saying them, it's fair enough to question whether this was another such occasion.

I have no issue with critasing that sort of behaviour, but read the few posts, there is no suggestion whatsoever that he was inferring the council were buying up wasps bonds, if he is a member of the council why would he tell people that? it's the complete opposite of what he would be doing, so it isn't fair enough to assume that. It's Grendel attempting to discredit the council again.
 

Nick

Administrator
I'm just judging on what he has posted over the past few days which is completely fair and reasonable, none of it is naughty or inferring anything.

His whole purpose here isn't my business, nore do I have any knowledge of what he previous has done or said, having been accused of being other people myself multiple times (at least twice by Grendel alone) I don't judge others, you of course are in a unique position of having more information, personally I think you should act on such information, I would ban those with multiple accounts and those who only post to wind people up as well not allow people important to the saga to be anonymous. The complete accept that opposite viewpoint to that is also completely fair, however I'm not sure your half ground is where you discredit people with inferences.

However this is a completely separate topic, both you and Grendel have said he inferred that the council was buying up wasps bond issue and he didn't. Thats simply a fact, that wouldn't change even if he were Ann Lucas.

Have a look through all of his posts, he talks in riddles and clues which is probably why when he said that it went a bit over your head. Nothing wrong with questioning him on it, if people choose to talk in riddles all the time and they leave things hanging then people will think things won't they?

Although I do agree, I am tempted to ban / mute people who are just on here for the Wasps stuff, especially if they are actually involved with the club. Like I said, if they want to use it as a PR tool then they should pay like they do everywhere else and a local charity is ideal.
 

duffer

Well-Known Member
I can't believe the council would buy up Wasps bonds - it would be an absolute scandal, surely. It would have to come out too, I think, it isn't the sort of thing that you could do under the table.

After the Icelandic bank fiasco, I doubt there's an appetite for this kind of risk at local authorities - indeed I doubt it's actually permitted by law.
 

Nick

Administrator
I have no issue with critasing that sort of behaviour, but read the few posts, there is no suggestion whatsoever that he was inferring the council were buying up wasps bonds, if he is a member of the council why would he tell people that? it's the complete opposite of what he would be doing, so it isn't fair enough to assume that. It's Grendel attempting to discredit the council again.

Who has said he is a member of the council?
 

Noggin

New Member
Who has said he is a member of the council?

This is the exact problem with your half and half approach isn't it. If you know for sure someone is a significant player in this saga, out them, ban them, or shut up about it. Any of them are valid, anything else leads to misunderstandings and unfair judgements.
 

Noggin

New Member
I didn't say he inferred it - you accused me of saying the council had purchased the bonds - it was you making accusations not me.

You did say that,

You posted a couple of times that we don't know who has brought the bonds, I thought it was just a silly irrelevant point, someone else said it does matter if it's the council that has brought them, I said oh I didn't realise thats what Grendel was inferring, your response was I didn't say that, in the know did.
 

Nick

Administrator
This is the exact problem with your half and half approach isn't it. If you know for sure someone is a significant player in this saga, out them, ban them, or shut up about it. Any of them are valid, anything else leads to misunderstandings and unfair judgements.

I can't recall anybody saying anything about him being a member of the council though?

I agree though, when somebody is in the know and they leave things hanging it can get misunderstood can't it, especially when it is pretty much their whole purpose of being on the forum.

If I thought I could simply out them I would, don't think it is as simple as that with data protection etc. I'd have outed ex players in the saga who used to come on to just post rumours and stir things up too if I could.
 

Noggin

New Member
I can't recall anybody saying anything about him being a member of the council though?

I agree though, when somebody is in the know and they leave things hanging it can get misunderstood can't it, especially when it is pretty much their whole purpose of being on the forum.

You didn't say he was a member of the council, that was my misunderstanding when you were obviously infering he is a member of wasps. Thats my point, just making snide comments about who someone is causes misunderstandings.

anyway this is getting silly now, off to do something else.
 

Nick

Administrator
You didn't say he was a member of the council, that was my misunderstanding when you were obviously infering he is a member of wasps. Thats my point, just making snide comments about who someone is causes misunderstandings.

Think it was pretty obvious within his first 4 or 5 posts where he was from and his intentions to most people though.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
You did say that,

You posted a couple of times that we don't know who has brought the bonds, I thought it was just a silly irrelevant point, someone else said it does matter if it's the council that has brought them, I said oh I didn't realise thats what Grendel was inferring, your response was I didn't say that, in the know did.

None of that is correct
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
I'd have outed ex players in the saga who used to come on to just post rumours and stir things up too if I could.

You can't just put that! I'm trying to work out which of our former players were intelligent enough to be able to get past the registration page.
 

Nick

Administrator
Sorry, I didn't mean players as in football players.

I meant players in the main game, courts and stuff!
 

Noggin

New Member
None of that is correct

Fine

How interesting that a non wasps fan like you dig this out.

I wonder who bought them?

As I said before who has bought them?

It wasn't a reasonable question before and it isn't one now, it's like asking who owns apple shares. I'm sure a very large mix of people have brought them, commercial and individual investors alike.

In general that would be the case but if it turns out CCC have purchased them then there are some serious questions to be asked. Surely they wouldn't be that stupid.

why would ccc buy them? seems like a silly conspiracy theory, I hadn't realised thats was what Grendel was inferring, I should have known he was that foolish.

I didn't - in the know did.

Who knows? Perhaps moonstone have had a dabble?

Who knows.

Now I'm done. A waste of 2 mins of my life sure.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top