Less like our home everyday.... (3 Viewers)

[duffer]

They had been given nothing but grief & lost all trust in them.
The council don't make offers in these matters...they are approached or invite offers.

The full details of what happened & offers made may never be known because they will be known only to a very small number of people on the sides of any party involved. Even AL would have only been advised of what looked the best options & the main points of why...her advisors knew more than most - maybe you were one of them? Otherwise please don't speak as if you are better advised of the facts than the rest of us...or make statements as if they are facts just because you may have read them in the newspaper or something.

...onwards & upwards PUSB

Actually, that's not really the way it should work. When selling public assets the council has a statutory duty to obtain the most that it can for them. I think that most people would consider that the best way to do that would be to put them on the open market - or at least offer all potentially interested bidders the opportunity to make a bid.

The council didn't do this. They clearly told the club that they wanted to build trust before talking to them about ownership, and at the same time struck a deal in secret to sell to Wasps.

The fact that the full details are only available to a few selected parties should set all sorts of alarm bells ringing here. This is public money, and these people are public servants. What they do, their behaviour and their decisions should be fully open to scrutiny.

'Lucas knows best' is not a healthy approach to either democracy or accountability.

Regardless, there are enough facts out there to be able to draw a reasonable conclusion as to the Council's honesty in this process. Lucas on the profitability of ACL, Townsend on 'building trust' - those are clear, unequivocal public statements made by elected members.

That they turned out subsequently to be completely untrue gives an indication of either how reliable the council's advisors are, or how honest those particular elected members are. I'll let you decide that for yourself.

 

---

[SkyblueBazza]

How are they held to account? Everything was done in secret and all calls for an independent review into the sale process have been ignored.

They're being held to account by the legal process...as raised by SISU

...onwards & upwards PUSB

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Is 'onwards and upwards' the new 'if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem' mantra for the franchise apologists?[h=2][/h]

If you're meaning me...I do not & have not supported Wasps.
I am not bitter towards them in any way. Envious - yes.
Bitter towards our owners who took the path they took that led to this sad outcome. If they hadn't adopted the tactics they did - & instead included what it has cost in various admin & legal fees & lost revenue from gate receipts (past & I suspect future) in an early offer. The outcome might've been different...we will never know.

...onwards & upwards PUSB

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Actually, that's not really the way it should work. When selling public assets the council has a statutory duty to obtain the most that it can for them. I think that most people would consider that the best way to do that would be to put them on the open market - or at least offer all potentially interested bidders the opportunity to make a bid.

The council didn't do this. They clearly told the club that they wanted to build trust before talking to them about ownership, and at the same time struck a deal in secret to sell to Wasps.

The fact that the full details are only available to a few selected parties should set all sorts of alarm bells ringing here. This is public money, and these people are public servants. What they do, their behaviour and their decisions should be fully open to scrutiny.

'Lucas knows best' is not a healthy approach to either democracy or accountability.

Regardless, there are enough facts out there to be able to draw a reasonable conclusion as to the Council's honesty in this process. Lucas on the profitability of ACL, Townsend on 'building trust' - those are clear, unequivocal public statements made by elected members.

That they turned out subsequently to be completely untrue gives an indication of either how reliable the council's advisors are, or how honest those particular elected members are. I'll let you decide that for yourself.

But what I am saying is from the council side everything is available to those that know the right places to look & the right people to ask questions of. Hence they are accountable in the courts. SISU make conditional offers...the main condition I wouldn't be shocked to learn being some confidentiality.
You say this thing about trust...such as it was - the lack of it might well have meant so called secret negotiations...SISU would've done something to de-rail any prospect of a deal with anyone bit themselves. As it was their past actions led others to exclude they themselves within reason.

They want the cake and to eat it! & they would happily destroy anything or anyone preventing them having every single crumb of it!

That's what they have done to me over the last 3-4yrs. Turned me from a sympathetic, still grateful for saving us back in the day, faithful believer - to a sceptical, untrusting, despising (of them) CCFC supporter

...onwards & upwards PUSB