torchomatic
Well-Known Member
I don't trust any of them and never have, whether they be Joy, Fisher, Lab, Lucas, PWKH, Reeves, etc. They'll all in it for themselves.
Never trusted Mark Labovitch from the start. Why did he walk out of Tony Blair's company to come to CCFC. Strange move? http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/sep/24/tony-blair-mark-labovitch-resignation
Did anyone else read that and immediately think of Donald Rumsfeld and his infamous speechMr Labovitch said:There are two levels. You might have an idea that the other side has stuff without knowing precisely what it is, but you want to be told what they have got.
“Or there might be some quite specific things that you know exist and you want them handed over.
Sounds like the Higgs wanted to get the facts out.Mr Labovitch said:“There was never controversy about disclosure in the Higgs case because the charity’s lawyers agreed to hand everything over.”
I call shenanigans.
Sorry, you can't keep pulling the "oh you're attached to one side of the argument" thing after the other side are in direct contact with Sisu and doing jobs for them like arranging meetings. Sorry, that's a total busted flush. There's only one side that has "mates" on here and it's lead by Mr Labovitch, that's been made quite clear.
When are you going to get back to posting about CCFC instead of just coming on to slag off fans? As it is literally all you have done for the past few months.
Absolutely no point at all. Just being mischievous to Duffer, Astute, Shmmeee and their "mates" at the council.
Erm... I don't have any 'mates' at the council. I make my judgements based on evidence, and I try to explain myself. Sometimes you come across as a reasonable bloke, sometimes you come over as a complete tit. This is one of the latter.
Let's cut the bullshit here for one moment. Let's say that your company is facing a court case, you've been strongly advised by your company's lawyer not to make a comment on it, and you're aware that if you do you could find yourself having to appear in the case. Do you comment, or not?
Nick, you can answer the same question if you like. I can tell you now though that it's nothing to do with being "sh*t scared", that's the language of the playground.
Face it Nick, Torchy, you're buying Labovitch's spin here hook, line and sinker. He's all about putting pressure on the counci/ACL and diverting attention away from their bullshit and screw ups; that seems to be exactly what you're doing too.
What I am saying is, if the valuation is there in black and white how can they twist it? If CCC take that evidence (valuation) to court then SISU can't spin it can they as it is there?
I never said ACL never said it, I said it wasn't true as ACL had also said the opposite and it was in the accounts that CCFC paid for it. As well as the posts at the time discussing why on earth would they charge us for things.
What I am saying is, if the valuation is there in black and white how can they twist it? If CCC take that evidence (valuation) to court then SISU can't spin it can they as it is there?
You'd think the other party would have already done so if they had.
Just so you know Nick: https://www.gov.uk/whistleblowing
A really important law IMO, more people should be aware of their protections so more people can blow the whistle. Too many employers abusing their staff because staff don't know their rights.
/Here ends the party political broadcast for the Socialist Workers Party. I now return you to your scheduled programming.
The valuation is an old one. Things have moved on since. Or why do SISU keep asking for a new valuation?
How could the police charges be in the accounts if they never took up the rent free offer? Pushing it a bit far, even for you Nick
I shall try and make it a bit easier for you Nick. The rent free and 150k for two years came with charges for using the Ricoh. It included the policing charges amongst other things. SISU wouldn't have paid twice for it. But the SISU comment was that they counted it as extra charges to make up for the rent. A few on here loved that comment and kept using it. Plus they made out that SISU would still have had lots of expenses like policing, so the rent free and 150k offer was a lot more expensive than it was. And with CCC keeping quiet until after the JR, and SISU happy for people to think this a fair few think it is true. Which is why I would guess that ACL made the statement clarifying the true facts. But some either don't understand or don't like that the truth don't help SISU or thier own thoughts.
Do you understand now Nick?
The proposal excluded police, West Midlands Ambulance, St Johns Ambulance, medical personnel, ticketing staff, stewards as these remain an obligation of the football club, which has always been the case, and would be a requirement at any other venue
Match-day costs include, contributions towards the groundsman ( previously employed by the club and now by ACL), the pitch treatments, the equipment to maintain the pitch, a contribution towards match-day utilities, hygiene, maintenance staff, waste disposal, statutory compliance, match-day stadium safety and control room management.
What have they twisted what you said?
Surely they can't twist something if it is there in black and white?
It is an important law, agreed. In truth though, and in fairness to Nick, I'm not sure that I'd want to trust it if my job was on the line. Too many grey areas, imho. There are plenty of ways of leaking stuff out without endangering your job though, if you're clever.
Could it be possible that there really isn't anything that exciting to leak here?
Erm... I don't have any 'mates' at the council. I make my judgements based on evidence, and I try to explain myself. Sometimes you come across as a reasonable bloke, sometimes you come over as a complete tit. This is one of the latter.
Let's cut the bullshit here for one moment. Let's say that your company is facing a court case, you've been strongly advised by your company's lawyer not to make any comment on it, and you're aware that if you do you could find yourself having to appear in the case. Do you comment, or not?
Nick, you can answer the same question if you like. I can tell you now though that it's nothing to do with being "sh*t scared", that's the language of the playground.
Face it Nick, Torchy, you're buying Labovitch's spin here hook, line and sinker. He's all about putting pressure on the council/ACL and diverting attention away from their bullshit and screw ups; that seems to be exactly what you're doing too.
You are all trying to make this court hearing today like some Hollywood drama. It is all just standard legal stuff. People asking for stuff people dragging there heels, people trying it on yawn. It is not unusual for people to disagree on what is relevant as both sides are trying to make different cases, they are not always aware of what angles the other is going to play on.
With disclosure there are none sensitive and sensitive documents. Sensitive documents just means it will have unrelated sensitive material on it. It could be a third parties name and address. Or a data protection issue.
All that happens is a sanitised version of the document is released. Sometimes documents have already been released. Large law firms loose things, don't always realise they have them, they can be as inefficient as government bodies. It is all standard stuff.
The police charges were in the past that shows CCFC always paid for them?
Yes but my point is why would CCFC suddenly want to start paying ACL for police charges as an example when it has always been the case they do it themselves? ACL's comment in the Q and A said that
Why would they suddenly build this into a rental offer? Surely FREE rent is only paying matchday costs which are:
Face it Nick, Torchy, you're buying Labovitch's spin here hook, line and sinker. He's all about putting pressure on the council/ACL and diverting attention away from their bullshit and screw ups; that seems to be exactly what you're doing too.
It is a Hollywood drama!!!!!!!!
If I could be bothered I'd open up photoshop and use pictures, but I can't.
*adopts deep gravely voice*
SHE was a chain-smoking political firebrand. HE was a tax dodging spin doctor. THEY were the lifelong fans caught in the middle. JUDICIAL REVIEW Coming Summer 2014. This time it's legal!
Yes, that’s the problem on here, mostly with people that say they “only support the club”. They seem to be very interested in the minutiae of the workings of a stadium management company and their finances, but never ask any hard questions of the owners.
Here’s an idea – why not put pressure on SISU to have the club valued and then say they are willing to listen to offers based on that valuation? Do it quickly, and we just may get owners who are more interested in spending the close season building a promotion winning squad rather than spending it in court.
I know, I know! I was messin'. I'm sure you have as many mates in the council as I apparently have mates at SISU.
I'm not buying anything from Labovitch or anyone else.
Excellent idea. Seems completely reasonable to me. I mean we have someone who wants to buy, but for far less than the owners want to sell, that's what happens in these situations right guys? The only fair thing is the seller does a valuation then agrees to sell at that price?
Would someone like to explain why that isn't the case?
OK, apologies. You're not a complete tit, accepted.
To be fair, not a complete one.
Whats wrong. Are you short of a nipple?
Yes, that’s the problem on here, mostly with people that say they “only support the club”. They seem to be very interested in the minutiae of the workings of a stadium management company and their finances, but never ask any hard questions of the owners.
Here’s an idea – why not put pressure on SISU to have the club valued and then say they are willing to listen to offers based on that valuation? Do it quickly, and we just may get owners who are more interested in spending the close season building a promotion winning squad rather than spending it in court.
Where are these buyers going to appear from?
Where are these buyers going to appear from?
As you know at the time of the offer Appleton was in charge of our club. And what a good job he did on behalf of SISU, although he couldn't even find the golden share. We were in admin. Could this be why they decided to show all total costs to the club and show how much our club would have been better off?
Just where they always seem to appear from. But that would mean that our club would be valued for what it is worth and not for the debt. Not much chance of that is there.
You valued ACL based on its debt earlier
Just to clarify - you made the wrong assumption regarding police charges. The item quoted was purely to the administrator as technically while in administration the offer covered the costs. Police charged the club always.
You are just acting thick. How unusual.
So if the ACL statement was false about the police costs being included in the match day costs on the free rent and 150k offer why didn't SISU say anything when they even made threats when someone added a link to a newspaper article? Why didn't they threaten ACL with litigation for it?
So your proof of it being correct is that they didn't sue?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?