Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Hahahaha! He reminds me of Gareth from the Office.
Why does anyone bother arguing with Italia and Tony anymore?
Italia is not stupid. He is just an old ham whose making hay while he can.
Tony is stupid but tries to look clever. He reminds me of Nursey in black adder 2. A sad pathetic figure who craves attention.
Best to put them both on ignore.
This board would grind to a halt.
Other than the mutual back slapping by the hair shirt brigade what else would go on?
In 2007 - yes should have happened. By 2009 I would suggest £24m for the F&B revenues alone would be quite the barrier - a fine calculation by a Mr Gidney IIRC.
What would that 24 million get you exactly?
What was termed 'matchday revenues' so you would get parking, pie money (I would assume ACLs cut after Compass as anything else wouldn't be theirs to offer), hospitality. That kind of thing. And of course that was over the original term of the lease so 40 something years.
So would effectively get what Wasps just got but a 40year lease not 200 or are you getting less?
So would effectively get what Wasps just got but a 40year lease not 200 or are you getting less?
Nothing like what Wasps got. The £24m would give us revenues only from the days on which we play at the Ricoh. You'd probably need to make in the region of £25K a match (profit not revenue) to even break even at that price. That's a lot of pies and pints.
Why do you bother?
One distraction gone - unless there is some way of appealing or fault finding.
Exactly. Lots of repeats on here. SISU lost 6-0 in this one as I understand it. Good. One distraction gone - unless there is some way of appealing or fault finding. I want all the distractions over with. We were once a football club before we got roped into being part of a litigation club and a would-be property speculators association. I hope Anderson comes up with a game plan for the stadium situation and possible Championship survival. That is more important to the club than who said what to whom. They were all looking after themselves anyway.
It isn't litigation to complain about the conduct of elected representatives
I'd assume, given it was always going to go the council's way, there was a higher purpose to it.
Christ knows what but... would be rather surprised if this was the end of it.
(Then again, it's a small insignificant thing really. Does it really deserve any attention at all?)
I suspect it was character assassination ahead of the JR appeal (although in the end the second round came to late for that) and ahead of JR2. Imagine if it was found against the council and you could reference that even the council found against themselves. That would have been a good weapon in their war chest. Let's face it, with all the money they've spanked on litigation it was hardly a drop in the ocean in terms of cost to do it so well worth the effort and who knows it may have even uncovered something previously unknown to the SISU legal team.
Of course it could be an indication of just how weak SISU's argument is and they just need to throw shit in any direction hoping something sticks.
It also could be an indication of how personal this has become and it's purely been done for theatrical character assassination and nothing else. I guess we'll only find out how successful that was at the next election.
Surely nobody actually thought the council would rule against the council?
Are you saying it was a fix ?
I am saying it was pretty much bang on that when it was said the panel was made up of councillors that you would know what the ruling would be without having to hear any lawyers speak.
It would be like you ruling something against Wasps......
Surely if you are professional and accountable you just do your job.
Sounds more like sour grapes to me.
Not really, because I don't think anybody thought it would go any other way in the first place?
If it was a hedge fund trying to do a take over of the cathedral to knock it down to build houses you might look at it differently.
I was certainly supportive of breaking the crippling rental agreement. IMO we only ever went to Sixfields due to ACL rejecting the CVA - this spiteful, vindictive action cost the club 10 points before a ball was kicked. Had that not happened we never would have gone.
I went to support the team in the knowledge we would never be in Northampton forever.
Probably because nobody did anything wrong.
Sometimes we need to look at without our CCFC hat on to make sense of what happened.
I think it was for some sort of pr as well. No chance in hell they would win.I suspect it was character assassination ahead of the JR appeal (although in the end the second round came to late for that) and ahead of JR2. Imagine if it was found against the council and you could reference that even the council found against themselves. That would have been a good weapon in their war chest. Let's face it, with all the money they've spanked on litigation it was hardly a drop in the ocean in terms of cost to do it so well worth the effort and who knows it may have even uncovered something previously unknown to the SISU legal team.
Of course it could be an indication of just how weak SISU's argument is and they just need to throw shit in any direction hoping something sticks.
It also could be an indication of how personal this has become and it's purely been done for theatrical character assassination and nothing else. I guess we'll only find out how successful that was at the next election.
Have you read the council's code of conduct? In particular section 4. You should give it a read and then look at the 6 points SISU complained about and the evidence presented.
I am saying it was pretty much bang on that when it was said the panel was made up of councillors that you would know what the ruling would be without having to hear any lawyers speak.
It would be like you ruling something against Wasps......
Surely nobody actually thought the council would rule against the council?
Or Les Reid coming up with an anti SISU exklusive...
Was the original decision and actual report written by the council?
I thought this Mr Goscher bloke was independent.
Was there any independent people making the decision about whether the appeal against Mr Goachers report having any merit?
If you took a step back, took off any hat you had on and read the Goacher blokes words from yesterday and see.
If you read it not knowing his role you would think he was the council's defence lawyer!
It said they had an independent "advisor".
If you took a step back, took off any hat you had on and read the Goacher blokes words from yesterday and see.
Surely nobody actually thought the council would rule against the council?
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?