Cov Back To Ricoh speaking to Ann Lucas Today (2 Viewers)

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
SISU hope to affect those businesses in order to put pressure in the council to sell the Ricoh cheap.

Why not just ask the council what is the Ricoh worth
Then ask Joy
Then ask an independent sports stadium valuer

Then you will know if your campaign has any merit or not and if it does you will also know who you should be targeting

Was the stadium collapsing in Brazil yesterday based on Sisu showing what will happen to the Ricoh if the Council don't comply? Might as well be if that's the thought process into it.
 

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
If they truely belive that the club needs ownership of the group surely a question you would want answered early on would be why have the club owners never submitted a bid to purchase the ground.

But according to Sisu they had agreed a deal for 50% stake before it was rejected by the counci.
 

AndreasB

Well-Known Member
I didnt know they were still around. To say they are in the pocket of SISU as some sort of 5th columnists though is hysterical fantasy. To be fair to this group, their one protest outside the Council house did seem to stir Ann Lucas into meeting Joy Seppala. Something new was needed - The club wont talk to the trust lets not forget so if you think mediation is the only way out of this, then meeting Ann Lucas can only be positive.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
But according to Sisu they had agreed a deal for 50% stake before it was rejected by the counci.

If you listened to the podcast last week where the guys had the meeting with the council they (the council chaps, can't remember their names off the top of my head) were clear that no veto either formal or informal had come from the council. What had actually happened was that a pre-requisite of the deal was that SISU purchased the Higgs share of ACL but SISU failed to do so despite Higgs agreeing a price with them. If you recall PWKH stated that a deal was agreed but SISU never came back to complete and haven't yet paid Higgs legal fees which they had promisesd to cover.
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
I didnt know they were still around. To say they are in the pocket of SISU as some sort of 5th columnists though is hysterical fantasy. To be fair to this group, their one protest outside the Council house did seem to stir Ann Lucas into meeting Joy Seppala. Something new was needed - The club wont talk to the trust lets not forget so if you think mediation is the only way out of this, then meeting Ann Lucas can only be positive.

She was always going to meet if asked.. Anne issued invitation after invitation, finally Seppala accepted one.

This group has had no discernable influence on the council to date.
 

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
If you listened to the podcast last week where the guys had the meeting with the council they (the council chaps, can't remember their names off the top of my head) were clear that no veto either formal or informal had come from the council. What had actually happened was that a pre-requisite of the deal was that SISU purchased the Higgs share of ACL but SISU failed to do so despite Higgs agreeing a price with them. If you recall PWKH stated that a deal was agreed but SISU never came back to complete and haven't yet paid Higgs legal fees which they had promisesd to cover.

I will have to listen to that at some point.
 

AndreasB

Well-Known Member
She was always going to meet if asked.. Anne issued invitation after invitation, finally Seppala accepted one.

This group has had no discernable influence on the council to date.

oh ok then, I stand corrected - seems they are as toothless as the Trust then.
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
How about the

Campaign Looking Into The Obfuscation Regarding the Intentions of Sisu?
 

Nick

Administrator
Any more proof that SISU are "running them" than there is to ACL / CCC running the Trust / KCIC?
 

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
Any more proof that SISU are "running them" than there is to ACL / CCC running the Trust / KCIC?

People love conspiracy theories though.
 

SkyBlueHomer

New Member
To be honest, there are so many splinter groups, protest groups I don't know who is who.

Think its lost most of us now. There seems to be more protest groups than supporters going to Northampton at the minute.
Maybe its time to start of new thread/sticky to keep track of all this :D
 

hill83

Well-Known Member
jay-and-silent-bob-o.gif
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
jay and silent bob fan?

Was actually thinking Red Dwarf

David Lister said:
I think we're all beginning to lose sight of the real issue here, which is what are we going to call ourselves? I think it comes down to a choice between "The League Against Salivating Monsters" or, my own personal preference, which is "The Committee for the Liberation and Integration of Terrifying Organisms and their Rehabilitation Into Society." One drawback with that, the abbreviation is CLITORIS.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
oh ok then, I stand corrected - seems they are as toothless as the Trust then.

they care about our club and are trying to do something, not toothless.

it was your assumption that it stired ann lucas into life when she had already twice previously invited joy diversion for talks with no reply from joy. if it stired anyone, you would have to say it was joy. not only did she reply at the 3rd offer for talks, she agreed.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
I find it a bit suspicious that we only ever hear from this group at times that would seem to suit SISU, makes me wonder if there's someone behind the scenes promting them. It would be very convinient for SISU if, assuming the JR gets kicked out, there was a report that placed the blame with CCC / ACL made public today.

that could work both ways chief. ann lucas could be telling them all about the packet of polo's that joy offered for the freehold as JR should have been over.

lets see if the meeting gets put back a couple off hours following les rieds tweet that JR has been put back to 2pm
 

AndreasB

Well-Known Member
they care about our club and are trying to do something, not toothless.

it was your assumption that it stired ann lucas into life when she had already twice previously invited joy diversion for talks with no reply from joy. if it stired anyone, you would have to say it was joy. not only did she reply at the 3rd offer for talks, she agreed.

Just trying to be impartial and think clearly- bit difficult if you think Joy is the antichrist
 

AndreasB

Well-Known Member
they care about our club and are trying to do something, not toothless.

it was your assumption that it stired ann lucas into life when she had already twice previously invited joy diversion for talks with no reply from joy. if it stired anyone, you would have to say it was joy. not only did she reply at the 3rd offer for talks, she agreed.

Never said the trust didnt care, Im sure they care a lot. They just havent affected anything. if your next Trust board meeting starts with a trivia quiz, it doesnt bode well does it...
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Never said the trust didnt care, Im sure they care a lot. They just havent affected anything. if your next Trust board meeting starts with a trivia quiz, it doesnt bode well does it...

was that supposed to be a quip? is was more of a slow.

i'm not in the trust, but i was refering to all protest group's. whether they be at the council house steps, jimmy's hill or at sh1tsu's office in mayfair. i respect them all equaly.
 

Danceswithhorses

Well-Known Member
Danceswithhorses
My problem with CBTR, is that imho, they claim to be non-aligned and impartial, but only ever seem to criticise one side.
I would have more respect for them if they admitted that their raison d'etre was to pressure the council into selling the arena to SISU.


So because they're exploring the other avenue that is deemed less impartial?

Questions should be asked of both sides, as for instance today one of their questions will be asking how the local business economy, pubs, shopping park, buses, etc have been affected since the Sky Blues left for Northampton? I think its a valid question not one that sounds like Sisu are the controlling arm.
No, they're claiming impartiality, but are only following certain avenues, ie only criticizing one side ie CCC
Regarding their question about how the local business economy, pubs, shopping park, buses, etc have been affected since the Sky Blues left for Northampton - that is important, but again it is being asked, to criticize one side only ie CCC for not selling the Ricoh.


Let's see them give BOTH sides a hard time
 

asb

New Member
Danceswithhorses
My problem with CBTR, is that imho, they claim to be non-aligned and impartial, but only ever seem to criticise one side.
I would have more respect for them if they admitted that their raison d'etre was to pressure the council into selling the arena to SISU.



No, they're claiming impartiality, but are only following certain avenues, ie only criticizing one side ie CCC
Regarding their question about how the local business economy, pubs, shopping park, buses, etc have been affected since the Sky Blues left for Northampton - that is important, but again it is being asked, to criticize one side only ie CCC for not selling the Ricoh.


Let's see them give BOTH sides a hard time

They must be impartial and fair because Mr Reid says they are, and he should know because he supports them with his stories in the paper.

I seriously don't think you will find an impartial person with an opinion on this situation anytime soon outside of the Judges chamber at the Court.
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
One thing against SISU is they had a chance to buy a share in the stadium and didn't take it. It is not like the council have always refused to sell to them?

They are claiming dirty tactics by CCC when their own dirty tactics didn't work. It's a bit like claiming someone dived for a penalty after their leg has been put in plaster!
 

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
Danceswithhorses
My problem with CBTR, is that imho, they claim to be non-aligned and impartial, but only ever seem to criticise one side.
I would have more respect for them if they admitted that their raison d'etre was to pressure the council into selling the arena to SISU.



No, they're claiming impartiality, but are only following certain avenues, ie only criticizing one side ie CCC
Regarding their question about how the local business economy, pubs, shopping park, buses, etc have been affected since the Sky Blues left for Northampton - that is important, but again it is being asked, to criticize one side only ie CCC for not selling the Ricoh.


Let's see them give BOTH sides a hard time

My point being about exploring the other avenues is that may other people and groups have tried for answers from Sisu and neither of us can tell whether their lying or there is some truth. What is the point in being repetitive?

That I understand, however with the council making cut backs on jobs and what not it is an important question to be asked whether it is to criticize the Council and not selling the Arena or not.
 

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
Cov Back To Ricoh@CovBackToRicoh

Had a v detailed & positive meeting @coventrycc with Cllrs Ann Lucas & John Blundell. Legal advisers present so limited discussion... (1/2)

(2/2)... more details on Ricoh ownership negotiations.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top