Well, at least it hasn't moved the city to Northampton for a year.....
We can only hope!
Ignore the football team ( and of course the rugby team ) what has this Council done to benefit the City in its tenure?
Ignore the football team ( and of course the rugby team ) what has this Council done to benefit the City in its tenure?
Crikey, I am still trying to get my head around this one.
In Normative Ethics we have something called Utilitarianism. Going to use the most basic form here but Utility basically states;
"..that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes Utility, usually defined as maximizing total benefit and reducing suffering or the negatives."
To have a football and rugby club playing in one stadium instead of just one football club fits this criteria, that it is the proper course of action to be taken, because it is maximising the enjoyment of people living in the local society.
However, from my understanding of the Telegragh article it says, "...had a seriously damaging effect on the club."
To give you good people a working anology of the problem of Utilitarianism, imagine a society of two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Utility states that it would be okay for the wolves in the society to eat the sheep because there are more wolves in the society then sheep. This is obviously okay for the wolves but could lead to a problem for the sheep.
So we have some safeguards in society that are built in to protect rights and these are with the European Court of Human Rights which protects the individual rights against the state and stops Utility from undermining the well being of a society. A well known case for this was Marper and the DNA Database where Utility went crazy under the last Labour Government.
From what I am reading here, and of course I could be wrong, but are SISU asking for the same Human Rights that protects the Individual from society to now protect Business's as well.
I do not understand the argument from SISU here. The council (however useless they are) have followed the rules of Utility. There are no protections for business's like there are for the individual.
The argument is a non-starter.
You are swimming in the wrong pool my friend.
Your point is completely correct however you have forgotten a swimming pool has a sky blue tint to it.
This means normal rules do not apply
If Sisu had spent as much time devotion and money at the team as they have in court we would be in the premiership....?
Same old same old Sisu...
Crikey, I am still trying to get my head around this one.
In Normative Ethics we have something called Utilitarianism. Going to use the most basic form here but Utility basically states;
"..that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes Utility, usually defined as maximizing total benefit and reducing suffering or the negatives."
To have a football and rugby club playing in one stadium instead of just one football club fits this criteria, that it is the proper course of action to be taken, because it is maximising the enjoyment of people living in the local society.
However, from my understanding of the Telegragh article it says, "...had a seriously damaging effect on the club."
To give you good people a working anology of the problem of Utilitarianism, imagine a society of two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Utility states that it would be okay for the wolves in the society to eat the sheep because there are more wolves in the society then sheep. This is obviously okay for the wolves but could lead to a problem for the sheep.
So we have some safeguards in society that are built in to protect rights and these are with the European Court of Human Rights which protects the individual rights against the state and stops Utility from undermining the well being of a society. A well known case for this was Marper and the DNA Database where Utility went crazy under the last Labour Government.
From what I am reading here, and of course I could be wrong, but are SISU asking for the same Human Rights that protects the Individual from society to now protect Business's as well.
I do not understand the argument from SISU here. The council (however useless they are) have followed the rules of Utility. There are no protections for business's like there are for the individual.
The argument is a non-starter.
I think you could reframe the utility argument a number of different ways here to come up with the opposite conclusion. Consider the utility of the disenfranchised Wasps fans, the utility of franchising in general, the fact that if CCFC fold or leave it will be measurably worse for the city,
Regardless of all that though, court cases aren't decided on philosophical arguments, they are decided on points of law. I've not read the basis for this specific case yet, but if it relates to maximising return for a public asset then I could see how there might be a case to answer. The club were clearly kept out of the matter, in effect the council didn't open a bidding process but sold secretly to a buyer of their choosing. I don't much care for that, but whether it is legal or not is a different matter.
I think you could reframe the utility argument a number of different ways here to come up with the opposite conclusion. Consider the utility of the disenfranchised Wasps fans, the utility of franchising in general, the fact that if CCFC fold or leave it will be measurably worse for the city,
Regardless of all that though, court cases aren't decided on philosophical arguments, they are decided on points of law. I've not read the basis for this specific case yet, but if it relates to maximising return for a public asset then I could see how there might be a case to answer. The club were clearly kept out of the matter, in effect the council didn't open a bidding process but sold secretly to a buyer of their choosing. I don't much care for that, but whether it is legal or not is a different matter.
Or.
If they'd put the time, devotion and money into the W's method to aquire the Ricoh as they have into their own fruitless method of distress and litigation we'd probably own the Ricoh by now. Well SISU would.
It's just a business decision.
There were 2 potential buyers.
One that wanted it for nothing the other made an offer.
Why go to court ? It's futile.
I don't think either of us are best placed to decide on the legal merits of this case. You're welcome to your opinion, but if there is wrongdoing to be exposed I'd rather know about it personally.
As to there being two potential buyers, the council clearly went out of their way to make sure there was only one potential buyer at the point they sold to Wasps. They told the other potential buyer, SISU, that time was needed to rebuild trust whilst selling secretly to the other party. The legal case is one thing, but let's not allow opinions to get in the way of the facts here, even if some find them inconvenient.
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?