covcity4life
Well-Known Member
i have never said this is a 100% council issue.ever
you are making stuff up and getting angry about it lol. shape up kid.
Where's the 37.2 million gone? ?
Have the council had it?
Maybe lucas has spent it on cigarettes?
I'd like the resident troll to answer or can't you?
Go on be honest,you can't can you.
i have never said this is a 100% council issue.ever
you are making stuff up and getting angry about it lol. shape up kid.
You said the councils been feeding of the carcass. You appoint blame totally on ccc. Ive never seen you slag the owners off.
Where's the 37.2 million gone?
i would imagine if we get back home people will remember CCFC and forget SISU hopefully. if they stump up cash for players that is. have backed recent managers, lets hope that continues.
that's the real problem. Because the leadership strategy changed so much it's hard to tell what's genuine and what's part of the plan. I've said before the football strategy under fisher is far better than we've had in recent years, but people inevitably link it to the ground move and the other crap. I hope it remains once all this is over, but i've got a nagging doubt that once they get the ricoh they'll take off their mask and mwahahaha all over us.
i'd also add that i think even with the current football strategy, there's an awful lot more than could be done to attract fans and improve the matchday experience.
i have agreed with you many times that it is worrying and indicative of a bad set up for the fans.
- what seems to me to be the difficult bit is the sale of the ricoh to sisu. I'm not an expert but people who know more about these things have said the council would by law be required to put any sale out to competitive tender (not sure if that's the right phrase). Can anyone shed light on the facts of this and then I can say a bit more on a possible way forward (being able to sell direct to sisu or having to invite offers from any interested party presents 2 very different scenarios).
This is the type of post that really irritates me. Telling someone else what their opinion is.
Hi Michael.
1. Most fans want us back at the Ricoh asap - obviously yes.
2. Comments from players like Wilson make it clear they want to be back at the Ricoh too - you would hope so. Who wants to play in front of non league size crowds?
3. The last offer made by ACL was shown by Clive Eakin to be financially beneficial to the club compared with being at NTFC - I live in Yorkshire so don't often get to listen to CWR these days, however, anyone with an ounce of common sense could see it would be better financially to be at the Ricoh on any deal (assuming we maintain same crowds as before we moved out).
4. It would be good for fans, players and club finances to return to the ricoh even on a short-term rental deal - that's an obvious yes.
5. The sides could then take as long as needed for a long-term agreement without the damage being done by being at NTFC - within reason, yes.
6. The process is therefore for sisu to say we will return on the basis of the last ACL offer - if only they would. Can't see it though.
7. If ACL then renege on that deal all fire is aimed at them - not necessarily. Would need to understand the reasoning.
No-one really disagrees with you on what should happen Michael. This is what you don't seem to understand. No-one is pro sisu or anti ACL. What I believe is that pressure needs to be applied to both sides. Both need to be more flexible and communicate better. The problem is that both sides are stubborn and it seems to be personal. To be honest I think sisu have always been delaying until the JR has been heard.
So you're willing to be led from the frying pan into the fire in the hope that it's not hotter. Wow.
death by frying pan dont seem all that great either.
I think a deal could be done without selling the Ricoh.
If CCFC took over the running of acl and had a long (125 year) lease. They would get all monies generated by the Ricoh and get someone in who can run the stadium properly
A 125 yr lease Is too long ,the stadiums lifespan Is 90-100 yrs max .
Interesting. I hadn't thought of that. I wonder what the difference in value added is between the two lengths.
Apologies, it must have been the line "Walsall’s Banks’s Stadium is the most likely temporary home for the Sky Blues but that move and the relocation to the planned new stadium need League approval." that confused me.
A 125 yr lease Is too long ,the stadiums lifespan Is 90-100 yrs max .
LOL, that is the point of the term proposed.. effectively a freehold.
And now, my responses will be picked apart and analysed and thrown back in my face. It's only a matter on time. As Moff said singling people out isn't too surprising as you don't want to understand anyone else's opinion you just want to get the people who disagree to chant "Way to go, Michael". I ain't gonna do it. I have my opinions on the matter. You just blindly chanting "It's SISU!, it's SISU!" also isn't "particularly helpful".
Just started looking at this thread as been at work all day.
Know the feeling about having your posts picked apart, analysed and then thrown back in your face. Certain posters do it to me all the time, but recently you have been about the worse at it
Really? Tell me who they are and I'll get 'em.
I think someone must have started a poll about him or called him a silly name thinking its a clever play on words. Has happened to other posters apparantly.
Everyones entitled to their own opinion (lol..how many times is that stuck at the front of a sentence to try and stifle reactions), but I just keep thinking something more and more recently. Grendel said (about 10 pages of bullshit ago) something along the lines of the views of people outside of this forum lean more against the councils actions in this whole fiasco.
I just can't help but think that SISU's plan is working. Take the club out of the city, effectively holding it ransom until they get the stadium on the cheap, and stick to your guns. The fans will get more and more pissed off, try a load of protests, we won't budge a fucking millimetre, and when they succumb to the fact that nothing they do is going to change a thing as far as our position is concerned...sooner or later they will turn against the entity in this stand off that is more likely to be pressured into doing something they don't want to - the council.
Not saying the council are innocent in this, and let's be honest what the fuck do I know I try to catch a glimpse of any threads that vaguely resemble some fresh content once every few days. Maybe SISU aren't such a corrupt bunch of fuck heads and maybe this isn't their plan...but imagine if it was? Would appear to be working wouldn't it.
What a web of crap. The only thing we know for sure is who are the victims here. Sad times.
- acl could be asked to set out in detail the last offer and confirm it's still on the table-helpful
- who should make the first move? If acl state clearly the offer that's on the table does that suffice or is more needed?-suffice
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?