Grendel
Well-Known Member
OMG Jack wants just what the council wants!
The logic of the move to Northampton is that devalues the Arena and any 'independent' valuation as GCBTR proposes has to value a stadium without an anchor tenant as the sale price. But I think there one major reason for SISU to value it higher (ie realistically) the fact that they no longer have to build legoland.
OMG, Rob wants just what SISU wants!
Sorry, I don't understand, either he's been in contact or he hasn't, it's that simple. If he has then the gentleman from the Higgs needs to explain why he says he hasn't, if he hasn't Rob needs to explain why he says he has.i recon there was no direct contact between Rob and ACL/Higgs. A bit like the rent offer through the FL wasn't direct.
Hopefully Rob has now contacted PWKH (he could always send him a PM on here) so they can get together and have a chat. Rob needs the full picture so he can have a full and meaningful manifesto. I think we seen enough from Rob's court reports to know he shoots pretty straight (he seemed to report the facts not conjecture) clearly he just has some loose ends to tidy up.
Sorry, I don't understand, either he's been in contact or he hasn't, it's that simple. If he has then the gentleman from the Higgs needs to explain why he says he hasn't, if he hasn't Rob needs to explain why he says he has.
Not really a loose end is it?
TT I believe Tony was being sarcastic.
It seems like the elephant in the room, and I don't mean sky blue Sam, to me it's fundamental that this question is answered yet no one seems too bothered or not whether it is, everyone's too busy sniping at each other which screws up any real debate.
They guy from Higgs says no, while Rob says yes, which one is being economical with the truth?
He did say the Council/Higgs/ACL side, so both can be correct.
TT I believe Tony was being sarcastic.
Oh right, err ok then.i thought they were all separate entities. My bad.
No. You are completely right.
If Rob S wants to talk about the freehold he needs to talk to CCC. If he wants to talk about rentals or use of the Ricoh he needs to talk to ACL. If it is about a sale and purchase of the shares in ACL then it is CCC or the Higgs Charity.
For the avoidance of doubt he has NOT talked, nor have Reid or Cosgrove talked to the Higgs Charity (or ACL) nor have they sought an opportunity to do so.
Oh right, err ok then.i thought they were all separate entities. My bad.
No. You are completely right.
If Rob S wants to talk about the freehold he needs to talk to CCC. If he wants to talk about rentals or use of the Ricoh he needs to talk to ACL. If it is about a sale and purchase of the shares in ACL then it is CCC or the Higgs Charity.
For the avoidance of doubt he has NOT talked, nor have Reid or Cosgrove talked to the Higgs Charity (or ACL) nor have they sought an opportunity to do so.
They can indeed be.
It doesn't stop both of them being correct.
"We've spoken to all sides in this and will continue to do so, so yes to talking to people from the Sisu side. And the Council/Higgs/ACL side. And a few other sides too".
Nobody from this campaign has spoken to Higgs (or ACL). No request for a meeting has been received yet.
So, Rob can be correct providing you ignore the Higgs/ACL part of his quote?
Anyway, the answers should be coming up sharp-ish I'd hope
Assuming Rob hasn't done a bunk this does show a slight problem for the campaign. They need to be able to react and respond quickly when there are any questions or issues such as this. If they can't then the rumour mill will go into overdrive and people will draw their own conclusions.
Assuming Rob hasn't done a bunk this does show a slight problem for the campaign. They need to be able to react and respond quickly when there are any questions or issues such as this. If they can't then the rumour mill will go into overdrive and people will draw their own conclusions.
Rob S said in post #80:
"We've spoken to all sides in this and will continue to do so, so yes to talking to people from the Sisu side. And the Council/Higgs/ACL side. And a few other sides too".
Nobody from this campaign has spoken to Higgs (or ACL). No request for a meeting has been received yet.
isn't that the nature of the internet though ...... people expect instant replies and jump to conclusions when they don't get
there are a lot of questions unanswered, and what look like contradictions.......... character assassination is uncalled for I think.
Surely you have to accept that anyone here posts things out on the basis that they think they are doing the right thing......
it might not agree with what you or I believe/think, but does it have to?
I think it is only right to wait for his reply or for events to unwind
I had no idea that was you. Indeed I saw you sitting with Les Reid for the first two days in Court and passed the time of day with you. I saw you outside the Court in the Lock, Stock and Barrel and compared with you the ales on offer with our local East Sussex ale from Harveys of Lewes and asked if that was what you drank at home in Brighton. I did indeed talk about the work of the Charity. If this is classed as "talking with all sides" I would hope everyone would be polite and behave properly. To suggest that any of it was meaningful discussion about the sale and purchase of the Higgs Charity shares is fanciful. Paul didn't mention it, but why ask him to arrange a meeting when you could have asked either the Chair of the Charity or me, the Clerk.
At a slight tangent, a question for dongonzalos:
You said that you were in the High Court. Do you want to say who you are and your relation to all of this?
What's your agenda? Eh?
Time to jump in…I was hoping for a couple of days off TBH
I've got nine pages to catch up on and no time to do that until the morning but I'll clear up what seems to be the burning question. (my emphasis added)
I've had conversations with both Paul Harris & Peter and when I spoke to Paul I said I would get in touch to see if we could arrange a meeting although I haven't had a chance to follow up on that yet.
Peter: I was sitting behind you in court and we spoke twice. Once about what could be done to sort out the situation and later on when you spoke, very passionately, about the work and aims of the charity aside from this saga.
At a slight tangent, a question for dongonzalos:
You said that you were in the High Court. Do you want to say who you are and your relation to all of this?
Unfortunately I'm in the cinema now so I'll catch up in everything in the morning and happy to fill in any gaps.
BTW, for anyone trying to spin it another way, "spoken to" = anything from an official minutes council meeting to a telephone conversation and anything in between.
Nothing underhand in a small part of a comment but interesting to see how it has been picked up on. Welcome to politics I guess. I knew we'd be getting backs up at the council
Unfortunately I'm in the cinema now so I'll catch up in everything in the morning and happy to fill in any gaps.
BTW, for anyone trying to spin it another way, "spoken to" = anything from an official minutes council meeting to a telephone conversation and anything in between.
Nothing underhand in a small part of a comment but interesting to see how it has been picked up on. Welcome to politics I guess. I knew we'd be getting backs up at 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?