chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Fletcher loved firing out statements about how bids were 'derisory' or similar terms.
Fletcher loved firing out statements about how bids were 'derisory' or similar terms.the exchange rate was a problem too if i remember rings bells now, just remember the council wont budge comment fletcher said and was the main down fall to the deal!
My point is that it shouldn't really be from any side.
Why is he putting out propaganda like that?
What's the aim?
There is a comprehensive critique about the negative effects the sale of ACL shares by CCC to Wasps would have on CCFC in the middle of the article.All that is going to do is make other parties look blameless and make sure nobody looks their way.
There is a comprehensive critique about the negative effects the sale of ACL by CCC/AEHC to Wasps would have on CCFC in the middle of the article.
If my memory serves me well, I believe The Manhattan Group were interested in late 2007 all the way untill either, the £ v $ exchange rate had plummetted (making the purchase more expensive for the Yanks) and/or in the Oct 2008 when that crash happened?
I don't remember it doing anything to do with CCC disliking them?
City council leader Ken Taylor revealed that two other "derisory" bids had been received from two other firms.
One, called Sisu, had offered #15million.
The other was from a firm called Shapiro, which offered #26million but wanted the club to pay off its debts and the city council to give it a longer lease on the Ricoh Arena and some spare land to the north of the site.
I don't see how failed bids by parties other than SISU have any bearing on the situation today. That after all is all that matters.
Please explain what bearing they have on today's situation then.Of course you wouldn't.
Please explain what bearing they have on today's situation then.
Didn't give a shit, that's your idea of analysing the situation is it. Oh dear.Because it's another situation where the council didn't really give a shit. They have also been a factor in our trouble even pre SISU...
Didn't give a shit, that's your idea of analysing the situation is it. Oh dear.
It's simplifying it because nobody really gives a shit.
Plus im focusing on watching the game in the other window
Putting aside your obvious issue with Mr Johnson and any "previous" you may or may not have had with him, what is it you specifically disagree with in his article.
The reasoning behind it, the way it seems to be trying to re-write history by leaving things out
We know fisher is a prick, it doesn't mean others can't be well.
What has he left out?The reasoning behind it, the way it seems to be trying to re-write history by leaving things out
We know fisher is a prick, it doesn't mean others can't be well.
Any time any other party has bullshitted. It's very selective.What has he left out specifically ?
Not trying to be clever, just an honest question because I thought his piece was fairly well written
Any time any other party has bullshitted. It's very selective.
One example is the butts stuff.
Apart from the bits missed out? That's one example because I looked it up again to see who said what for the other thread a couple of days ago so it's freshHe explains the Butts situation very clearly in my opinion
As I say I think it is a well written article and is very close to both my opinion and recollection of the facts over the last 5 or so years.
Any reason one person has for boycotting games is not material to the argument.Apart from the bits missed out? That's one example because I looked it up again to see who said what for the other thread a couple of days ago so it's fresh
That's why I have used the words selective rather than factually incorrect or made up.
His boycott reason is what's factually incorrect.
Apart from the bits missed out? That's one example because I looked it up again to see who said what for the other thread a couple of days ago so it's fresh
That's why I have used the words selective rather than factually incorrect or made up.
His boycott reason is what's factually incorrect.
I already have about the butts stuff, there are things missed out. I had to explain the same things in the other thread.Any reason one person has for boycotting games is not material to the argument.
Tell me something that is which invalidates or weakens the case made?
I already have about the butts stuff, there are things missed out. I had to explain the same things in the other thread.
It's not material if it's made up though is it? It's pointing out there's an agenda behind it which is why its selective.
Is this where people play the acting dumb game?I don't deny that there is an agenda, in fact I told you where you could find it, it's here Home
It isn't an answer to say it's hard to explain or the explanation is elsewhere, it is evading the question.
Please try to explain or give me references to specific posts that do explain on the other thread are referring to.
So no answer because you have none.Is this where people play the acting dumb game?
I've already given one example of what was being selective as it was discussed a couple of days ago.So no answer because you have none.
Where is this mysterious thread you say explains the omissions you claim are made?I've already given one example of what was being selective as it was discussed a couple of days ago.
Are you saying it isn't being selective with facts?
It was the one that discussed the butts literally days ago. The only mysterious thing about it was Tony also trying to be selective and being corrected then vanishing. Try reading threads properly.Where is this mysterious thread you quoted?
No I don' t think a 12,000 word article is terribly selective, in fact it is very comprehensive.
It was the one that discussed the butts literally days ago. The only mysterious thing about it was Tony also trying to be selective and being corrected. Try reading threads properly.
You do realise it could be 400 thousand words and still be selective?
Where and which posts show you have a point? You are not explaning yourself, just being evasive.
I don't think the Butts matters anymore, Jon Sharp is not going to agree anything while SISU own CCFC and are perceived as unacceptable.
I have said he missed things about regarding the butts situation as one example. I literally went through all the details about it a couple of days ago when Tony strangely missed details too.
Where did I say it was still going to happen?
Why are you trying to play dumb again? Is this the new thing?
If fisher bullshits it's all there in details, if the council do its just "public relations" rather then multiple people being bullshitters.
The people bullshitting should all rightly be called out rather than pretending only one side is at it.
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?