By your definition, 99.99% of governments don't have a mandate to deal with the things that they actually do!
I don't think they would-they just didn't want to go into administration as they were told that would be the end of the club. It was an "anybody!" situation. That's really not the same as approving or even championing them. And in any case, the majority weren't qualified to comment until they'd experienced the wild adrenalin ride of actually being owned by a private equity firm.
That depends, it seems to me that it's useless to be able to spend masses on your squad under FFP if you've not got the money to spend.
You were suggesting that the Ricoh arena had nothing to do with CCC, which is clearly absurd.How did your post relate to my post in any way? It came from nowhere and as I said, has nothing to do with my post.
That is a non answer. FPP rules are capped as a percentage of revenues James so regardless of your personal view on football expenditure which is likely to offer greater revenue -- the arrangement proposed by our council or the arrangement given by Doncaster's council.
You were suggesting that the Ricoh arena had nothing to do with CCC, which is clearly absurd.
You should have said "electoral mandate" since the word mandate can mean "authority to act concerning"No I wasn't, I said the CCC had no mandate - from the electorate, and the phrase 'elected representatives' is used to purify ACL - to make decisions on the RICOH.
Not really. A party voted in on it's manifesto, no matter how vague it is, has a mandate to make changes to the constitution, economy etc. but Labour weren't voted on any promises to do with the RICOH, so this 'elected body' nonsense doesn't hold much weight in this scenario.
Anyway, careerist politicians can be just as bad 'Mayfair hedge funds'. - I wouldn't want neither dealing with the RICOH, but that's what we've dealt.
Maybe, but the latter is under much greater public scrutiny than the former, and cannot move away.One chases the pound the other chases the vote. Both as bad as each other and equally as corrupt.
Are they though? They may claim to be,but recent history would hardly bare that out.3 MP's in the last parliament ended up in prison for fiddling their expenses.God knows how Margaret Moran escaped a custodial sentence,Dennis Mcshane had to resign indisgrace recently,and there are many more MP's of all parties that could easily have gone to prison.Totally missed my point, as per usual, which was about accountability and transparency. Publicly elected officials are far more altruistic than a private equity firm whose only loyalty is to money and profit. Anyone who claims to be a Socialist should at least comprehend that-ideologically, you are entirely opposed to the very existence of private equity :thinking about: :thinking about: :thinking about: :thinking about: :thinking about:
Maybe, but the latter is under much greater public scrutiny than the former, and cannot move away.
Maybe, but the latter is under much greater public scrutiny than the former, and cannot move away.
Southampton preferred administration in fact.
Its my view that the council should have nothing to do with a football club. They should be completey independant from one another. The only link should be the city/town they both find themselves in.
A well run football club should own its stadium and have money set aside for when needed.
CCFC have niether. The council have thier own agenda for the ricoh as they contributed when CCFC couldnt. Now its a tangled mess.
The day CCFC sold the ground they OWED, has led to where we are now.
Its CCFCs fault 100%.
Now the real question is who was on the board amd who was chairman at the time?
They have some serious questions to answer for this mess today!
The council shouldn't be there to bolster incompetent owners. I don't even think they should actively be seen to support football teams. Why not ballot council tax payers and ask if their money should go to CCFC, but then again we all know what the answer will be.
You could argue the cost per household would be a lot less than what we pay for a Fire Service or Royal Family, but I can see an advantage in having those....
The council shouldn't be there to bolster incompetent owners. I don't even think they should actively be seen to support football teams. Why not ballot council tax payers and ask if their money should go to CCFC, but then again we all know what the answer will be.
You could argue the cost per household would be a lot less than what we pay for a Fire Service or Royal Family, but I can see an advantage in having those....
What about the revenue from tourism that the Royal family bring...? And as for Tesco's, they paid a fair market rate for commercial land that could have gone to a rival or stayed as wasteland. You dont hear of them refusing to pay rent and still not agreeing to a debt payment over 10 years and rent at a third of what it was, unlike their neighbours...
And they just have to say "sorry, I made an error of judgement" and then carry on as normal.
Who can say who the right owners and people are though?
Five years ago the overwhelming majority would have said that Sisu were.
Hedge funds generally - and those like SISU in particular - do not belong in football as owners.
What about the revenue from tourism that the Royal family bring...? .
Some of us were against SISU before they even got the club. Due Diligence online and court documents highlighted their nasty business practices. Demanding everyone's shares for nothing confirmed for me that they intended to continue using their standard operating procedure with our club. Everything they have done since taking over the club has confirmed the worst fears.
Hedge funds generally - and those like SISU in particular - do not belong in football as owners.
I have never accepted that SISU "saved" us. I am quite confident that there were potential buyers waiting in the wings for us to go into administration. SISU did not save us, they are killing us.
Some of us were, but as I said the vast majority weren't despite some people trying to rewrite history.
Do you know what mandate means?
I have never accepted that SISU "saved" us. I am quite confident that there were potential buyers waiting in the wings for us to go into administration. SISU did not save us, they are killing us.
Mmm...so I wonder why SISU were the Council's "preferred" bidder then? Obviously they did as much due diligence on SISU as SISU did on Coventry City!
As for the "they saved us" bit. I would imagine people need to be careful then when new owners come in as they will get inundated with "I told you so's" if it all goes pear shaped.
They were the only ones crazy enough to bid before administration. Most rationale business people would have waited a day or two.
Who did the council prefer them over at the time?
They were the only ones crazy enough to bid before administration. Most rationale business people would have waited a day or two.
Who did the council prefer them over at the time?
SBK is usually happy to tell us of all the other bidders waiting in the wings. Still doesn't explain why CCC CHOSE SISU though.
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?