Investment rumour. (2 Viewers)

Deleted member 5849 · May 24, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
And the ironic perversity being that those few who went to Sixfields, and were the most vocal in complaint whenever they were given a name, are now some of the first in the queue to name-call or categorise others now things haven't quite worked out...

If you're going for predictions, this is kind of the almost inevitable consequence of that time though, the resentment won't heal easily. As then, though, won't necessarily help the football club if we all stop going as much because we split ourselves as anything else.

Agree with whoever said it earlier mind, not sure it's helpful to categorise people (well, bar RFC and intheknow worth noting that RFC may be a mentalist, but tends not to call posters cocks in return?).

We're going round the same circles aren't we. Can't even remember what thread this is on, or what the OP was anymore!

Astute · May 24, 2015

CCFC said:
No as usual it is not aimed at you, it was a response to MMM.

However do you believe that she is that incompetent that she made statement to the media without checking her facts?

The balance of probability is that she knew she was deceiving the public when she made that statement.

So she should have gone through the accounts herself to make sure what she was led to believe is true? Would she even have understood them?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · May 24, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
If you're going for predictions, this is kind of the almost inevitable consequence of that time though, the resentment won't heal easily. As then, though, won't necessarily help the football club if we all stop going as much because we split ourselves as anything else.

Agree with whoever said it earlier mind, not sure it's helpful to categorise people (well, bar RFC and intheknow worth noting that RFC may be a mentalist, but tends not to call posters cocks in return?).

We're going round the same circles aren't we. Can't even remember what thread this is on, or what the OP was anymore!

I wouldn't disagree with that. But if you look back at my entry to the debate, it was only because I was personally named with a cluster of 'like minded' people by one poster, and in response, I articulated my stance without favour to any party in this farce (post #349 should you wish to refer).

Met with the comment that I had 'reaffirmed' a view....

SkyBlue_Bear83 · May 24, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
You clearly used the word 'reaffirmed' with regards comments on here.

That's why I asked to to tell me why it 'reaffirmed' your view. By default, therefore, any provocation has to be recent. Hence reaffirming.

Or are you saying you didn't mean reaffirm, you simply meant you still held the view you always had without any new material. Which is okay. But it's different to 'reaffirming'

I obviously misconstrued the meaning of absolutely anything whatsoever, like I said totally my fault.

Yes your response failed to convince me that my claim was incorrect, which in turn convinces me more that my claim is correct. That is what I meant when I said reaffirmed, if that is something different to you then that is something different.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · May 24, 2015

CCFC said:
I obviously misconstrued the meaning of absolutely anything whatsoever, like I said totally my fault.

Yes your response failed to convince me that my claim was incorrect, which in turn convinces me more that my claim is correct. That is what I meant when I said reaffirmed, if that is something different to you then that is something different.

So, and as I asked, if you refer back to #349; what 'reaffirmed' your view?

If you want to try preaching sarcasm from the high-horse; best to at least try and find the horse first....

Deleted member 5849 · May 24, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I wouldn't disagree with that. But if you look back at my entry to the debate, it was only because I was personally named with a cluster of 'like minded' people by one poster, and in response, I articulated my stance without favour to any party in this farce.

Met with the comment that I had 'reaffirmed' a view....

Having had to point out long ago that I don't, actually, love SISU, then I am empathising

Can't remember who else he namechecked who hasn't read the thread yet, but suspect this could go on a while...

SkyBlue_Bear83 · May 24, 2015

Astute said:
So she should have gone through the accounts herself to make sure what she was led to believe is true? Would she even have understood them?

Come off it, you believe its possible that ACL lied to her and allowed her to make false statements without any consequences when the truth came out.

Like I said, the balance of probability says she knew.

italiahorse · May 24, 2015

Astute said:
Is this aimed at me as usual?

Some say that they know she lied. They don't. There are 4 choices. She lied. The person that told her lied. The person that told her didn't know the facts. There was a mistake made on the accounts.

But yes it goes with what some want to believe so she lied.

Or, she stretched the truth in the hope that Sisu believe that staying at Northampton was fruitless and they bought CCFC home.
Almost certainly if Sisu new ACL were floundering they would have hung them out to dry.
We then get involved in the morals of Sisu getting hold of the Ricoh at the expense of the tax payer.
In that situation did CCC crack and sell out to Wasps ? After all there are more rate payers than CCFC fans.

ccfc92 · May 24, 2015

So are we getting investment or....?

SkyBlue_Bear83 · May 24, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
So, and as I asked, if you refer back to #349; what 'reaffirmed' your view?

If you want to try preaching sarcasm from the high-horse; best to at least try and find the horse first....

It was your lack of a reasonable argument to dispute my claim, you just started babbling on about how you care about the club which I never questioned. Your response barely even addressed the points I had made, the closest you came to addressing the point was saying you don't support CCC.

Lets go back to what I first said
CCFC
No, most of them rightly blame SISU. Of these people some of them can also see CCC have acted inappropriately in this whole saga, the rest can not see this.

Astute
Only some?

I have been accused several times of being a CCC lover. That is after countless times of saying what CCC did wrong. The main reason for this is being vocal against SISU. And I defend SISU when I see them as not being at fault for something. But all this is forgotten once I make a comment some don't agree with and I become a CCC lover again.

CCFC
You can go into the some category if you like?

The main culprits on here that spring to mind are italia, dongonzalos, MMM, Jack Griffin and The Gentleman. + more but these seem to be the most frequent.

Apologies to any of the above if you disagree and are offended.

I put you in the category of people who can not see or acknowledge the faults of CCC through all this, despite all of your posts and big words over the last few hours you have yet to put across the argument that convinces me I was wrong to categorise you like this.

Deleted member 5849 · May 24, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Do you know what that says about the psychology of our on-forum dynamic?

That fate will draw you together as a couple, married within the year?

SkyBlue_Bear83 · May 24, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
Having had to point out long ago that I don't, actually, love SISU, then I am empathising

Can't remember who else he namechecked who hasn't read the thread yet, but suspect this could go on a while...

Deleted member 5849 · May 24, 2015

Otis said:
I do wonder when this nonsense will finally run its course and we can move on and talk about something else.

When Arena 2020 opens...

Mary_Mungo_Midge · May 24, 2015

CCFC said:
It was your lack of a reasonable argument to dispute my claim, you just started babbling on about how you care about the club which I never questioned. Your response barely even addressed the points I had made, the closest you came to addressing the point was saying you don't support CCC.

Lets go back to what I first said
CCFC
No, most of them rightly blame SISU. Of these people some of them can also see CCC have acted inappropriately in this whole saga, the rest can not see this.

Astute
Only some?

I have been accused several times of being a CCC lover. That is after countless times of saying what CCC did wrong. The main reason for this is being vocal against SISU. And I defend SISU when I see them as not being at fault for something. But all this is forgotten once I make a comment some don't agree with and I become a CCC lover again.

CCFC
You can go into the some category if you like?

The main culprits on here that spring to mind are italia, dongonzalos, MMM, Jack Griffin and The Gentleman. + more but these seem to be the most frequent.

Apologies to any of the above if you disagree and are offended.

I put you in the category of people who can not see or acknowledge the faults of CCC through all this, despite all of your posts and big words over the last few hours you have yet to put across the argument that convinces me I was wrong to categorise you like this.

No; you accuse me of being a 'culprit' (I presume of being in the 'rest' who 'can not see this' - 'this' being that CCC are cuplable of a hand in this mess).

So, in effect you accuse me of being myopic and only blaming SISU, and seeing no ill in the council.

I post #349, which precisely explains my position, and you tell us your view is 'reaffirmed'.

I'll ask you yet again, as you seem to be struggling, what have I stated that has 'reaffirmed' your prejudice?

Otis · May 24, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
No; you accuse me of being a 'culprit' (I presume of being in the 'rest' who 'can not see this' - 'this' being that CCC are cuplable of a hand in this mess).

So, in effect you accuse me of being myopic and only blaming SISU, and seeing no ill in the council.

I post #349, which precisely explains my position, and you tell us your view is 'reaffirmed'.

I'll ask you yet again, as you seem to be struggling, what have I stated that has 'reaffirmed' your prejudice?

After this thread finally runs its course, I think I'll end up back in the re-affirmary.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · May 24, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
No; you accuse me of being a 'culprit' (I presume of being in the 'rest' who 'can not see this' - 'this' being that CCC are cuplable of a hand in this mess).

So, in effect you accuse me of being myopic and only blaming SISU, and seeing no ill in the council.

I post #349, which precisely explains my position, and you tell us your view is 'reaffirmed'.

I'll ask you yet again, as you seem to be struggling, what have I stated that has 'reaffirmed' your prejudice?

Yes that is right, I accuse you of only blaming SISU and seeing no ill in the council. You have said nothing in post #349 that convinces me otherwise, which is what reaffirms my view that I am correct. Its not what you have said, but that you have failed to come up with a reasonable response that reaffirmed my view.

Your post #349 is poor, you spend most of it talking about how you care about the club which I never questioned. Nowhere do you say, actually I believe the council were wrong there, or they could have dealt with that better, I've blamed CCC for this, this and this in the past. The only party you have attributed blame to in your post is SISU where you say the actions of the clubs owners have taken the club too place I now feel disassociated from

Go and check out Astute response in post #342, now assuming he is telling the truth that there is a proper defence of his position. You've just deflected and avoided.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · May 24, 2015

CCFC said:
Yes that is right, I accuse you of only blaming SISU and seeing no ill in the council. You have said nothing in post #349 that convinces me otherwise, which is what reaffirms my view that I am correct.

Your post #349 is poor, you spend most of it talking about how you care about the club which I never questioned. Nowhere do you say, actually I believe the council were wrong there, or they could have dealt with that better, I've blamed CCC for this, this and this in the past. The only party you have attributed blame to in your post is SISU where you say the actions of the clubs owners have taken the club too place I now feel disassociated from

Go and check out Astute response in post #342, now assuming he is telling the truth that there is a proper defence of his position. You've just deflected and avoided.

Then you don't have a 'view'; you have prejudice. That's all I need to know

SkyBlue_Bear83 · May 24, 2015

Ok and I am right, thats what I already knew. :wave:

I've based my view on reading your posts on here over the last few years and you've failed to disprove it.

Huckerby · May 24, 2015

what the 40 pages is going on here then

was expecting some oligarch to have bought us out

Deleted member 5849 · May 24, 2015

Huckerby said:
what the 40 pages is going on here then

was expecting some oligarch to have bought us out

Samo and MMM are lovers, they're selling the exclusive film rights to CCFC, who's going to use the cash to enter into a consortium with Italia and Jack Griffin to buy the club.

skybluetony176 · May 24, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
When Arena 2020 opens...

Naaa. It will be called something else by then having been bailed out by RBC.

ccfc92 · May 24, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
Naaa. It will be called something else by then having been bailed out by RBC.

"And the love kickstarts again...."

Astute · May 24, 2015

CCFC said:
Yes that is right, I accuse you of only blaming SISU and seeing no ill in the council. You have said nothing in post #349 that convinces me otherwise, which is what reaffirms my view that I am correct. Its not what you have said, but that you have failed to come up with a reasonable response that reaffirmed my view.

Your post #349 is poor, you spend most of it talking about how you care about the club which I never questioned. Nowhere do you say, actually I believe the council were wrong there, or they could have dealt with that better, I've blamed CCC for this, this and this in the past. The only party you have attributed blame to in your post is SISU where you say the actions of the clubs owners have taken the club too place I now feel disassociated from

Go and check out Astute response in post #342, now assuming he is telling the truth that there is a proper defence of his position. You've just deflected and avoided.

What I said is that you don't know for sure but say you do. What I say is we don't know anything for sure. I have not said she is innocent. You know innocent until proven guilty doesn't even come into it.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · May 24, 2015

Astute said:
What I said is that you don't know for sure but say you do. What I say is we don't know anything for sure. I have not said she is innocent. You know innocent until proven guilty doesn't even come into it.

No I can't say with 100% certainty, however its an easy cop out just to avoid it all together then. On the balance of probability she knew. You could offer the same defence of the lies Fisher/Waggot and Labovitch have told and you'd be laughed at and ridiculed.

italiahorse · May 24, 2015

CCFC said:
No I can't say with 100% certainty, however its an easy cop out just to avoid it all together then. On the balance of probability she knew. You could offer the same defence of the lies Fisher/Waggot and Labovitch have told and you'd be laughed at and ridiculed.

Obviously she was not telling the whole truth.
She was fighting a Sisu hostile takeover so why play into their hands.
You are a little naive to think she would do any different.

To be honest you are looking at it with your CCFC heart rather than your head.
It's always been out of us fans hands.

chiefdave · May 24, 2015

Astute said:
Some say that they know she lied. They don't. There are 4 choices. She lied. The person that told her lied. The person that told her didn't know the facts. There was a mistake made on the accounts.

I think this is a bigger issue than people realise. Fishers stance pretty much from the day he turned up was that ACL were over reliant on CCFC paying an unaffordable rent. This was ridiculed by many on here, including myself as ACL, CCC and Higgs (often via PWKH posting on here) told us ACL were doing fantastically. How different would things be if the first time SISU and ACL / CCC / Higgs spoke the truth was told rather than this 'we don't need you' rubbish?

Our own council and a children's charity wouldn't systematically lie to us over a period of several years would they? I assumed they wouldn't and took a stance based on that.

I don't really understand why more people don't have an issue with the council and Higgs over this. Look at Astutes 4 choices: Lucas lied - surely she shouldn't get a free pass if that's the case; the person that told her lied - this is what she implied on CWR, presumably referring to Reeves & West, so the question would be what disciplinary action has been taken against them; the person that told her didn't know the facts & there was a mistake on the accounts - find it hard to believe it is either of this, Fisher is generally considered to be useless but spotted this a mile off without the level of access CCC had.

If any of us acted like Lucas has in our jobs and got found out we'd be in all sorts of trouble. Why should it be different at CCC?

Grendel · May 24, 2015

Astute said:
What I said is that you don't know for sure but say you do. What I say is we don't know anything for sure. I have not said she is innocent. You know innocent until proven guilty doesn't even come into it.

To say she needs to look at the accounts is really nonsense.

There are summaries of statements and advisors.

Ultimately politicians are interested in self preservation. One thing that could not be allowed to happen is a default on a loan created by the council.

So we went from Ccfc is only 10% of turnover to ACL is a profitable company to its washing its face in 3 easy breaths. A deal is done behind closed doors with an insistence the details cannot be released to the public.

She knew exactly the situation which is why the chain of events took place as they did.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · May 24, 2015

italiahorse said:
Obviously she was not telling the whole truth.
She was fighting a Sisu hostile takeover so why play into their hands.
You are a little naive to think she would do any different.

To be honest you are looking at it with your CCFC heart rather than your head.
It's always been out of us fans hands.

Yes it is my opinion that she wasn't telling the truth also, some people though still believe she was telling what she thought to be the truth at the time

Astute · May 24, 2015

CCFC said:
No I can't say with 100% certainty, however its an easy cop out just to avoid it all together then. On the balance of probability she knew. You could offer the same defence of the lies Fisher/Waggot and Labovitch have told and you'd be laughed at and ridiculed.

SISU at our club is 3 people. They all know what is going on. There are countless involved at CCC. Like I said I am not defending anyone. But you can't say someone is guilty when there are so many questions unanswered. And that is why I see the latest court action as being a good thing. Hopefully the truth will come out again.

Astute · May 24, 2015

CCFC said:
Yes it is my opinion that she wasn't telling the truth also, some people though still believe she was telling what she thought to be the truth at the time

Who are they? I have said there is doubt. You have admitted so. We all have opinions. They don't make anyone guilty. I have never said she is innocent. But you seem to be reading what you want to read

Grendel · May 24, 2015

Astute said:
Who are they? I have said there is doubt. You have admitted so. We all have opinions. They don't make anyone guilty. I have never said she is innocent. But you seem to be reading what you want to read

Even Italia admits she wasn't as she wasn't.

cloughie · May 24, 2015

Sick Boy said:
Hopefully we will soon here some news on a new ground and some investment and be done with the London rugby club. Hopefully then the Wasps dullards will stop coming on here.

Hilarious, I find it absolutely mind boggling that someone still believes the crap about a new ground, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Fooking Hilarious

SkyBlue_Bear83 · May 24, 2015

Astute said:
SISU at our club is 3 people. They all know what is going on. There are countless involved at CCC. Like I said I am not defending anyone. But you can't say someone is guilty when there are so many questions unanswered. And that is why I see the latest court action as being a good thing. Hopefully the truth will come out again.

Do they really know whats going on though? Or are Fisher and Waggot just trotting out whatever they have been told to say? Maybe when they told us (can't remember who said it) that the site for the new stadium was 3 weeks away they genuinely believed that as that is what they had been told. Maybe when Fisher told us we wouldn't be returning/finished at the Ricoh he was telling what he believed to be the truth at the time because that is what Sepalla had told him.

italiahorse · May 24, 2015

CCFC said:
Do they really know whats going on though? Or are Fisher and Waggot just trotting out whatever they have been told to say? Maybe when they told us (can't remember who said it) that the site for the new stadium was 3 weeks away they genuinely believed that as that is what they had been told. Maybe when Fisher told us we wouldn't be returning/finished at the Ricoh he was telling what he believed to be the truth at the time because that is what Sepalla had told him.

Did you not see the pompous tw@t at the forums?
"Build it and they will come"
He is guilty as charged !!

SkyBlue_Bear83 · May 24, 2015

italiahorse said:
Did you not see the pompous tw@t at the forums?
"Build it and they will come"
He is guilty as charged !!

Yea I don't really believe what I typed there, was just making a point.

Investment rumour. (2 Viewers)

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Huckerby

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency