Private Eye (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
Skybluechick
New Member
@lesreidpolitics put it on his time line yesterday
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Imagine it's not pro-council, as Council Jack hasn't posted it up yet.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Trebles all round!
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
No, wasn't it another one of the thick idiots from TOWIE? The only error I can see in the whole piece.
if thats the only error you can see you aren't worth conversing with, you lack any ability to look at something reasonably, still as the author of one of the most biased and misleading posts on the forum (the bullet points of the story so far) it's hardly a surprise.
The vast majority of that article is biased, misleading and in many cases just outright false.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Really?
Why not "bullet point" yourself, show me why I should love Ann as much as you. Make me see the error of my ways.
Why not "bullet point" yourself, show me why I should love Ann as much as you. Make me see the error of my ways.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Yeah, Private Eye, tool of the establishment, easily bought off for money or favours.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
I'm especially looking forward to the "outright false". I desperately hope it's the £5.5M figure.
Nick
Administrator
Sounds like most of the stuff coming out of councillor's mouths when they go on about how it is just down to the club to buy the higgs share and it is all up to the club now.
While I can see the article doesn't like the council much, what is false about the facts stated? I am not saying it is all correct, just asking what is wrong?
spend hours making a bullet point story so far in order to try to convince someone who has gotten more and more set in their ways as the evidence has mounted to the contrary? why would anyone do that? you arn't capable of being reasonable, you arn't capable of looking at a situation on it's merits. You can start by reading the JR transcripts, the fact you already know what they say but if anything they strengthed your resolve says everything.
I've said till I'm blue in the face that I don't like the council.
Or are you asking me to bullet point the private eye article? I'm not going to do that either, but if you'd like another example of its inaccuracy, how about that it says the Ricoh's only major event was the streaking contest which what what a few hundred people attending? rather than talking about events like the Insomnia gaming festival or the Outbreak festival that had about 50k attendance between them.
Last edited:
what? I never accused them of being bought off.
I said the article is biased, misleading and in many cases is outright false and it is.
Thinking whoever wrote the article is a terrible journalist and a biased idiot isn't not accusing them of being bought off.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Ah, I get it. So it's misleading, outright false, etc but you're not going to tell us why.
OK, nudge nudge wink wink, I believe you.
OK, nudge nudge wink wink, I believe you.
I already gave you another example in the previous post that you seem to have conveniently skipped by. Again you show you only take in the information that supports your view and dismiss everything else, you aren't worth the effort.
Edit - Will add it here again for you since it's hidden away 1 post above the post you responded too, "but if you'd like another example of its inaccuracy, how about that it says the Ricoh's only major event was the streaking contest which what what a few hundred people attending? rather than talking about events like the Insomnia gaming festival or the Outbreak festival that had about 50k attendance between them."
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
No, I got that. They missed an event. The important stuff is the breathtaking hypocrisy? False? The private vote. False? Or the pathetic amount paid. False? Surely, every City fan wants to know the answers to questions over the 250 lease too?
duffer
Well-Known Member
I can see the point about the 'streaking contest' - clearly the Ricoh had done other, better business than that. Which presumably is why Ann Lucas had described ACL as profitable and sustainable right up until the point that the Wasps franchise offer came along, at which point it turned out that the Ricoh was just 'washing its face'.
The hypocrisy point made against the council regarding franchising is undeniable here - bad for CCFC, good for Wasps, apparently.
There's also an issue of honesty with regard to how profitable the Ricoh was - again this shifted remarkably when it suited the council to push for the Wasps deal, from when they stood against SISU via the bailout.
I'm not for a moment saying SISU were right to do what they did - but the premise of the Private Eye thing isn't far off either, imho.
The way the council have handled this stinks, and more than of just hypocrisy, there's a strong whiff of dishonesty here too, imho.
The hypocrisy point made against the council regarding franchising is undeniable here - bad for CCFC, good for Wasps, apparently.
There's also an issue of honesty with regard to how profitable the Ricoh was - again this shifted remarkably when it suited the council to push for the Wasps deal, from when they stood against SISU via the bailout.
I'm not for a moment saying SISU were right to do what they did - but the premise of the Private Eye thing isn't far off either, imho.
The way the council have handled this stinks, and more than of just hypocrisy, there's a strong whiff of dishonesty here too, imho.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Could have been written by TF himself and as expected latched on by the usual few Council haters.
Sisu are assert strippers sums exactly how we have got where we are today.
It's done and people need to get over it.
It feels good business to me and local businesses are recovering already with more business to come.
Sisu are assert strippers sums exactly how we have got where we are today.
It's done and people need to get over it.
It feels good business to me and local businesses are recovering already with more business to come.
Nick
Administrator
What makes it good business? Not having a go, just asking.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Again, totally glossing over the hypocrisy. £5.5M for a 250 year lease good business?
bezzer
Well-Known Member
So pleased to hear you're happy with this.
Local businesses recovering? Who? How? Enlighten us.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
At a very quick glance the "£14.4m council tax payers bail out" was a loan from central goverment and as SISU lost the JR and are paying CCC's legal fees i doubt the council tax payer is. SISU coulnd't provide proof of funds for £ 5.5M and instead offered £ 2M and as part of that deal SISU wouldn't have taken the councils loan completely as there was no council loan at this time, the debt was too the Yorkshire bank.
Apart from that I'm sure its bang on.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Again, not a word on the hypocrisy or whether £5.5M for a 250 year lease is good value for the taxpayer. What is that, 20K a year?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Can't comment as no one has seen the full deal yet. I thought it was in the realms of £30M into CCC coffers?. Still don't believe that CCC won't get an income from leasing the stadium as people keep touting, but we shall see when it's revealed.
As for good business I'm talking about the stadium and other businesses in surrounding areas will benefit from this. Just wish Ccfc could/would buy into the stadium to give us the future we want.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Pubs, clubs, casino, Sky blue megastore, private car parks, batch bars, ACL, fast food outlets etc etc
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
You asked to point out the factual errors so i answered. Good effort changing the subject though, Grendull will be proud. I guess that means you can't disagree with what I've pointed out so I suppose at least we agree that there is some factual errors.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The council evening telegraph reported £30 million which went to £20 million the next day and that included the loan so this just confirms what the telegraph said.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
The article says a sale to SISU was ruled out - Higgs turned down a £2m offer for their shares, have other offers been turned down, or indeed ruled out?
No mention of the reduced rental offers, maybe they were short of space for the article.
What taxpayers money was thrown at strengthening the Councils grip?
The loan wasn't Council taxpayers money.
Legal costs, no mention of why were they required, and what the outcome of the court action was.
Bigger major events that I read about were the gaming convention, the Jehovah Witnesses, and that's ignoring the football matches obviously.
Ainsworth's £30m valuation, was that for ACL or the stadium? I don't know.
SISU's £5.5m offer - the Council hadn't given a loan at that point had they, so how could SISU offer to pay it off.
The Council may well be smelling of hypocrisy, the article smells of sour grapes.
No mention of the reduced rental offers, maybe they were short of space for the article.
What taxpayers money was thrown at strengthening the Councils grip?
The loan wasn't Council taxpayers money.
Legal costs, no mention of why were they required, and what the outcome of the court action was.
Bigger major events that I read about were the gaming convention, the Jehovah Witnesses, and that's ignoring the football matches obviously.
Ainsworth's £30m valuation, was that for ACL or the stadium? I don't know.
SISU's £5.5m offer - the Council hadn't given a loan at that point had they, so how could SISU offer to pay it off.
The Council may well be smelling of hypocrisy, the article smells of sour grapes.
bezzer
Well-Known Member
So you're privy to their books then?
Being rather selfish, I'd be a little happier with businesses booming if CCFC were in Wasps shoes. Appears you're happy local businesses are benefiting from Ann Lucas and her cronies allowing a franchise Rugby club to play in a stadium built for our football club.
Shame on you.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Funniest thing on that list was ACL - priceless.