skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Fair enough.
That's was 50% of ACL, we were supposed to have 50% of the whole thing i.e.: the freehold.
It's quite clear you are trying to disprove it though isn't it?Give what up? All I've pointed out is there is different versions of why the Manhattan deal collapsed from two different directors at the club who were present at the time. I've not said anything factually incorrect, I've not claimed one to be right and one to be wrong, I've admited I don't know either way.
So it should be dismissed because because you don't like the bloke basically.
It's quite clear you are trying to disprove it though isn't it?
Fletcher quit, which is then when he said most of it.
Haven't multiple parties made comments about the council, the football club and the ground?If you want it to, sure.
Like I said, there's nothing factually incorrect with what I've pointed out. There is two different versions and unusually it's from the same side. You believe what you like but not knowing the details there's no grounding for what you believe which is why I don't take either version as fact. Even grendull has admited I'm right and that they're opinions not fact.
If you want it to, sure.
Like I said, there's nothing factually incorrect with what I've pointed out. There is two different versions and unusually it's from the same side. You believe what you like but not knowing the details there's no grounding for what you believe which is why I don't take either version as fact. Even grendull has admited I'm right and that they're opinions not fact.
There is two different versions and unusually it's from the same side. You believe what you like but not knowing the details there's no grounding for what you believe which is why I don't take either version as fact.
Well if you want to concentrate on the Manhattan bid then lets look at it.
On one side you have Elliot. Given his role at the time it is highly unlikely he was involved in the negotiations. He has made the claim about interest rates. Nobody else before or since has mentioned anything even remotely similar.
On the other side you have Fletcher and Robinson. Given their roles at the time it is highly likely they were on the frontline of negotiations. The claims they have made are consistent with comments made by the council and reports in local media at the time. They also align with what has been said about other bids and other actions of the council both before and after the Manhattan bid.
No I think your'e talking out your arse. Everything is based on circumstantial evidence but you consider what's in front of you and then decide.
If you witnessed a building that was burning and a man running away with a petrol can in his hand there is no evidence he actually committed the crime but there is a strong suggestion he did.
Oddly you and Italia frequently make judgements without the facts. There is no evidence that sisu returned to the Ricoh due to any boycott of sixfields is there? You'll have to provide concrete evidence want you?
What everyone can see is you and Italia defending the indefensible.
That most definitely is a fact and the pair of you are on your own and deserve each other.
There is no way in a million years Elliot was involved in the bid discussions.
, attending on the other hand did.
.
You know that how?
In no way did boycotting Sixfields facilitate our stay there, attending on the other hand did.
Really? Do you have evidence to support that?
It put money in the pocket that helped pay the rent at Sixfields. It's a pretty basic principle.
Have you got any proof of that? Have you got any minutes from SISU meetings that prove this or anything? Or is it your opinion?
You have no way of knowing that as a fact do you? Any proof the boycott brought the club back or just your opinion?
My money stayed in my pocket not the pocket paying the rent at Sixfields therefore my boycotting of Sixfields did not facilitate us being at Sixfields. Pretty simple really. No opinion needed for that one.
It put money in the pocket that helped pay the rent at Sixfields. It's a pretty basic principle.
So no facts? No proof? No figures?
My money stayed in my pocket not the pocket paying the rent at Sixfields therefore my boycotting of Sixfields did not facilitate us being at Sixfields. Pretty simple really. No opinion needed for that one.
The rent at sixfields was a tiny element of the clubs costs. What has that to do with anything?
How do you know they actually hadn't covered all costs that season in the eventuality no one showed?
It's a bold statement Tony. Basic principle is not evidence that's an assumption based on a belief.
Evidence Tony?
I gave the club £0.00 while we were at Sixfields so contributed £0.00 to the Sixfields rent. It really is simple maths. I can't understand why you're struggling with it.
I gave the club £0.00 while we were at Sixfields so contributed £0.00 to the Sixfields rent. It really is simple maths. I can't understand why you're struggling with it.
That's not even what you said. You said attending sixfields aided in staying there. How do you know that? How do you know they hadn't assumed zero attendance in budget planning?
We need evidence Tony
No it's basic maths. If you give someone £0.00 they can't spend your money and therefore you haven't facilitated their activities. Can't see why you're struggling with that.
Maybe you still have your ticket stubs from Sixfields. That should be evidence enough.
Maybe you still have your ticket stubs from Sixfields. That should be evidence enough.
Erm, how do you know any of the money from ticket sales went on rent? How do you know the rent wasn't already paid?
Surely I can just say that the ticket money went to pay the players, and as we don't know you can't prove it?
Somebody could give me a tenner, doesn't mean it is contributing to my mortgage as I could spend it on beer.
It isn't fact is it, there's no evidence.
So you can prove that the revenue from those tickets went directly to paying the rent? I assumed it was advance paid.
I was wrong. Can you provide a link please Tony?
Maybe it bought joy a new handbag then. Rent is an operating cost, operating costs are payed with income, ticket sales are income. Why are you pretending to be stupid again?
Maybe it bought joy a new handbag then. Rent is an operating cost, operating costs are payed with income, ticket sales are income. Why are you pretending to be stupid again?
It's all speculation without any links or clues to back it back to put it together.
Yet multiple parties say the same thing about the council and it is written off...
Your point was that the boycott brought the club home wasn't it?
There are lots of different types of income, still doesn't mean the money from tickets went on the rent. I could say that the ticket money went to pay the players and feed their kids so they were heros for putting money in.
I'd be speculating too.
How have you drawn that conclusion without any solid evidence or proof or facts and figures?
How do you know money from the year before (when you will have paid them) wasn't used? In which case, you would have contributed
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?