He's meant to be acting in the best interests of CCFC, it seems to be he is acting in the best interests of SISU and not the club, seems like traitorous is fair to me.
How different it could have been for the club if they had accepted the 400k rent deal. We could easily still have Robbins and be in the playoffs.
Instead the club looks more screwed than it ever has been
Edit - Just to be clear violence against him is unacceptable either way.
He's meant to be acting in the best interests of CCFC, it seems to be he is acting in the best interests of SISU and not the club, seems like traitorous is fair to me.
He's working for the owners who are still pretty much acting as they always have, as has he. It's not like he was ever trumpeted as a fans' own representative. If he's serving us shit, at least he's consistently doing so.
He's working for the owners who are still pretty much acting as they always have, as has he. It's not like he was ever trumpeted as a fans' own representative. If he's serving us shit, at least he's consistently doing so.
Yes he is working for SISU and not for CCFC, my question is (and it's a question that I dont know the answer too, not a statement) is that actually allowed? isn't he required by law to be doing what is best for CCFC? since he is a director of CCFC. Not accepting the rent deal and instead keeping one that is running up much greater debts was clearly not what was best for CCFC.
You'd be hard-pressed to legally define what's best for the club in a case like this, but if what SISU are doing is against the law in some way they can't last.
You'd be hard-pressed to legally define what's best for the club in a case like this, but if what SISU are doing is against the law in some way they can't last.
Is it difficult really?. CCFC are legally tied into that contract of 1.4 mill, it was offered to change that contract to 400k + other benefits. How can not making that agreement weather or not it was everything you wanted or even feel you needed not best for the club? It makes the club 1 mill a year better off. You can then continue further negotiation if needed from that point without running up extra unnecessary debt each month.
How can saying we are going to move to a small stadium outside the city be in the best interests of CCFC financially when we could very easily on the back of a napkin work out that even if we were given free rent at this new location we'd be losing more money.
It's very easy to see that some of the choices that have been made weren't in ccfc's interests and very obviously so.
It could be argued that what's best for the club would be to wear them down to an even better deal with all the matchday profits and so on. Obviously it's all a shady practice, but 'best interests' is too vague to be able to define easily without wily spin being able to be applied.