Wasps in talks to takeover Ricoh (3 Viewers)

skybluetony176 · Apr 24, 2015

So basically if what is being said is true rather than come to the table and put in a counter offer to scupper the imminent Wasps deal they did nothing. Surely this means when TF said that SISU wouldn't have done the deal Wasps did he was telling the truth, it also mean's that if CCC had of made the same (what's to say they didn't if these revelations are true) offer to SISU as some are demanding they should have SISU wouldn't have taken it and it also means that CCC and Higgs took the best and ONLY offer on the table.

Assuming all that's true given the continued stance of the club of we're building a new, can the people on here answer me 2 questions 1) What else were CCC and Higgs supposed to do other than take the Wasps offer 2) Will you now concentrate your frustrations at our owners given they clearly had no appetite to unite our club with it's home. Other than through the courts and we all know how fruitless and pointless that has been.

Hobo · Apr 24, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
So basically if what is being said is true rather than come to the table and put in a counter offer to scupper the imminent Wasps deal they did nothing. Surely this means when TF said that SISU wouldn't have done the deal Wasps did he was telling the truth, it also mean's that if CCC had of made the same (what's to say they didn't if these revelations are true) offer to SISU as some are demanding they should have SISU wouldn't have taken it and it also means that CCC and Higgs took the best and ONLY offer on the table.

Assuming all that's true given the continued stance of the club of we're building a new, can the people on here answer me 2 questions 1) What else were CCC and Higgs supposed to do other than take the Wasps offer 2) Will you now concentrate your frustrations at our owners given they clearly had no appetite to unite our club with it's home. Other than through the courts and we all know how fruitless and pointless that has been.

and for me, the reason they didn't make the offer, the reason they kept trying to drive the price down, is they just didn't have the money.

skybluetony176 · Apr 24, 2015

Hobo said:
and for me, the reason they didn't make the offer, the reason they kept trying to drive the price down, is they just didn't have the money.

Although I see where you're coming from when you take into consideration the losses from the Sixfields debacle, the cost of the Higgs case and the cost of the JR including picking up the councils bill has it already cost them more in money out and loses than it would have to buy ACL?

I think they decided to turn a corner from negotiation to litigation and were too stubborn to turn back. Maybe it's a sign of weakness in their world to fo a U turn and in their mindset that's more valuable than doing the right thing by a football club that I've seen little evidence of them giving a shit about.

(edit) I guess you also have to consider that their business model from what I can tell is buying distressed companies, such as our club. Is it possible that in their blinkered world it was never about the price it was about how distressed ACL was at the time of a takeover and ACL simply hadn't reached the desired level of distress yet? Basically it was all about reputation again.

Hobo · Apr 24, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
Although I see where you're coming from when you take into consideration the losses from the Sixfields debacle, the cost of the Higgs case and the cost of the JR including picking up the councils bill has it already cost them more in money out and loses than it would have to buy ACL?

I think they decided to turn a corner from negotiation to litigation and were too stubborn to turn back. Maybe it's a sign of weakness in their world to fo a U turn and in their mindset that's more valuable than doing the right thing by a football club that I've seen little evidence of them giving a shit about.

(edit) I guess you also have to consider that their business model from what I can tell is buying distressed companies, such as our club. Is it possible that in their blinkered world it was never about the price it was about how distressed ACL was at the time of a takeover and ACL simply hadn't reached the desired level of distress yet? Basically it was all about reputation again.

The points you make I am sure were in the mix along with not having the money.

James Smith · Apr 24, 2015

skybluetony176 said:
So basically if what is being said is true rather than come to the table and put in a counter offer to scupper the imminent Wasps deal they did nothing. Surely this means when TF said that SISU wouldn't have done the deal Wasps did he was telling the truth, it also mean's that if CCC had of made the same (what's to say they didn't if these revelations are true) offer to SISU as some are demanding they should have SISU wouldn't have taken it and it also means that CCC and Higgs took the best and ONLY offer on the table.

Assuming all that's true given the continued stance of the club of we're building a new, can the people on here answer me 2 questions 1) What else were CCC and Higgs supposed to do other than take the Wasps offer 2) Will you now concentrate your frustrations at our owners given they clearly had no appetite to unite our club with it's home. Other than through the courts and we all know how fruitless and pointless that has been.

They did make a late in the day offer to the Higgs via our old friend Mr Appleton who may (or may not) have had the option still as technically he had the remaining assets of Ltd. However Otium were also claiming to have the option because they had listed it in the accounts for £1m. The Higgs at the end of the process said something like the option was non transferable without our permission and therefore should never have been anywhere near the otium accounts. (shades of Golden Share anyone?) The Sisu offer suggested that the charity should do football community stuff with the club, based I think at the Ricoh. Given the history there can't say that I'm totally surprised they didn't jump at that chance. The Sisu offer was also conditional whereas the Wasps one was unconditional.

skybluebeduff · Apr 24, 2015

Is this 113 pages of "what if's"?

torchomatic · Apr 24, 2015

No 113 pages of "Ha, ha"

skybluebeduff said:
Is this 113 pages of "what if's"?

Godiva · Apr 24, 2015

James Smith said:
They did make a late in the day offer to the Higgs via our old friend Mr Appleton who may (or may not) have had the option still as technically he had the remaining assets of Ltd. However Otium were also claiming to have the option because they had listed it in the accounts for £1m. The Higgs at the end of the process said something like the option was non transferable without our permission and therefore should never have been anywhere near the otium accounts. (shades of Golden Share anyone?) The Sisu offer suggested that the charity should do football community stuff with the club, based I think at the Ricoh. Given the history there can't say that I'm totally surprised they didn't jump at that chance. The Sisu offer was also conditional whereas the Wasps one was unconditional.

I think it was listed in SBS&L's accounts.

Samo · Apr 24, 2015

Jesus H Christ all fucking mighty on a motorcycle.

shy_tall_knight · Apr 24, 2015

Unfortunately this topic will be revisited as impacts on the football club that we support more than any new player or manager.

chiefdave · Apr 24, 2015

Rusty Trombone said:
Didn't someone mention a prospectus was being sent round before

According to my accountant they're revisiting this and trying their luck in the city (as in the financial district of London) in the last few weeks. Apparently they are looking at financing through retail bonds secured against the stadium (it all started to go a bit over my head at this point). Seems their not having much luck as most people they have approached are of the opinion the numbers stack up and are a little concerned that the debt would be secured against an asset, in the Ricoh, that they don't ultimately own.

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Iin light of the bad feeling with regards the false accusations suggesting a CCC hand scuppering the Higgs deal, the ongoing litigation, the rent strike and move to Sixfields, and Seppala telling Les Reid and various folk on here that it's freehold only; who - from the council side - would risk the deal to have a friendly word with Our Tim and tip him the wink?

Anyone who supports CCFC and didn't want to do irreparable damage to the club for decades to come.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Apr 24, 2015

chiefdave said:
According to my accountant they're revisiting this and trying their luck in the city (as in the financial district of London) in the last few weeks. Apparently they are looking at financing through retail bonds secured against the stadium (it all started to go a bit over my head at this point). Seems their not having much luck as most people they have approached are of the opinion the numbers stack up and are a little concerned that the debt would be secured against an asset, in the Ricoh, that they don't ultimately own.

Anyone who supports CCFC and didn't want to do irreparable damage to the club for decades to come.

You keep on making the same mistake, time and time again. You think that just because someone supports CCFC, they should do right by the clubs owners and that good will follow. Historically, it hasn't. SISU will act in the best interests of SISU. Sometimes at the expense of the football club. Have you not seen the last few years?

Again, read this thread. SISU had spoken about a long lease and done nothing with it. 'No appetite'. You read from people on here who met Fisher and who can report he was well aware of the Wasps interest, yet they did nothing. You read the 'freehold only' interview with JS, backed by first-hand witness of people who met her; you know of the 'we won't stand in the way' statement pertaining to the Wasps deal. You know what Fisher states about building anew, even after the return to the Ricoh.

And yet still, you harshly judge the council for not stepping outside the terms of a confidential negotiation with Wasps, and think it would make any difference?

Just how exactly? Please tell me

Ian1779 · Apr 24, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
You know what Fisher states about building anew, even after the return to the Ricoh

He said own - not build.... completely different context and linked in at the time with the statement regarding building trust when they returned.

Astute · Apr 24, 2015

Ian1779 said:
He said own - not build.... completely different context and linked in at the time with the statement regarding building trust when they returned.

So what was it he said when we returned to the Ricoh? As in after Wasps ended up with the arena after all the fucking about by SISU. And who do you think he meant by who would own it?

Or....

Abracadabra we own a stadium and didn't have to build or pay for it

Hobo · Apr 24, 2015

torchomatic said:
No 113 pages of "Ha, ha"

Just because people don't like SISU, seeing them for what they are and can see how they have fucked up...doesn't mean we are going ha ha ha at all! It is our club they have managed to fuck up along with their own investment.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Apr 24, 2015

Ian1779 said:
He said own - not build.... completely different context and linked in at the time with the statement regarding building trust when they returned.

What the frigging hell was the land deal for then? A Fisher Amusement Park too?

Ian1779 · Apr 24, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
What the frigging hell was the land deal for then? A Fisher Amusement Park too?

Somewhere to bury Anne?

chiefdave · Apr 24, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
You keep on making the same mistake, time and time again. You think that just because someone supports CCFC, they should do right by the clubs owners and that good will follow. Historically, it hasn't. SISU will act in the best interests of SISU. Sometimes at the expense of the football club. Have you not seen the last few years?

No that is not what I think at all. What I do think is that SISU are only here temporarily while the club are, hopefully, here permanently. I think it is the responsibility of the local council to act in the best interests of organisations who have been part of the community for over 100 years. I certainly think they should be more concerned about them than rugby clubs from London. No matter how bad SISU have been as owners what happens when they leave? Normally new owners bring some hope of things changing for the better, not for us anymore, we are still screwed for decades to come thanks to the actions of CCC.

Now of course you may make the argument that CCC and Higgs had to sell ACL. That may be true but if it is I would argue that it should have been done in an open manner. In order to maximise the return for CCC and Higgs it should have been placed on the market with any interested party able to bid. It most certainly shouldn't be done behind closed doors and hidden behind confidentiality. I wonder, if SISU weren't involved, if opinions might be different. What if CCC sold off the Memorial Park in secret, would that be OK as well? Where do you draw the line?

Then you have to consider that if it was the case that ACL needed to be sold it follows that CCC and Higgs have repeatedly lied about the state of ACL, so again I would take issue with CCC who should, at least in theory, be answerable to the population of the city in a way that the likes of SISU aren't. We know SISU, or any other similar organisation, are in it for what they can get out. Local councils should be approaching things from a very different standpoint.

There is an assumption the souring of the relationship is all down to SISU. That may very well be correct but for all we know the claims about the health of ACL could be the root cause.

Put yourself in Fisher's position. You know the rent is too high, you know ACL are reliant on that high rent, you know ACL are basically sat around twiddling their thumbs rather than trying to grow the business as they have the security of the clubs rent. Those are all things Fisher publically said, and was ridiculed for, when he first joined the club.

What if he went into the first meeting, laid out his stance based on the above and ACL, Higgs, CCC or all of the above said what they said in public. That he was talking rubbish, ACL was in rude health, CCFC was a tiny fraction of its business and it could quite happily survive without them.

How do you negotiate from there with the other side holding a false stance. That's not a bit of a bluff that's outright lying.

How different would things have been if in that first meeting CCC and Higgs had conceded that ACL was in a mess, was reliant on CCFC and weren't maximising the use of the facilities on non-matchdays? Of course we will never know but I can imagine there is a chance things could be very different now.

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
And yet still, you harshly judge the council for not stepping outside the terms of a confidential negotiation with Wasps, and think it would make any difference?

Just how exactly? Please tell me

Firstly CCC should never had agreed to confidentiality, I suspect the confidentiality is of greater benefit to CCC than it is to Wasps.

As I have repeatedly said if ACL needed to be sold, of course meaning CCC and Higgs had been somewhat economical with the truth, it should have been an open and transparent process. ACL should have been placed on the market allowing any interested parties to bid.

Any organisations that potentially could be adversely affected by any bidder winning the process should have been given fair opportunity to air their objections. Its not really a complicated concept.

Christ you can barely order a ream of printer paper in the public sector without having to get multiple quotes to prove you're getting best value for the taxpayer but you can sell off a £120m stadium on the cheap in secret? The whole thing stinks to me, we've already found several areas where CCC, Higgs and Wasps have been less than truthful and that's with everything hidden behind a wall of confidentiality. What else would we find if that wall came down?

I think I'm done with this, we're never going to find out what happened. We're never, in all likelihood, going to own the Ricoh or any other stadium. There seems to be little appetite from the majority of the fan base to do anything but applaud CCC and Higgs for getting one over on SISU irrespective of the damage done to the club. We're now just going round in circles. There are many on here, just look at this thread, who will for some reason defend the council and / or Wasps to the hilt no matter what evidence is presented to them.

BackRoomRummermill · Apr 24, 2015

Well said Dave.

Rusty Trombone · Apr 24, 2015

If someone says publically they are prepared to sell something and invite offers, can it really be said the sale has been done in secret?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Apr 24, 2015

chiefdave said:
No that is not what I think at all. What I do think is that SISU are only here temporarily while the club are, hopefully, here permanently. I think it is the responsibility of the local council to act in the best interests of organisations who have been part of the community for over 100 years. I certainly think they should be more concerned about them than rugby clubs from London. No matter how bad SISU have been as owners what happens when they leave? Normally new owners bring some hope of things changing for the better, not for us anymore, we are still screwed for decades to come thanks to the actions of CCC.

Now of course you may make the argument that CCC and Higgs had to sell ACL. That may be true but if it is I would argue that it should have been done in an open manner. In order to maximise the return for CCC and Higgs it should have been placed on the market with any interested party able to bid. It most certainly shouldn't be done behind closed doors and hidden behind confidentiality. I wonder, if SISU weren't involved, if opinions might be different. What if CCC sold off the Memorial Park in secret, would that be OK as well? Where do you draw the line?

Then you have to consider that if it was the case that ACL needed to be sold it follows that CCC and Higgs have repeatedly lied about the state of ACL, so again I would take issue with CCC who should, at least in theory, be answerable to the population of the city in a way that the likes of SISU aren't. We know SISU, or any other similar organisation, are in it for what they can get out. Local councils should be approaching things from a very different standpoint.

There is an assumption the souring of the relationship is all down to SISU. That may very well be correct but for all we know the claims about the health of ACL could be the root cause.

Put yourself in Fisher's position. You know the rent is too high, you know ACL are reliant on that high rent, you know ACL are basically sat around twiddling their thumbs rather than trying to grow the business as they have the security of the clubs rent. Those are all things Fisher publically said, and was ridiculed for, when he first joined the club.

What if he went into the first meeting, laid out his stance based on the above and ACL, Higgs, CCC or all of the above said what they said in public. That he was talking rubbish, ACL was in rude health, CCFC was a tiny fraction of its business and it could quite happily survive without them.

How do you negotiate from there with the other side holding a false stance. That's not a bit of a bluff that's outright lying.

How different would things have been if in that first meeting CCC and Higgs had conceded that ACL was in a mess, was reliant on CCFC and weren't maximising the use of the facilities on non-matchdays? Of course we will never know but I can imagine there is a chance things could be very different now.

Firstly CCC should never had agreed to confidentiality, I suspect the confidentiality is of greater benefit to CCC than it is to Wasps.

As I have repeatedly said if ACL needed to be sold, of course meaning CCC and Higgs had been somewhat economical with the truth, it should have been an open and transparent process. ACL should have been placed on the market allowing any interested parties to bid.

Any organisations that potentially could be adversely affected by any bidder winning the process should have been given fair opportunity to air their objections. Its not really a complicated concept.

Christ you can barely order a ream of printer paper in the public sector without having to get multiple quotes to prove you're getting best value for the taxpayer but you can sell off a £120m stadium on the cheap in secret? The whole thing stinks to me, we've already found several areas where CCC, Higgs and Wasps have been less than truthful and that's with everything hidden behind a wall of confidentiality. What else would we find if that wall came down?

I think I'm done with this, we're never going to find out what happened. We're never, in all likelihood, going to own the Ricoh or any other stadium. There seems to be little appetite from the majority of the fan base to do anything but applaud CCC and Higgs for getting one over on SISU irrespective of the damage done to the club. We're now just going round in circles. There are many on here, just look at this thread, who will for some reason defend the council and / or Wasps to the hilt no matter what evidence is presented to them.

I'm not going to debate much of the above; as we simply see things differently.

But please - stop on one thing; cease saying people support Wasps/Higgs/ACL/CCC. People don't. Everyone on here - except those on the wind-up - support CCFC.

The difference is that some of us see that the club's owners played hard and loose with the football club and lost. And this being to the great expense of the football club. Potentially permanently.

But what we don't do is to excuse the owner's behaviour because of the football club; we judge the owners behaviour because of the football club.

And we see the actions of others as being a reasonable reaction to the risky game SISU played. Don't confuse, 'understand' with 'like'. There's just a car-crash inevitability to this that's been coming for years.

I do see and respect your view, even though it's opposed to mine. You debate with truth and passion - and that makes forums such as this better places

torchomatic · Apr 24, 2015

Well said, Dave. Sad, but true.

torchomatic · Apr 24, 2015

But you will excuse the behaviour of CCC, ACL, Higgs and Wasps. Their actions will have longer lasting damage on our football club.

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
But what we don't do is to excuse the owner's behaviour because of the football club; we judge the owners behaviour because of the football club.

Grendel · Apr 24, 2015

chiefdave said:
No that is not what I think at all. What I do think is that SISU are only here temporarily while the club are, hopefully, here permanently. I think it is the responsibility of the local council to act in the best interests of organisations who have been part of the community for over 100 years. I certainly think they should be more concerned about them than rugby clubs from London. No matter how bad SISU have been as owners what happens when they leave? Normally new owners bring some hope of things changing for the better, not for us anymore, we are still screwed for decades to come thanks to the actions of CCC.

Now of course you may make the argument that CCC and Higgs had to sell ACL. That may be true but if it is I would argue that it should have been done in an open manner. In order to maximise the return for CCC and Higgs it should have been placed on the market with any interested party able to bid. It most certainly shouldn't be done behind closed doors and hidden behind confidentiality. I wonder, if SISU weren't involved, if opinions might be different. What if CCC sold off the Memorial Park in secret, would that be OK as well? Where do you draw the line?

Then you have to consider that if it was the case that ACL needed to be sold it follows that CCC and Higgs have repeatedly lied about the state of ACL, so again I would take issue with CCC who should, at least in theory, be answerable to the population of the city in a way that the likes of SISU aren't. We know SISU, or any other similar organisation, are in it for what they can get out. Local councils should be approaching things from a very different standpoint.

There is an assumption the souring of the relationship is all down to SISU. That may very well be correct but for all we know the claims about the health of ACL could be the root cause.

Put yourself in Fisher's position. You know the rent is too high, you know ACL are reliant on that high rent, you know ACL are basically sat around twiddling their thumbs rather than trying to grow the business as they have the security of the clubs rent. Those are all things Fisher publically said, and was ridiculed for, when he first joined the club.

What if he went into the first meeting, laid out his stance based on the above and ACL, Higgs, CCC or all of the above said what they said in public. That he was talking rubbish, ACL was in rude health, CCFC was a tiny fraction of its business and it could quite happily survive without them.

How do you negotiate from there with the other side holding a false stance. That's not a bit of a bluff that's outright lying.

How different would things have been if in that first meeting CCC and Higgs had conceded that ACL was in a mess, was reliant on CCFC and weren't maximising the use of the facilities on non-matchdays? Of course we will never know but I can imagine there is a chance things could be very different now.

Firstly CCC should never had agreed to confidentiality, I suspect the confidentiality is of greater benefit to CCC than it is to Wasps.

As I have repeatedly said if ACL needed to be sold, of course meaning CCC and Higgs had been somewhat economical with the truth, it should have been an open and transparent process. ACL should have been placed on the market allowing any interested parties to bid.

Any organisations that potentially could be adversely affected by any bidder winning the process should have been given fair opportunity to air their objections. Its not really a complicated concept.

Christ you can barely order a ream of printer paper in the public sector without having to get multiple quotes to prove you're getting best value for the taxpayer but you can sell off a £120m stadium on the cheap in secret? The whole thing stinks to me, we've already found several areas where CCC, Higgs and Wasps have been less than truthful and that's with everything hidden behind a wall of confidentiality. What else would we find if that wall came down?

I think I'm done with this, we're never going to find out what happened. We're never, in all likelihood, going to own the Ricoh or any other stadium. There seems to be little appetite from the majority of the fan base to do anything but applaud CCC and Higgs for getting one over on SISU irrespective of the damage done to the club. We're now just going round in circles. There are many on here, just look at this thread, who will for some reason defend the council and / or Wasps to the hilt no matter what evidence is presented to them.

Great post that.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Apr 24, 2015

torchomatic said:
But you will excuse the behaviour of CCC, ACL, Higgs and Wasps. Their actions will have longer lasting damage on our football club.

No, for the umpteenth time, I don't. But I can see how things happened as a function of SISU's agenda.

Which - do you know - is pretty much how successive Judicial Review judges have seen things

torchomatic · Apr 24, 2015

You do. I read it in every post you make. And don't give me the "poor 'ickle council" rubbish either. That's a lame excuse trotted out by you and the others on here.

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
No, for the umpteenth time, I don't. But I can see how things happened as a function of SISU's agenda.

Which - do you know - is pretty much how successive Judicial Review judges have seen things

shy_tall_knight · Apr 24, 2015

I'm not excusing CCC WASPS ACL Higgs, they all have acted out of self-interest but surely its time to admit SISU got it all wrong played hardball tried to force their own position and lost massively for themselves (who I don't care about) but we've lost out as fans.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Apr 24, 2015

torchomatic said:
You do. I read it in every post you make. And don't give me the "poor 'ickle council" rubbish either. That's a lame excuse trotted out by you and the others on here.

No; you constantly trot out 'lame' excuses for the club's owners; and sycophantically 'like' anyone of the dwindling delusional clan who still see things your way.

From getting all clucky when you went to Sixfields to 'cheer on the lads', to then hypocritically judging anyone who aligns themselves to Wasps - you're one of the ones who have made the wrong call at every - and I mean every - opportunity. In fact, well done; if you had set out for history to retrospectively judge your ongoing insanity harshly, you couldn't have done a better job. Remarkable

Grendel · Apr 24, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
No, for the umpteenth time, I don't. But I can see how things happened as a function of SISU's agenda.

Which - do you know - is pretty much how successive Judicial Review judges have seen things

Yes you do. Long before Sisu this council let us down badly. Never saw anything in it being an asset but a cash cow and once the cash ran dry it pimped someone in from London.

torchomatic · Apr 24, 2015

CHrist you do think highly of yourself, don't you. Anyone who doesn't see it your way is "delusional".

Yes, I do have a go at those who go and see Wasps, but only those who were criticizing those who attended Sixfields or those who criticized their team for going to Sixfields. It's simple. When I went to Sixfields I went to support MY team the team I have supported for decades. Yet people in the Trust and on here were telling me how morally wrong that was. And then Wasps roll into town and they go and watch them! Yet, they had no previous affiliation to this new team. Now THAT is hypocritical.

Anyway, keep flying that Council flag. You're doing a grand job.

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
No; you constantly trot out 'lame' excuses for the club's owners; and sycophantically 'like' anyone of the dwindling delusional clan who still see things your way.

From getting all clucky when you went to Sixfields to 'cheer on the lads', to then hypocritically judging anyone who aligns themselves to Wasps - you're one of the ones who have made the wrong call at every - and I mean every - opportunity. In fact, well done; if you had set out for history to retrospectively judge your ongoing insanity harshly, you couldn't have done a better job. Remarkable

Samo · Apr 24, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
No; you constantly trot out 'lame' excuses for the club's owners; and sycophantically 'like' anyone of the dwindling delusional clan who still see things your way.

From getting all clucky when you went to Sixfields to 'cheer on the lads', to then hypocritically judging anyone who aligns themselves to Wasps - you're one of the ones who have made the wrong call at every - and I mean every - opportunity. In fact, well done; if you had set out for history to retrospectively judge your ongoing insanity harshly, you couldn't have done a better job. Remarkable

So because he doesn't agree with you he's wrong at every opportunity?

shy_tall_knight · Apr 24, 2015

Grendel said:
Yes you do. Long before Sisu this council let us down badly. Never saw anything in it being an asset but a cash cow and once the cash ran dry it pimped someone in from London.

Partially agree but had SISU been reasonable there was a deal to be struck, their approach allowed WASPS in.

Samo · Apr 24, 2015

torchomatic said:
CHrist you do think highly of yourself, don't you. Anyone who doesn't see it your way is "delusional".

Yes, I do have a go at those who go and see Wasps, but only those who were criticizing those who attended Sixfields or those who criticized their team for going to Sixfields. It's simple. When I went to Sixfields I went to support MY team the team I have supported for decades. Yet people in the Trust and on here were telling me how morally wrong that was. And then Wasps roll into town and they go and watch them! Yet, they had no previous affiliation to this new team. Now THAT is hypocritical.

Anyway, keep flying that Council flag. You're doing a grand job.

Yes he does. It amazes me that someone that intellectually vain can be so dim.

Grendel · Apr 24, 2015

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
No; you constantly trot out 'lame' excuses for the club's owners; and sycophantically 'like' anyone of the dwindling delusional clan who still see things your way.

From getting all clucky when you went to Sixfields to 'cheer on the lads', to then hypocritically judging anyone who aligns themselves to Wasps - you're one of the ones who have made the wrong call at every - and I mean every - opportunity. In fact, well done; if you had set out for history to retrospectively judge your ongoing insanity harshly, you couldn't have done a better job. Remarkable

Of course the real undoing for you on this thread is the points raised by Chief Dave a vehemently anti sisu poster and far more balanced than you.

Dwindling band? Yes keep getting likes from the intelligenta - Sky Blue Kid, Tony Astute and Italia. Well done you.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Apr 24, 2015

Grendel said:
Yes you do. Long before Sisu this council let us down badly. Never saw anything in it being an asset but a cash cow and once the cash ran dry it pimped someone in from London.

Some of that is true. But your ongoing focus on anyone other that SISU as holding culpability redefines 'delusional'. Still, as someone who scoffed at the idea of a rugby club coming to the Ricoh, lauded Fisher and Waggot's track record at Charlton, awaited the 'smoking gun' from the Judicial Review like a kid on Christmas Eve, anointed SISU as 'the only show in town', and claimed the Judical review had been lost on purpose, masterminded by Fisher 'the best CEO we've had in years'; I'm guessing you're going to be the most shouty in pointing the finger elsewhere.

To save your fingers posting in return; yes, I thought Thorn was the next Bill Shankley, I'm actually Peter Knatchbull-Hugessen's Dad, and I love Wasps being in town. Oh, and Ann Lucas is coming for tea, and we're going to watch a video of all of CCFC's losses this season and piss ourselves, and perhaps even have sex. Twice

Wasps in talks to takeover Ricoh (3 Viewers)

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

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

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