I received two pieces of correspondence dear chap; one of which was from PWKH - who we're aware does have 'an identity' on here - to tell me that an accusation has been made by SISU's legal folk that I and he were 'as one'. I can only conclude that my opinion of events, or way of articulating them, sits to an extent as his does.
I have a view based on what I see. Again, to reiterate; I do believe that the rental figure was too high; and needed to be addressed. But where I go in a wholly opposite direction to SISU is in their methods to get what they want, and to an extent the club needs. I hated, and continue to hate, that our football club is being used as a chess-piece between two parties - one only interested in it's tenancy agreement (but in fairness, with a lawful right to be so), and the other seemingly looking to feather the nest of the exit strategy of a failed investment.
It irks me that folk will glibly apologise 'contracts get broken in business all the time'. Well, yes. But often with a consequence. And since the start of this, I've seen that 'the consequence' would be the health, or indeed continuation of our football club. I don't take any pleasure from events now proving my doomsday prediction.
If that supposedly makes me a man with more names in his salutation than I've had cars; then I find that perverse.
I don't give a hoot about CCC - I live in Warwickshire. Equally, I don't care about ACL or SISU. I do, however, care about CCFC. And my stance in all of this was having a view - which appears to have predicted the bleeding obvious - that the casualty would be the club.
Madness...