BALDY-OG":25l6h215 said:
ScratchyMattress":25l6h215 said:
Or perhaps the council have privately told the trust that it's quite likely that something can be arranged, but would rather not have to confirm that to all and sundry for political reasons? I only say that in the interests of fairness, because the good people of Pasoti on the whole cannot be trusted with an ambiguous sentence.
The suggestion that the Trust have misled the FL is just as plausible, although I personally find it slightly harder to believe.
In which case it would have been extremely nieve of the Trust to quote them in a letter to the FL wouldn't it? I don't think the Trust would have
deliberately set out to deceive anyone.
Right, Lets clear up this one and a couple of others reference the Councils position v Trusts letter.
The Trusts letter was neither misleading nor naive. Thats for the vote of support though!
What we did was to push the point that the Council were bought into the contingency plan and would, if it was a last resort consider buying the ground. The Football League have gone to them and said "would you buy the ground?" They have (as all politicians would ans also as they have to whilst a PB is in place) that "we would consider all options".
This is the difference. Nothing more, nothing less.
Anyone expecting the CC to come out in the open and say they will buy the ground is barking up the wrong tree. They have repeatedly stated that if the PBs failed they would consider all options. We are not at that point yet.
The FL letter does not mean that the Trust and CC are singing from different hymn sheets. It means that politians are being politicial - surprise, surprise!
Right back to the Conference call report!