Quote ="faxcar"DM all that changes nothing regarding the outcome or what it has to do with you and reinforces what you are doing, clinging to anything you can to attack the rugby club from a biased perspective.
They are not my directors as in the term "your" but it does show that you are approaching it as a Town fan.
This shows where the real division exists in your approach despite your previous claims to be a concerned tax payer and you are part of the division within the community with your approach.
It creates and feeds the Town v Fax mentality for those that will be taken in by it.
You use the term "suggests" which proves you do not know for sure but quickly follow up in saying as if fact that CMBC would be justified using legal action all the while knowing that each party have their own "reserved positions" after having recently consulted with each other and legal action was never even mentioned or intimated at.
Both parties accept that from an internal informed position they have a difference of opinion as it stands now, but will work together towards a resolution.
As above you state that directors have reneged on an agreement but fail to allow for changing circumstances because all you want to do is emphasise what you interpret as negative towards the club.
If you just go with the well expressed views from a small group of Town fans that the rugby club are just a bunch of liars that are skint, all proved by your biased good work you can't go wrong.
I can't accept anything you say as I know why you are really saying it.'"
I'm sorry if the term 'your' offends you when using it to link you and the rugby club. I'm used to classing FCHT as 'my' club because I feel as a fan it belongs to me. I'll avoid using 'your' in the future. However, please don't put words in my mouth regarding my stance.
I've been nothing but complementary in my stance towards the rugby club in general - supporting shared use of the pitch, disagreeing with trolling by both sides etc. However I do have an issue over how the clubs directors have run up a debt, for whatever reason, when one of them was trying to purchase the ground.
I didn't consider the changing circumstances as relevant as the club didn't contact the council in the prescribed time to tell them circumstances had changed, they just didn't pay.
Rather than addressing my points that the bidder for the stadium, whose only selling point was 'trust me', has shown that on big occasions he's not proved to detractors he could be trusted (late payment of rent, deadline promise broken, no link to payday companies, putting in a bid that Steele said he wasn't aware of) you just point and shout 'Fax hater' in an effort to discredit what I'm saying.
If that's how you want to see me then fine, that's up to you. We'll agree to differ.
