Accrington Web - Did I really read this?

I know this site is read by Clr Britcliffe & Co as well as officers of the Council. I had the temerity to post something controversial and was reported by the Tories. So I have to be careful.

Stanley; There are several issues going on here.
1) Secondly, the development money. The Council owns the land. Stanley have a 25 year lease which they have legally an option to renew. Stanley want a new ground and know the Council can only get a receipt if Stanley agree. Stanley want a proportion. 'Rumours' suggest half. The receipt would be £millions. The Crown ground has no protectve covenant on it. Problems are mounting around the ground and there seems to be an tipping point where Stanley would prefer to invest good money into a good facility, not patch up the current one. A very active Accrington Stanley Residents group has been set up that monitors the clubs activities in the neighbourhood.

2) Firstly, politically. Clr Britcliffe views Stanley as a vote winner. It demonstrates how well the twon is thriving under his stewardship. It gves a feel good factor agianst, in reality, a lot of disncontent with his/the Council. In order to cash in on Stanley's success politically, they were given the freedom of the Borough. One of 10 only. All this came with front page headlines just before an election and promises of more headlines and celebrations later. Maybe Eric Whalley has worked out he is just a pawn?

3) The main reason. Censored. Legal reasons. ... Eric Whalley has taken offence at the Council for the way it has conducted some financial affairs. I believe Eric Whalley and the club are wrong and for once, Clr Britcliffe is right to take a stand, though I heard he was going to back off until the legal department stepped in.

4) Stanley served alcohol against the Football Grounds Act in a pre-season friendly... rest is censored.... The Council got involved, there was a 'difference of opinion'. And as a by product, the Licensing Manager resigned. This was on the back of an illegal fair that took place in the summer whch the Council should have closed down because Stanley didn't bother to acquire a licence and there were serious doubts that the public were actually insured who entered. The Council is the responsible body for Public Enterainment Licences as well so there was another issue there.

This is a our own local 'cash for peerages' scandal. The Freedom of the Borough was offered as a way to buy votes. Bill Turner said as much in the Telegraph.

The new ground situation should have started back in April with informal, sensible, all interested parties, discussions on feasabilities. It didn't. Stanley were short sighted, Clr Britcliffe politically motivated. 'Other issues' over took (that's issue 3 plus the ASRA). Two big ego's, no long term thinking and the net result is one having a go at the other. Neither can say what it is really about for legal reasons so the ground and lesser issues are being battered about, genuine, but not the main reasons.

Sorry I can't post the full story...