Sky Blue Trust statement (17 Viewers)

[Moff]

So you wanted Sisu to win it ?

Black and white again. When will you realise there is grey.

Before you jump on my back, I didn't think they would win, hope they bugger off back to London and take the franchise rugby team with them.

The City needs a clean slate of vindictive hedge funds, franchises and Councillors.

 

---

[martcov]

Not really. I think the common meaning of the phrase "I/we welcome the verdict" is that it was the correct verdict. I don't think that's in dispute is it?

I'm not saying that the words wasn't chosen carefully but it's certainly not saying lets crack open the bubbly and all hail the all conquering council. You're putting that spin on it all by yourself.

Better than TF's previous quote on a past decision - "wrong in law and wrong on fact" - when the decision went against SISU. Obviously several high ranking legal people seem to think otherwise. We should welcome the decision as it brings clarity to the dispute. Nothing wrong with welcoming clarity in this saga. Now that we have clarity on the past, it would be sensible for SISU to divert their resources into moving forward on the stadium issue. We need long term stability through some form of security of tenure.

 

[skybluetony176]

So by correct verdict you been the one you wanted, ie as it's said by victims families when people get sent down etc.

Do you think that the verdict was incorrect?

 

[Nick]

Better than TF's previous quote on a past decision - "wrong in law and wrong on fact" - when the decision went against SISU. Obviously several high ranking legal people seem to think otherwise. We should welcome the decision as it brings clarity to the dispute. Nothing wrong with welcoming clarity in this saga. Now that we have clarity on the past, it would be sensible for SISU to divert their resources into moving forward on the stadium issue. We need long term stability through some form of security of tenure.

Did you welcome the fact they were allowed to appeal?

 

[armybike]

So what you mean is you don't like being disagreed with? Strange though, not many complaints from you or Steve when people got hammered for going to sixfields? Must be that it's fine as long as it agreeing with you.

People disagree all the time, it's part of a forum.

It was about justice, the law wasn't broken and it was correct that sisu paid court fees.

I wasn't shouting about wanting anybody to win, I said I wanted justice for what they were there for.

The court case wasn't about morals was it? Just because something isn't breaking the law, it doesn't mean they are being morally right does it?

I don't mean that, I mean people being jumped on which is why I put that. Not quite sure how/why you've managed to skew that, but thanks for proving the point.

Also I see you've only offered replies to my first two paragraphs and not the next four.

With regards the Sixfields situation I didn't join the forum until about a year ago so not exactly sure how I could have made comment re that.

Also, what have morals got to do with anything?

 

[Nick]

Do you think that the verdict was incorrect?

I'm not arguing wiht 4 judges, they know more than me

however, welcoming the verdict means it is the one you wanted. Like how people welcomed the hillsborough verdict etc. It is worded to read they wanted SISU to lose.

The fact there was no statement when they won the right to appeal is telling, what would the statement have been if the council had lost? I'd give good odds there wouldn't be one.

 

[Buster]

Feck me ,all this shit because the trust put out a statement . Well done Trust ,keep up the work ! Dont listen to the whingers

 

[Nick]

Feck me ,all this shit because the trust put out a statement . Well done Trust ,keep up the work ! Dont listen to the whingers

Surely you listen to more than just people who pat you on the back for everything?

The best feedback is the negative, constructive feedback isn't it?

 

[armybike]

The release from SBT says - "The Sky Blue Trust welcomes the announcement of the Appeal Court verdict regarding the Judicial Review into Coventry City Council providing financial support for Arena Coventry Limited (ACL)."

Why are people turning this to "We welcome the verdict"?

The rest of the statement goes on to say people are now wanting to draw a line under this and let's move forward.

Therefore, welcoming the announcement that a verdict has been reached means this process could now start, not offering an opinion about the verdict.

 

[Nick]

The release from SBT says - "The Sky Blue Trust welcomes the announcement of the Appeal Court verdict regarding the Judicial Review into Coventry City Council providing financial support for Arena Coventry Limited (ACL)."

Why are people turning this to "We welcome the verdict"?

The rest of the statement goes on to say people are now wanting to draw a line under this and let's move forward.

Therefore, welcoming the announcement that a verdict has been reached means this process could now start, not offering an opinion about the verdict.

so why wasn't the verdict of allowing an appeal welcomed?

It isn't so much what they are trying to get across I disagree with, it is the way they go about it and only speak out when it is against SISU. (which is all well and good, but at least balance it out with good things about the club..)

 

[skybluetony176]

I'm not arguing wiht 4 judges, they know more than me

however, welcoming the verdict means it is the one you wanted. Like how people welcomed the hillsborough verdict etc. It is worded to read they wanted SISU to lose.

The fact there was no statement when they won the right to appeal is telling, what would the statement have been if the council had lost? I'd give good odds there wouldn't be one.

So you agree that the four judges delivered the right verdict. Surely you welcome it then? The only reason not to welcome it would be if you think it's wrong. It's that simple really. Why you feel the need to spin it into something else is beyond me.

 

[Nick]

So you agree that the four judges delivered the right verdict. Surely you welcome it then? The only reason not to welcome it would be if you think it's wrong. It's that simple really. Why you feel the need to spin it into something else is beyond me.

It isn't spinning it is it? You know and I know how it is meant Again, it is all well and good to throw digs about just don't moan when the club don't want to work with them or people say how it reads and comes across.

Like I just said, you can write something I totally agree with (like its pointless) but you can word it in a way I will think is a bit wrong.

If RFC made a post saying he welcomed the verdict SISU got the right to appeal, how would that be taken?

 

[armybike]

so why wasn't the verdict of allowing an appeal welcomed?

It isn't so much what they are trying to get across I disagree with, it is the way they go about it and only speak out when it is against SISU. (which is all well and good, but at least balance it out with good things about the club..)

Spin, spin, spin, spin. Allowing an appeal to progress isn't a verdict - it's not the conclusion - it's just a decision there are merits in an appeal being heard.

However, why have you posted above that they'd said they welcomed the verdict when this isn't the case?

 

[italiahorse]

The best feedback is the negative, constructive feedback isn't it?

I won't hold my breathe

 

[Nick]

I won't hold my breathe

I wish you would.

What aren't you holding your breath about?

 

[Nick]

Spin, spin, spin, spin. Allowing an appeal to progress isn't a verdict - it's not the conclusion - it's just a decision there are merits in an appeal being heard.

However, why have you posted above that they'd said they welcomed the verdict when this isn't the case?

It isn't spin is it? The trust didn't mention the right to appeal, they would know as they were outside the court handing flyers out to people but didn't mention what happened or make a statement? By verdict, I clearly meant the decision to let them appeal.

Welcoming the announcement of the verdict, same thing

I agree with the actual point they are trying to get across, just disagree with the way they do it.

 

[shy_tall_knight]

I agree with nick "welcolme" gives the impression that they are pleased with the outcome, if they meant that they are pleased that this is the end of a legal process and all its implications for the club they they should have made that clearer, what difference does JR1 finishing make when JR2 is just around the corner.

I think there anti-SISU bias is too obvious. We need the SBT to call out all sides WASP CCC SISU to determine a long term solution for the club. As an example when Higgs or ACL or CCC referred to SISU they always called them the Mayfair Hedge Fund. Going forward can the SBTrust refer to the ricoh in all correspondence as "the stadium built originally for CCFC" - I'm not being childish I think WASPS CCC need reminding of this.

 

[Nick]

I agree with nick "welcolme" gives the impression that they are pleased with the outcome, if they meant that they are pleased that this is the end of a legal process and all its implications for the club they they should have made that clearer, what difference does JR1 finishing make when JR2 is just around the corner.

I think there anti-SISU bias is too obvious. We need the SBT to call out all sides WASP CCC SISU to determine a long term solution for the club. As an example when Higgs or ACL or CCC referred to SISU they always called them the Mayfair Hedge Fund. Going forward can the SBTrust refer to the ricoh in all correspondence as "the stadium built originally for CCFC" - I'm not being childish I think WASPS CCC need reminding of this.

That's my point, by all means hate SISU, but when Trust people are in the paper saying how great a Wasps match is... When people from "Supporters Direct" are working with the council's PR company to find a way to get at Seppalla. Call them all dodgy twats, don't cosy up to anybody in this mess.

Keep it professional in the name of the trust.

 

[chiefdave]

This does raise an issue with the Trust. Very little has been seen or heard for a while now. The regular open meetings seem to have become far less frequent, can't even remember when the last one was. As I member its been a long time since I was asked for my opinion on anything.

For me the trust either needs to be active and visible at all times or stay silent. They shouldn't be there at the beck and call of the local media, only summoned when there is something that shows the owners in a poor light.

 

[armybike]

It isn't spin is it? The trust didn't mention the right to appeal, they would know as they were outside the court handing flyers out to people but didn't mention what happened or make a statement? By verdict, I clearly meant the decision to let them appeal.

Welcoming the announcement of the verdict, same thing

I agree with the actual point they are trying to get across, just disagree with the way they do it.

Yes it is spin. You've questioned why they've dealt with the two 'verdicts' different - well that'll be because the first one wasn't a verdict!

They've made a release as the matter is now resolved and they're pointing out, as many are, that it's time to look forward.

I did mention this in a separate comment but you seemed to skip over that point and just jumped on the ones pointing out people get jumped on.

Also, welcoming the announcement and welcoming the verdict aren't the same thing.

 

[lamtara2006]

But the thing is, you can't make statements like welcoming the verdict then wonder why the club don't work with them.

Keep it a neutral statement, you can say things in different ways.

Like "we hope the court battles stop" without all of the digs as well.

All well and good having the digs and snipes, just can't really moan when people point out it's all about being anti sisu or that the club don't work with them.

Then there is the complete silence about the appeal going ahead, just put out neutral statements as the trust, then by all means hate them as individuals.

Strange how the actual statement "The Sky Blue Trust welcomes the announcement ofthe Appeal Court verdict" has become abbreviated to "The Trust welcomes the verdict" in your posts.

 

[Nick]

Strange how the actual statement "The Sky Blue Trust welcomes the announcement ofthe Appeal Court verdict" has become abbreviated to "The Trust welcomes the verdict" in your posts.

Sorry, I didn't mean to abbreviate it to mislead.

Welcoming the announcement and the verdict I read as the same thing, and it isn't just big old sisu loving me who has thought the same. If people who hate SISU themselves a fair bit also read it as the same there is obviously an issue.

 

[Nick]

Yes it is spin. You've questioned why they've dealt with the two 'verdicts' different - well that'll be because the first one wasn't a verdict!

OK, the first "decision".

They were outside court handing out flyers but didn't mention the "decision" at all?

 

[armybike]

Strange how the actual statement "The Sky Blue Trust welcomes the announcement ofthe Appeal Court verdict" has become abbreviated to "The Trust welcomes the verdict" in your posts.

Apparently, according to Nick, they're the same thing. Personally not quite sure how he's worked that out.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Strange how the actual statement "The Sky Blue Trust welcomes the announcement ofthe Appeal Court verdict" has become abbreviated to "The Trust welcomes the verdict" in your posts.

Laughed when I realised the CT has done the same.

Coventry City FC's largest supporter group welcomed the Court of Appeal's decision yesterday clearing Coventry City Council of any wrong doing

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sky-blue-trust-urge-coventry-11332359

 

[lamtara2006]

This does raise an issue with the Trust. Very little has been seen or heard for a while now. The regular open meetings seem to have become far less frequent, can't even remember when the last one was. As I member its been a long time since I was asked for my opinion on anything.

For me the trust either needs to be active and visible at all times or stay silent. They shouldn't be there at the beck and call of the local media, only summoned when there is something that shows the owners in a poor light.

Last Trust Open Meeting was February 22nd with Chris Anderson. A good discussion in a positive spirit, well attended.

They've been trying to get one with Tony Mowbray I believe but it has proved difficult due to TM's commitments during the season.

 

[Nick]

Laughed when I realised the CT has done the same.

I guess it will be corrected, as they obviously read it the same way...

 

[lamtara2006]

Apparently, according to Nick, they're the same thing. Personally not quite sure how he's worked that out.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good thread!

 

[Nick]

Apparently, according to Nick, they're the same thing. Personally not quite sure how he's worked that out.

As well as other members, and as well as the local newspaper read the statement the same way.... isn't just me.

If multiple people and the local newspaper take the statement a certain way (which you say isn't intended to be that way) then there is a problem with the statement.

I guess the Telegraph will be asked to amend?

 

[lamtara2006]

OK, the first "decision".

They were outside court handing out flyers but didn't mention the "decision" at all?

Except for the interview with a Trust Spokesperson on BBC Cov & Warwick on Phil Upton that evening

 

[Nick]

Except for the interview with a Trust Spokesperson on BBC Cov & Warwick on Phil Upton that evening

Strange, no statement on the website or twitter or anything. No posting it around on forums?

 

[Jack Griffin]

I guess it will be corrected, as they obviously read it the same way...

Did they? Maybe it was spin, I know Les Reid always deploys heavy calibre adjectives in support of his strong opinions.
This lass has skilfully deleted a vital noun, in the first paragraph and again further down as if to drive the idea home.

As for you, I don't think you even realised what you did, I didn't notice it either, it took lamtara's forensic skills to point it out.

 

[Sick Boy]

This does raise an issue with the Trust. Very little has been seen or heard for a while now. The regular open meetings seem to have become far less frequent, can't even remember when the last one was. As I member its been a long time since I was asked for my opinion on anything.

For me the trust either needs to be active and visible at all times or stay silent. They shouldn't be there at the beck and call of the local media, only summoned when there is something that shows the owners in a poor light.

That is essentially what they are though. They only ever happen to appear when there is a chance to knock the club. Have they ever spoken out about the council's role in all this?

What have they used membership fees for? Where does this money go? Why did their leaders get given VIP tickets to watch Wasps?

 

[Nick]

Did they? Maybe it was spin, I know Les Reid always deploys heavy calibre adjectives in support of his strong opinions.
This lass has skilfully deleted a vital noun, in the first paragraph and again further down as if to drive the idea home.

As for you, I don't think you even realised what you did, I didn't notice it either, it took lamtara's forensic skills to point it out.

I didn't mean to try and spin or differentiate, probably just lazy typing as I knew what I meant!

It could well be spun (I didn't want to mention that), but if the Trust don't really think that they will be having it edited to avoid confusion.

 

[Nick]

Why did their leaders get given VIP tickets to watch Wasps?

Did they? I know they went to watch, didn't know it was VIP?