Nick
Administrator
He was saying the Telegraph weren't wasn't he? Not fans, it is quite clear fans have.
Telegraph Spin (30 Viewers)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
He was saying the Telegraph weren't wasn't he? Not fans, it is quite clear fans have.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Of course it wasn't your point. You never make one.
dutchman
Well-Known Member
I was replying to the post which suggested that the Coventry Telegraph and Sky Blue Trust had been complaining for a long time, not ordinary supporters.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The post he was replying to said "The club's a mess and going nowhere, oh well let's give a load of stick to people who complain about it, like the CT and the Trust, as if it is their fucking fault...."
He talked about the mess of the club in general and then pointed out that people are blaming the CT and the TRUST. CT ran a bring city home campaign and if the trust hadn't been complaining JS wouldn't have had anything to talk about un SCG meetings for years now as we all know that the point of the SCG is to put the boot into the trust for putting the boot into our owners.
I think you're the one who missed the point. Nick spin.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
They have and I've given countless examples of how they have.
Nick
Administrator
Until recently, the trust haven't openly said they are anti sisu and neither have the Telegraph although it has been obvious they haven't actually said it. The Bring City Home campaign / John Terry performance?
I didn't miss the point, it looks like you still are as Dutchman has cleared it up above what he meant.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Not only can't you identify who posts you don't even read what they said.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
You either have a short or selective memory. So when the trust got a threatening letter from the owners solicitors over an article they linked on their official website they weren't complaining about the owners? Was the article positive and the owners didn't appreciate the positive publicity? The two marches? Was that saying well done SISU for taking the club to Northampton?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Must have learned that from Nick and Dave.
Nick
Administrator
Again, until recently they didn't actually come out and say they were going to be all out Anti SISU did they? They always gave it the balanced line.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Not my words.... Someone else's.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
How have the BBC screwed up? All the data was presented correctly by them as far as I can see. The full data was presented on the website and their tool for a graphical representation shows the programme at £3 against a division average of £2.92.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Exactly. And they did mention that it wasn't the fault of CCFC.Quite.... I wonder who we should blame?
If we charged £2.99 for a program would the CET run a story saying we had the cheapest program?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Oddly its a FL rule that you have to produce a programme.
That is an odd condition, communication has changed so much.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Probably not.
I'm not saying they didn't acknowledge it, but it's a misleading headline. It's not in Daily Mail/Sun territory but frustrating none the less.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Was that the only line you read in the article?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Where did their app show us on the scale of the most expensive programs?
(Note for those who need everything explained to them I know we are just as expensive as 95% of the rest of the league)
Have you still got that screen shot?
Not that that this is the point anyway
The article is entitled words to the effect of the true cost of support ing CCFC.
The information is based on information supplied by the BBC.
The CET pointed out that we are very expensive in terms of food and drink and it's compass' fault. Also the club only get 15% of that
(I assume you accept they did not need to mention either fact. If they are spinning against the club)
They mention that we are average priced on season tickets. They make reference to the more expensive Southend.
(I assume you accept if they were spinning against the club they would point out the cost of the cheapest season ticket in comparison)
They then make one comment about the cost of matchday programs. The BBC app shows us as expensive. It's a point that as oppose to ticket prices and food and drink most people couldn't give a crap about.
Yet in the article that is the one line you pick up on. Nick states it was an attempt to kick the club and you highlight as a good example of spinning against the club.
I mean seriously you are both either very very deluded and a tad paranoid. Or there is spinning afoot but I have to say in this occasion it is not the CET but yourself and nick.
If someone wanted to spin against the club from the BBC web site..,.
According to the BBC......
Coventry City are 6% more expensive than the average cost of a replica shirt
Coventry are 14% more expensive for a child replica shirt. You would think in the current circumstances with wasps making everything cheaper for children would be a priority.
Coventry's cheapest season ticket is £249. 00 yet Bradford manage to do one for £100.00 less. Which might explain their much higher attendances compared to Coventry.
Each goal costs you over £10 a goal where as Fleetwood are real value for their goals at just over £6 a goal.
It's costs more than the average at Coventry to buy a pie, drink and program.
(Now an article like that would be a good example of spinning against the club)
The article you are suggesting is spinning. If there is any spinning in there the only one who could genuinely get their arse in their hands would be Compass.
Moff
Well-Known Member
Alternatively I would say its ironic some people who spin things themselves to suit their arguments, have a go at others doing the same. I guess some will miss that though.
(Before you go off at me, this isn't aimed at you)
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't go off at you mate.
I accept the CET have an agenda. They have made it quite clear they would like the owners to sell up. They are not hiding that.
However this article is clearly not about spinning or encouraging the pitch forks it's quite balanced. The only people I feel they have a pop at are compass. Yet even in these circumstances it is highlighted as Telegraph spin.
Moff
Well-Known Member
We are really let down by the local press, both the Telegraph and the Observer. Both are poles apart, mistrusted by many, and seem to have an agenda.
We are cursed with the Leagues worst owners, and the Country's worst local press. Apparently though we are blessed with two award winning journalists, so they like to keep telling us!
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Completely true!
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Like I said. Selective or short memory. The last time JS used the SCG to attack the Trust for attacking the owners wasn't the first time was it? How long ago was the first time? So was the letter that the trust received from the owners lawyers threatening them to take a link down or face the consequences only recently? No is didn't think so.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Well, at least you acknowledge Nick and Dave have spun this one which is more than they were willing to admit.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
They've also done an article recently promoting Xmas gifts from the club shop (the CT that is, not the observer) strange Nick and Dave haven't fallen over themselves to talk about that article. I think Nick brushed it of as a slow news day article when I pointed it out to him. Anything to damage the club.
NortonSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
The biggest threat to CCFC is the presence of sisu in the City, Wasps have been made a threat by sisu.
Nick
Administrator
Yes, I said it was a filler and also a cheeky way to promote Simon's book. I also said you were right that one wasn't kicking the club.
Did you see the other Christmas present articles that day?
I'll have to check if they have approved my comment on there yet about a signed ball
Last edited:
Nick
Administrator
And still, it's only recently the trust have come out as anti sisu and not hiding behind the balance stuff. The same as the telegraph.
Before that it was very indirect wasn't it?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Not sure why a couple of people on here are so desperate to defend the CT. They clearly have an agenda. This was one throwaway comment not the proverbial 'smoking gun', if you want that look more to their point blank refusal to feature the legacy fund.
The BBC shows this:
CT shows this:
I would say those two graphical representations give a different impression of the cost of a programme at CCFC compared to others.
City top the League One charts for the most expensive programmes
City charge the same for a programme as all but one League One club.
Both correct and in line with the raw data but would you say both give the same impression to the reader?
What app are you referring to?
The BBC shows this:
CT shows this:
I would say those two graphical representations give a different impression of the cost of a programme at CCFC compared to others.
The raw data listed by the BBC on their website is correct. You can of course interpret things in different ways. For example:
City top the League One charts for the most expensive programmes
City charge the same for a programme as all but one League One club.
Both correct and in line with the raw data but would you say both give the same impression to the reader?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Would that be the one Nick started a thread on that I was one of only 3 people to comment on?
Nick
Administrator
No it was a different one where the they found a few things on the online store and Simon's book.
I can tell there's a seething desire for people on here to catch the CT red-handed in some sort of elaborate propaganda campaign against the club. But I don't think this article is going to be the smoking gun you're looking for guys.
If the true, sole aim of that article was to continue the glorious mission of bringing down SISU, any of us would be able to do a better job of spinning the BBC's numbers, compared to that rather pedestrian article and graphic.
If the true, sole aim of that article was to continue the glorious mission of bringing down SISU, any of us would be able to do a better job of spinning the BBC's numbers, compared to that rather pedestrian article and graphic.