BBC article about Saturday's game (5 Viewers)

[Grendel]

Oh it wasn't you Pete, you handled it really well.

Phil Upton would have done that on purpose. You could tell it was all he was bothered about.

Phil is ok and has liked a couple of my tweets on the subject - he had a briefing from Bruce I’m sure

 

---

[PurpleBin]

Henry Winter has replied to me and said he's read our statement...fingers crossed now.

 

[Nick]

Henry Winter has replied to me and said he's read our statement...fingers crossed now.

Wonder if it will be spun like CWR....

 

[eastwoodsdustman]

Henry Winter has replied to me and said he's read our statement...fingers crossed now.

He seems to have taken an interest in the club:

 

[Nick]

He seems to have taken an interest in the club:

He's mates with the Trust isn't he?

 

[eastwoodsdustman]

He's mates with the Trust isn't he?

don't know. never really paid him too much notice. Maybe he only uses their line because he thinks that they are speaking for the fans. We'll see if does anything with the statement pretty soon.

 

[Briles]

Guardians picked it up

Homesickness lingers as Coventry host landlords Birmingham in FA Cup | Ben Fisher

 

[eastwoodsdustman]

Guardians picked it up

Homesickness lingers as Coventry host landlords Birmingham in FA Cup | Ben Fisher

They're quoting the trust film bloke now too.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Guardians picked it up

Homesickness lingers as Coventry host landlords Birmingham in FA Cup | Ben Fisher

Better article

 

[Nick]

Guardians picked it up

Homesickness lingers as Coventry host landlords Birmingham in FA Cup | Ben Fisher

Neil should get his memory checked.

Bit of a better written article though, taken his time to speak to Salako at least rather than all Trust spin.

 

[Nick]

don't know. never really paid him too much notice. Maybe he only uses their line because he thinks that they are speaking for the fans. We'll see if does anything with the statement pretty soon.

Will be interesting to see.

 

[win9nut]

Shock, the trust telling half a story.

The funny thing is they claim they can't see why people have an issue.

The problem is that to find out why people have an issue, they actually need to engage with those people who have an issue, and it seems there is no effort on their part.
One of the board members should be responsible for engagement with members surely!

 

[Nick]

The problem is that to find out why people have an issue, they actually need to engage with those people who have an issue, and it seems there is no effort on their part.
One of the board members should be responsible for engagement with members surely!

They have no interest in finding out or listening.

They seem oblivious to it, probably think everybody who disagrees with them is Les Reid.

 

[Nick]

It's interesting the Bull and Anchor say they are losing about 2 grand a match day from CCFC not being there. The bloke says you couldnt move on matchdays, that was mainly due to 1 person serving. With the new layout it would be interesting to see how it was handled then.

How will city fans take to being there if we go back with all of their Wasps affiliate posters advertising cheap tickets?

 

[Irish Sky Blue]

I think most contributors recognise what he's saying, hence the focus on the indemnity over everything else. It is the Sky Blue Trust that constantly conflates various issues and shrouds them in a load of emotive twaddle and out of date / context quotations.

I wonder whether the best form of attack on the indemnity clause is possibly not to ask it to be dropped per se, but ask Wasps for further information on it; what it is, why it is needed (and why from the football club) and what the probable impact is on the football club if they had to pay it. I doubt an answer will come but it exposes them to the sort of scrutiny they don't like.

I like the idea of asking Wasps that question. Like you I doubt that they will answer it. A journalist talking to Eastwood and asking these things would be good.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I like the idea of asking Wasps that question. Like you I doubt that they will answer it. A journalist talking to Eastwood and asking these things would be good.

I agree it’s what I’ve asked when I sent our statement to Mr Eastwood

 

[Irish Sky Blue]

I agree it’s what I’ve asked when I sent our statement to Mr Eastwood

You would hope that the next time he is speaking to the media that those questions would be raised. Hard to wriggle out of things with a mic or a camera in your face.

 

[AOM]

On a positive note, the majority of "Highest rated" comments on the BBC article actually seem to be balanced and look at the wider picture.
Although not sure if it's just mainly posters from here!

 

[Liquid Gold]

Guardians picked it up

Homesickness lingers as Coventry host landlords Birmingham in FA Cup | Ben Fisher

cmd+f 'Indemnity' = no results

Load of bullshit

 

[Nick]

You would hope that the next time he is speaking to the media that those questions would be raised. Hard to wriggle out of things with a mic or a camera in your face.

He never seems to get asked them though, he repeatedly makes out it's up to CCFC to drop the legals to go back.

Hopefully journalists will be more clued up and ask him.

 

[Nick]

Hmm CJ isnt sure why nobody mentioned the indemnity?

 

[fernandopartridge]

It's interesting the Bull and Anchor say they are losing about 2 grand a match day from CCFC not being there. The bloke says you couldnt move on matchdays, that was mainly due to 1 person serving. With the new layout it would be interesting to see how it was handled then.

How will city fans take to being there if we go back with all of their Wasps affiliate posters advertising cheap tickets?

In fairness to that pub, they've got to make ends meet and without Cov playing there they'll need Wasps. Be good to get people like than lobbying the council though, they should probably make an appeal on their business rates.

That's an idea actually, my mate is a surveyor as well. I'll suggest that all businesses within the vicinity could appeal their rateable value on the basis of a material change of circumstance, most obviously pubs.

 

[Grendel]

Hmm CJ isnt sure why nobody mentioned the indemnity?

Lol why does anyone think that guy is better than any of the others

 

[Deleted member 5849]

That's an idea actually, my mate is a surveyor as well. I'll suggest that all businesses within the vicinity could appeal their rateable value on the basis of a material change of circumstance, most obviously pubs.

Wouldn't that only work if they saw increases when Wasps came in?

 

[Nick]

In fairness to that pub, they've got to make ends meet and without Cov playing there they'll need Wasps. Be good to get people like than lobbying the council though, they should probably make an appeal on their business rates.

That's an idea actually, my mate is a surveyor as well. I'll suggest that all businesses within the vicinity could appeal their rateable value on the basis of a material change of circumstance, most obviously pubs.

Oh yeah I see what they are trying but why didn't anybody like this say anything before when there was talk of it?

I have been in there on a Wasps matchday and it's dead.

 

[Great_Expectations]

Amongst the many things wrong with that article, one of the biggest things; how can the Chair of the Supporters Trust not actually support the team? Zero credibility right off the bat.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Wouldn't that only work if they saw increases when Wasps came in?

No, nothing to do with Wasps. The absence of CCFC is having a material affect on their business, therefore they can claim (especially a pub that has its RV calculated generally on the basis of beer sales) that there is an adverse impact and there RV should be reduced due to a material change of circumstances since the rating list was compiled on 1/4/2017.

 

[Nick]

Amongst the many things wrong with that article, one of the biggest things; how can the Chair of the Supporters Trust not actually support the team? Zero credibility right off the bat.

According to Neil, the Trust shouldn't be about supporting CCFC.

 

[Nick]

No, nothing to do with Wasps. The absence of CCFC is having a material affect on their business, therefore they can claim (especially a pub that has its RV calculated generally on the basis of beer sales) that there is an adverse impact and there RV should be reduced due to a material change of circumstances since the rating list was compiled on 1/4/2017.

Yeah exactly, if their takings are down because of it then the value of their business is down.

They would probably sell more on a match day then they would in a week usually.

 

[shmmeee]

You would hope that the next time he is speaking to the media that those questions would be raised. Hard to wriggle out of things with a mic or a camera in your face.

It’s not really. You just go “I won’t talk about X and if you put it in I refuse the entire interview”. Just like Boddy did on CWR last night. This isn’t a TV show, people deal with the media on their terms or they don’t deal with them at all.

 

[MusicDating]

On a positive note, the majority of "Highest rated" comments on the BBC article actually seem to be balanced and look at the wider picture.
Although not sure if it's just mainly posters from here!

Mine's the second highest atm

I do agree with Shmmeee in that we need to avoid coming across as abusive internet fans. Which is hard when we read blatant lies.
I also agree with Grendel in that without a story to sell, the media won't be interested in the statement, so if that's us v Trust, so be it.
It's a fine balance.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

No, nothing to do with Wasps. The absence of CCFC is having a material affect on their business, therefore they can claim (especially a pub that has its RV calculated generally on the basis of beer sales) that there is an adverse impact and there RV should be reduced due to a material change of circumstances since the rating list was compiled on 1/4/2017.

OK thanks, 2017 is key. In which case, knock yourself out

 

[Nick]

Mine's the second highest atm

I do agree with Shmmeee in that we need to avoid coming across as abusive internet fans. Which is hard when we read blatant lies.
I also agree with Grendel in that without a story to sell, the media won't be interested in the statement, so if that's us v Trust, so be it.
It's a fine balance.

It isn't us V Trust, it's people pissed off that the Trust keep speaking on their behalf when the overwhelming majority don't feel represented by them. It's not just on here that people are mentioning it.

 

[shmmeee]

Mine's the second highest atm

I do agree with Shmmeee in that we need to avoid coming across as abusive internet fans. Which is hard when we read blatant lies.
I also agree with Grendel in that without a story to sell, the media won't be interested in the statement, so if that's us v Trust, so be it.
It's a fine balance.

In hindsight I’m softening on the us V Trust thing, as you say it probably got the attention in the first place and certainly got the attention of the Trust. It’s segueing into a productive relationship that’s the issue though.

 

[Nick]

In hindsight I’m softening on the us V Trust thing, as you say it probably got the attention in the first place and certainly got the attention of the Trust. It’s segueing into a productive relationship that’s the issue though.

It's not just a relationship with "Sky Blues Talk", it's with fans and members in general. There currently isn't one with the members of the Trust.

It's not unique to here or anything different to say Keith on Twitter or Dave or doesn't have the internet but signed up in town.