very poor article from the Telegraph, surely it's not beyond them to ask the most basic questions of SISU. Or even if SISU won't answer them indicate they have been asked and show that the CT have a grasp on what is going on. it seems a way of SISU trying to fool people into thinking they are open to talks while at the same time clearly stating they are only prepared to talk on their own terms. Why not just come to the table and see what is on offer before sending out snide press releases?
From the first line it's laughable, "Coventry City have today issued a public invitation to council leader Ann Lucas to “sit down and talk” urgently about returning to the Ricoh Arena.". Surely a lot easier to just respond to one of the many public invitations Ann Lucas has made to Sepalla for talks?
"We have repeatedly asked the council to discuss a sale of the Ricoh Arena to the club." Two points here, have they made an offer to purchase the freehold. If they wish to purchase it then that would be a logical step. Also the issue we keep bringing up on here of why do they need ownership of the freehold. As far as I can tell the only benefit is that SISU can debt load against the freehold to get their money back before walking away leaving CCFC with massive debts to pay. I've yet to see any other case presented for ownership of the freehold.
"The senior council officers (Chris West and Martin Reeves) who also serve as directors of Arena Coventry Limited (ACL) have told us that they have no authority to discuss this with us, only the council leadership can do so", statements like this just make SISU look clueless. Why not speak to the council leadership, they have repeatedly offered to talk.
“So it is a very simple question for Cllr Lucas: is she prepared to discuss a freehold sale of the Ricoh?", again can someone from the Telegraph please ask SISU to explain why they need ownership of the freehold which brings zero revenue.
“We can’t wait around much longer and are therefore pushing ahead with our efforts to acquire a site.”, what happened to "we've moved on", it increasingly sounds like they've got nowhere with the plans for a new ground and we're now about 6 months into the 3 year timeframe they originally gave for completion of the project.
The mentions of the JR sound like playground stuff, it's not the attitude you want to take with someone you're looking to do a business deal with. No one in their right mind would do the opposite of what they've been advised by their legal team. Here's an idea, if SISU are so keen for CCC to be able to speak freely why not drop the JR? Also interesting to note that the statement about the JR is very similar to tweets being sent out by Get Cov Back to the Ricoh and Les Reid. If you were the suspicious type you might draw the conclusion that there was some link between the three.
Then we get to the full text of the statement, the interesting thing to note here is that SISU now seem to be issuing statements through the CT now rather than their own website. The first paragraph is cringe worthy and an embarrassment to the club.
They then state "Most sensible people agree that a football club, any football club, needs to own its stadium in order to be financially viable on a long-term basis.". This reads like a forum post where someone puts FACT at the end to prove it's true. On what basis are they making this statement? The CT poll that showed the majority didn't want SISU to take ownership of the Ricoh? The figures we saw from the FL recently that showed only 20 teams owned their own ground? Maybe they have some other evidence in which case it would be nice if they shared it with us.
Why on earth would CCC have commissioned an independent valuation on an asset that isn't for sale? And why would SISU know if they had or not?
"And we’d still like to know the real reason why Cllr Lucas authorised ACL’s rejection of the CVA which cost “my beloved Sky Blues” another 10 points." Not sure what they are getting at here? Wasn't aware that Ann Lucas was a director of ACL.
Overall it's a very childish response and the fact that the CT chooses to print it without questioning any of it's contents is for me very poor. They may not have the resources to do major investigative journalism but pretty much any poster on here could have done a better job of pointing out the gaping holes in the statement.