Sky Blues Trust Guardian link (2 Viewers)

[bigfatronssba]

I dont believe that the trust have been threatened with legal action (although I wouldn't be surprised), however it would just be nice if they could just confirm that.

As has been seen with the way sisu run the club, if you dont give the people all the facts, you cant blame them when they fill the gaps in themselves.

 

---

[James Smith]

How can they be threatened with legal action for sharing a link?

The only law that comes to mind with a few seconds thought is the DCMA which is American and I think only the copyright holder or their agent can request a takedown. However I'm not a lawyer so there might be one.

 

[James Smith]

No total over 400 in 17 innings, the most sixes ever scored against you in an Ashes innings, the worst Ashes collapse in over 50 years, the second heaviest defeat in Ashes history...sometimes, the patterns are connected, unfortunately.


Not in the case of the link though, I don't think...it seems a lot more likely that a "polite request" has been made, EG "do it or we won't be as co-operative with you, which would be a shame given your new, neutral/neutered stance now, wouldn't it?".


Does anyone else find that when imagining Fisher speaking they hear the same voice as David Cameron?


Any way, we need a statement from the Trust to clear this up.

How about the questions the trust and us would like answers to. "We'll consider answering them if you drop the link."

 

[Nick]

I dont believe that the trust have been threatened with legal action (although I wouldn't be surprised), however it would just be nice if they could just confirm that.

As has been seen with the way sisu run the club, if you dont give the people all the facts, you cant blame them when they fill the gaps in themselves.

It is trust members saying it though...

 

[torchomatic]

I've had a few of those DCMA warnings on my blog.

The only law that comes to mind with a few seconds thought is the DCMA which is American and I think only the copyright holder or their agent can request a takedown. However I'm not a lawyer so there might be one.

 

[Nick]

I've had a few of those DCMA warnings on my blog.

Yep, I have had some too and it has only really been for copyright issues or content published on that site. Rather than links.

 

[torchomatic]

Well, on my blog I rip my own LPs and upload them to Mega, etc so the DCMA warnings I have had in the past have been the usual "cease and desist" thing, "collapse the link, copyright, blah blah blah". Odd really as the music I post is old and obscure.

Yep, I have had some too and it has only really been for copyright issues or content published on that site. Rather than links.

 

[_brian_]

Well, on my blog I rip my own LPs and upload them to Mega, etc so the DCMA warnings I have had in the past have been the usual "cease and desist" thing, "collapse the link, copyright, blah blah blah". Odd really as the music I post is old and obscure.

Maybe it's more to do with your taste in music, mate!!! Only joking! Top of the LOLs!!!

 

[torchomatic]

Actually, Brian I think it is: http://loungetastic.blogspot.com

Maybe it's more to do with your taste in music, mate!!! Only joking! Top of the LOLs!!!

 

[Nick]

Something isn't right

Was it the fact the Trust were emailing it out to people to say "look at this" and actively promoting it? Did the trust take anything from the article that possibly wasn't true and use it in a newsletter or anything?

Surely if the article is 100% factually correct SISU can't do anything can they?

 

[torchomatic]

I think it's more of a case of 2 plus 2 equals 19.

Something isn't right

Was it the fact the Trust were emailing it out to people to say "look at this" and actively promoting it? Did the trust take anything from the article that possibly wasn't true and use it in a newsletter or anything?

Surely if the article is 100% factually correct SISU can't do anything can they?

 

[Nick]

I think it might be true, some of the people who have posted about it are in the trust.

 

[torchomatic]

Maybe. I'll wait to hear from Jan or someone similar before I give it too much credence.

I think it might be true, some of the people who have posted about it are in the trust.

 

[shmmeee]

Wish I could say what I know about this.

 

[Spionkop]

15 Hours & no reply from the trust. Smells a bit fishy to me.

 

[covmark]

Wish I could say what I know about this.

what a pointless post, either say it or keep your mouth shut. Don't give it the usual "i know more than you" crap.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

Surely if the article is 100% factually correct SISU can't do anything can they?

Didn't Jimmy Saville threaten to sue people?

Didn't Jonathan Aitkin sue the Guardian?

Didn't Jeffrey Archer threaten to sue people?

etc etc

Libel cases are so expensive that the threat of action is often sufficient.

 

[shmmeee]

what a pointless post, either say it or keep your mouth shut. Don't give it the usual "i know more than you" crap.

Was aimed at Nick, who unlike you seems to be able to put 2 and 2 together.

 

[Astute]

That is if it is what has happened though. In the past when I have had dealings like that they have never really been that harsh or forceful, it has literally been the disgusting stuff that they have requested to be taken down and it has never been "do this or we will sue you". Unless things have changed now.

What is the user name they use Nick? :thinking about:

 

[AndreasB]

The real point is that the Trust operate in a complete knee jerk way with their communications, there is no planned campaign, just a spewing out of any random stuff that appears at face value to be interesting. The Conn article (like the Private Eye ones) is no more than a retelling of the situation for a non Coventry audience and adds nothing new to our understanding or debate.

 

[Nick]

What is the user name they use Nick? :thinking about:

They aren't members I don't think?

 

[Astute]

What a shame. Could have sent them a delightful message

 

[skybluetony176]

The real point is that the Trust operate in a complete knee jerk way with their communications, there is no planned campaign, just a spewing out of any random stuff that appears at face value to be interesting. The Conn article (like the Private Eye ones) is no more than a retelling of the situation for a non Coventry audience and adds nothing new to our understanding or debate.

aside from exposing the latest rent offer.

 

[AndreasB]

aside from exposing the latest rent offer.

which has not been acknowledged by the club so how do you know its true?

 

[bigfatronssba]

which has not been acknowledged by the club so how do you know its true?

It hasn't being denied either so it obviously is.

 

[AndreasB]

It hasn't being denied either so it obviously is.

"obviously" ... sorry, of course I didnt realise facts were now optional depending on your predjudice.

 

[Monners]

"obviously" ... sorry, of course I didnt realise facts were now optional depending on your predjudice.

Why would a indepandant reputable broadsheet publish a report about a failing lower division club and include the rent offer if it wasn't true? Doesn't it make you think that there may be something in it. And what wrong with the rest of the article frasing awarenss to our plight?

 

[magic82ball]

"obviously" ... sorry, of course I didnt realise facts were now optional depending on your predjudice.

Are you suggesting that the reports in various papers locally and nationally as well as the statements from ACL/CCC along with the non denial from the football league who were used to mediate and the statement from Labovitch rejecting such offer , are you saying that this in your opinion that this in fact did not happen and is perhaps a piece of propaganda maybe from ACL/CCC?

 

[Grendel]

what a pointless post, either say it or keep your mouth shut. Don't give it the usual "i know more than you" crap.

Or at least explain why you are so familiar with trust affairs "Schmeee"

 

[Nick]

Why would a indepandant reputable broadsheet publish a report about a failing lower division club and include the rent offer if it wasn't true? Doesn't it make you think that there may be something in it. And what wrong with the rest of the article frasing awarenss to our plight?

It might not have been the rent offer, could it have just been certain facts or figures?

 

[Astute]

"obviously" ... sorry, of course I didnt realise facts were now optional depending on your predjudice.

So what has happened to the obligatory court threat or denial on the offal?

We got the denial that an offer wasn't made directly to them. This tells us it was made indirectly to them. And we also know that the offer was made through the FL.

 

[skybluetony176]

So what has happened to the obligatory court threat or denial on the offal?

We got the denial that an offer wasn't made "directly" to them. This tells us it was made indirectly to them. And we also know that the offer was made through the FL.

you forgot the quote marks

 

[Nick]

Could it be to do with this?

TF – What does the Sky Blue Trust (SBT) statement of 2nd August mean? We beseech the football league not to give the golden share to Otium. Club comes first and always has. We had to save the club on 2nd August. As said before, the FL were prepared to have 71 teams for one year so we had to act and move the club to ensure that we could fulfil our fixtures. Indeed by making such irresponsible statements as that of 2nd August then the fans are being totally mislead. I am angry and sorry for Coventry fans. I travel by train where possible to try and speak to and engage with as many fans as I can. The fans in the SBT are lions led by donkeys. The SBT needs leadership.


SB – We cannot control the fans in the SBT – there are extreme factions. But we are making changes eg John Fletcher leaving

 

[Astute]

you forgot the quote marks

Silly me. Wasn't quoting anyone but suppose a quote was made to the same

 

[Sky Blues]

Something isn't right

Was it the fact the Trust were emailing it out to people to say "look at this" and actively promoting it? Did the trust take anything from the article that possibly wasn't true and use it in a newsletter or anything?

Surely if the article is 100% factually correct SISU can't do anything can they?

I don't have a clue what has happened, but whole thread is beginning to sound a little like that whole super-injunction thing when news organisations were told they couldn't report the fact that someone had taken out an injunction to stop them publishing something else. As I say, I know nothing and I'm not suggesting that is what has happened, I'm just saying the thread has reminded me of those.