Sky Blues Trust Guardian link (16 Viewers)

[robbiethemole]

http://www.supporters-direct.org/news-article/coventry-city-legal-threats-to-supporters-trust-issued

COVENTRY CITY – LEGAL THREATS TO SUPPORTERS’ TRUST ISSUED

Legal letters are being used as a new tactic in SISU Capital’s battle to secure ownership of the Ricoh Arena.
It can only be assumed that they have issued some form of communication to the Guardian already over Sports Journalist of the Year David Conn’s excellent summation of SISU’s disastrous seven-year reign, as today the supporters’ trust were warned by lawyers acting for Hedge Fund SISU Capital that they could end up being sued….after posting a link to the story!
Given the wide distribution of said link across the internet – through Facebook, Twitter, on individual blogs and sites, we presume that the letter has been received by all those who have ‘published’ the story. Indeed, this week Two Hundred Percent and Stand for Football have both put up articles, linking to Conn’s original piece.
However the story is we understand entirely factually correct, including most certainly the non-payment of rent by SISU that led to SISU filing for the administration of Coventry City FC (a fact repeated over and over during and since the months that SISU were not, er, paying rent). We’re not quite sure where the now infamous – and unsuccessful – hedge fund have a case, and we’d be interested to hear of anyone who thinks they have. Especially given David Conn’s incredible track record in exposing football’s failures and poor practice.
Joy Seppala, Tim Fisher and the returning Mark Labovitch – an ex-investment banker and former financial advisor to ex-PM Tony Blair – are the three who appear to be making all the decisions, though this one should probably be filed with the rather large pile marked ‘misguided’.
- See more at: http://www.supporters-direct.org/ne...-supporters-trust-issued#sthash.pjE5woXu.dpuf

Maybe we should copy and paste this to Andrew Pomfrett @thefootballleagueenquiries and keep bombarding them, asking how much more crap the FL will let them get away with.

 

---

[James Smith]

Maybe we should copy and paste this to Andrew Pomfrett @thefootballleagueenquiries and keep bombarding them, asking how much more crap the FL will let them get away with.

Don't forget the FA.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Many months ago I put a reply beneath CET article on the telegraph web site. It was very critical of SISU's management of the club, it had about 30 likes in about 15 minutes. No abuse, no derogatory remarks, in fact most of it was based on information SISU had made public themselves.

Lots of other replies were abusive and emotional. They soon got blocked and to my surprise so did mine. It soon became apparent the CET had received some sort of threat of legal action. I couldn't work out how they had grounds to object to my post. After about 5 days my post was unblocked and there to see unlike some of the others.

The trouble was the news had now moved on and people wouldn't read the post now anyway. One of many ways to control the media against you I guess.

It has happened to one or two posts I made on the CT site too.

 

[ccfcway]

Following on from this, can the trust come up with an effective protest.

I think you may have many on your side at this point !

 

[Jack Griffin]

Following on from this, can the trust come up with an effective protest.

I think you may have many on your side at this point !

The most effective protest I can see is for the fans to cut all ties with SISU by going independent with an AFC Coventry. I know a some people don't think that acceptable, but I don't think it is acceptable to give in to SISU's demand... I'd rather take them out of the equation. In my opinion this time next year, they'll still be litigation, the club will still be at Sixfields & there will be no application from Otium for planing permission for a new stadium anywhere in the Coventry Area.

 

[dadgad]

Many months ago I put a reply beneath CET article on the telegraph web site. It was very critical of SISU's management of the club, it had about 30 likes in about 15 minutes. No abuse, no derogatory remarks, in fact most of it was based on information SISU had made public themselves.

Lots of other replies were abusive and emotional. They soon got blocked and to my surprise so did mine. It soon became apparent the CET had received some sort of threat of legal action. I couldn't work out how they had grounds to object to my post. After about 5 days my post was unblocked and there to see unlike some of the others.

The trouble was the news had now moved on and people wouldn't read the post now anyway. One of many ways to control the media against you I guess.

This is a very disturbing development.

If Sisu are now eroding even the principles of free speech it is time to say enough!
These bastards are beneath contempt.
Shame on you - CET

 

[dadgad]

Don't forget the FA.

Agreed, they sit there like the three monkeys.

Spineless cowards.

 

[Gary.j]

The most effective protest I can see is for the fans to cut all ties with SISU by going independent with an AFC Coventry. I know a some people don't think that acceptable, but I don't think it is acceptable to give in to SISU's demand... I'd rather take them out of the equation. In my opinion this time next year, they'll still be litigation, the club will still be at Sixfields & there will be no application from Otium for planing permission for a new stadium anywhere in the Coventry Area.

This!

 

[dadgad]

This!

As much as I understand everyone's frustrations with the impasse cannot see that a new club is the way to go unless we knew that at some point in the future it meant that the old club could be re-united?

 

[ccfcway]

Agreed. Why dont we follow Sphinx ?

Gives them some needed revenue and doesnt create a problem in terms of what happens SHOULD CCFC ever return to coventry

 

[shy_tall_knight]

The most effective protest I can see is for the fans to cut all ties with SISU by going independent with an AFC Coventry. I know a some people don't think that acceptable, but I don't think it is acceptable to give in to SISU's demand... I'd rather take them out of the equation. In my opinion this time next year, they'll still be litigation, the club will still be at Sixfields & there will be no application from Otium for planing permission for a new stadium anywhere in the Coventry Area.

Unfortunately I totally agree to contemplate moving the club out of the city showed that they had no respect for the fans or the club's history or the people of coventry. They have been offered a way back, would make clear economic sense but they have turned that down as well. The only way they will get the Ricoh at the price that they are willing to pay is following protracted negotiations, there is no way there will be an amicable commercial settlement. A 12,000 stadium in Baginton or Exhall does not float my boat and will ensure we will remain a Div 1 / lower championship team.

The only viable solution is Sphinx with minimal investment can fly through the lower leagues, there is a stadium in Cov empty, they wear sky blue. Nuneaton Town will still consider themselves nuneaton borough, Glasgow Rangers the same. CCFC won't have died it will have been reborn, it is on its deathbed in Northampton

 

[wingy]

Seems Supporters direct are emphasisiing the Rent we did'nt pay last year ,Is this the area they are challenging because if It Is ,they've lost .

They drained the Escrow and followed up with £10k. per match for matchday costs .

I guess this Is why Labovitch majored on It insisting that the new offer was not matchday fees but rent . Unfortunately he's contradicted on that point by his partner colleague who several times last season openly explained that the club were paying matchday costs of £10K.

 

[stupot07]

Seems Supporters direct are emphasisiing the Rent we did'nt pay last year ,Is this the area they are challenging because if It Is ,they've lost .

They drained the Escrow and followed up with £10k. per match for matchday costs .

I guess this Is why Labovitch majored on It insisting that the new offer was not matchday fees but rent . Unfortunately he's contradicted on that point by his partner colleague who several times last season openly explained that the club were paying matchday costs of £10K.

To be honest Wingy, I don't even know why we were paying rent. We only used it on matchdays, a hire agreement would have been better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[wingy]

To be honest Wingy, I don't even know why we were paying rent. We only used it on matchdays, a hire agreement would have been better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

I think we have to accept Stu that It was an annomally from the start up .As I've said a few times ACL started off by renting from the council at £900k. per an so ACL charged a premium of £300K. per an to the Club ,now whether that covers matchday as well ,I don't know ,but I do know at that point we were the Only gig In town.

A hire agreement would have been great .There are real questions as to why we could'nt raise £30M for the construction cost Shortfall through a share Floatation through setting up a company ourselves to achieve it ,or the measly £6M. I cannot believe through the network of associates and business connections no-one within the club could not draw that level of Investment. Were they thick or what

 

[Deleted member 5849]

It's probably not whether they could, but whether it was to their benefit to do so...

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Wonder if this will be mentioned on Cwr after the match:thinking about:

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

So Mr Linnell its a threat of a threat:thinking about:and I suggest you dont be so patronising in your comments you sound like RFC. Niggled you hasn't it Mr Linnell?

 

[skybluetony176]

Wonder if this will be mentioned on Cwr after the match:thinking about:

it was mentioned at half time, albeit very carefully.

 

[bigfatronssba]

So Mr Linnell its a threat of a threat:thinking about:and I suggest you dont be so patronising in your comments you sound like RFC. Niggled you hasn't it Mr Linnell?

What did he say?

 

[lordsummerisle]

They've got no chance of bullying the Guardian, they take on everybody, US Government, Uk Government, over Wikileaks, NSA, Snowden etc.

They even had one of their journalists assassinated a few years back for trying to expose the CIA and their Operation Treadstone.

Can't see what on Earth there is to sue anybody for in the original article, and even less by posting a link from it.

Trust should have told them to fuck off.

Even worse than McGinnity a few years back.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Surely news of them suing the fans is more damaging for their reputation than anything that article could have done. Is Paul McCarthy still advising them?

I notice lordsummerisle and co have gone quiet...


Gold Star Super Fan

Where have you been the last few months?

Ranson let you out of his arse for Christmas?

 

[wingy]

His flippancy and Bias shine through every week. Clive had to remind him there are fans Involved when was giving his views prior to kick off
Really Is time we all emailed CWR to express his lack of balance........ I mean If they can Silence someone with the contrasting viewpoint about what's best for the fans and the way we've been treated.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

What did he say?

We are here to talk about football etc etc no we havent been threatened its the way he answered it :facepalm:

 

[wingy]

Suggested David CONN. piece was one sided

 

[skybluetony176]

We are here to talk about football etc etc no we havent been threatened its the way he answered it :facepalm:

i was just thinking about what he said and it was something along the lines of they never threatened to sue the trust but if they did sue david conn they would have to sue the trust as well.

why would they have to sue the trust as well? other than because they instructed their lawyers too, i cant see why they would have to go hand in hand? anybody got any bright idea's on that one?

 

[James Smith]

They've got no chance of bullying the Guardian, they take on everybody, US Government, Uk Government, over Wikileaks, NSA, Snowden etc.

They even had one of their journalists assassinated a few years back for trying to expose the CIA and their Operation Treadstone.

Can't see what on Earth there is to sue anybody for in the original article, and even less by posting a link from it.

Trust should have told them to fuck off.

Even worse than McGinnity a few years back.

The McGinnity one could have had legs but it was fairly idiotic to pursue it in the way that they did. Yes calling someone dishonest isn't a smart move but the response was using a sledgehammer to crack a nut (and I'm not suggesting that Nev was or is a nut). I can't wait to see the response from the Guardian to this.

 

[Nick]

i was just thinking about what he said and it was something along the lines of they never threatened to sue the trust but if they did sue david conn they would have to sue the trust as well.

why would they have to sue the trust as well? other than because they instructed their lawyers too, i cant see why they would have to go hand in hand? anybody got any bright idea's on that one?

They should post the letter up so we can see the wording

 

[skybluetony176]

They should post the letter up so we can see the wording

if they dare

 

[James Smith]

i was just thinking about what he said and it was something along the lines of they never threatened to sue the trust but if they did sue david conn they would have to sue the trust as well.

why would they have to sue the trust as well? other than because they instructed their lawyers too, i cant see why they would have to go hand in hand? anybody got any bright idea's on that one?

As I understand it (and I am not a lawyer) if the trust repeated the piece on their website and it was found to be defamatory then yes they would be liable for repeating the defamation. However as they only provided a link and as the piece, and as far as I can see is factual with nothing we didn't already know except the rent offer then they shouldn't be repeating anything defamatory. However the law may have changed since my last refresher and I don't know if this is still the case.

 

[ashbyjan]

They should post the letter up so we can see the wording

We are seeking legal clarification to see if we can print the whole letter, just the covering letter etc. As soon as we know where we stand we will act appropriately.

 

[skybluetony176]

As I understand it (and I am not a lawyer) if the trust repeated the piece on their website and it was found to be defamatory then yes they would be liable for repeating the defamation. However as they only provided a link and as the piece, and as far as I can see is factual with nothing we didn't already know except the rent offer then they shouldn't be repeating anything defamatory. However the law may have changed since my last refresher and I don't know if this is still the case.

even though the article is in the public domain?

if someone asked you for directions to the bank and that person then went and robbed that bank are you an accomplice?

 

[James Smith]

even though the article is in the public domain?

if someone asked you for directions to the bank and that person then went and robbed that bank are you an accomplice?

Yes if you repeat publication of the piece then you're liable, the grey area for me is the link. They've successfully shut down websites linking to copyright material in the past, they weren't hosting it just providing a link to material that was infringing. I would assume either DCMA or copyright laws were used in those cases and would guess the same sort of tactic would be used here.

 

[skybluetony176]

Yes if you repeat publication of the piece then you're liable, the grey area for me is the link. They've successfully shut down websites linking to copyright material in the past, they weren't hosting it just providing a link to material that was infringing. I would assume either DCMA or copyright laws were used in those cases and would guess the same sort of tactic would be used here.

i understand what your saying, but i don't understand WHY you would have to sue, surely that's a conscious decision that someone would make. surely they have the option off just not bothering should they wish to take it.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

They've got no chance of bullying the Guardian, they take on everybody, US Government, Uk Government, over Wikileaks, NSA, Snowden etc.

They even had one of their journalists assassinated a few years back for trying to expose the CIA and their Operation Treadstone.

Can't see what on Earth there is to sue anybody for in the original article, and even less by posting a link from it.

Trust should have told them to fuck off.

Even worse than McGinnity a few years back.

Fight the cancer of bent and twisted journalism with the simple sword of truth.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

Fight the cancer of bent and twisted journalism with the simple sword of truth.

And then go to jail for perjury???