skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I approached Les Reid via email to get his take on the letter received by the SBT from sisu's lawyers, he has asked me to post his replies in a new thread.
they are as follows
Dear Tony,
I have stated on Twitter that, until I'm armed with the facts about the club's precise complaint to the Sky Blue Trust, I am not in a position to comment.
In principle, I believe that people have a right of reply to any newspaper article, and that includes asking for corrections, and using the Press Complaints Commission if there can be no agreement.
People also have the right to remind publishers of their responsibilities under defamation laws if appropriate, and of publishers' responsibilities not to recklessly trash reputations. Of course, it can at times be heavy-handed and unreasonable, but freedom of speech has reasonable limits too. There is a balance to be struck. That would extend to the publishers of forums such as Sky Blues Talk.
I would say the Sky Blue Trust has a right to publish David Conn's Guardian article, a newspaper organisation I have written for many times on politics, not football. If the Trust was simply informed and warned by the club about the complaint/action the club has made against The Guardian, that would be reasonable of the club too. It depends what the club's solicitor's letter actually stated, and I have not seen it. The Sky Blue Trust would also be acting fairly were it to publish any subsequent amendments to The Guardian's article.
David Conn is entitled to his opinion based on facts in what was a heavily weighted, one-sided argument. From its headline downwards it blamed the club for the dispute. In my opinion, as a journalist who has worked on this closely, his article was reckless to the facts. It was badly misleading and/or heavily weighted on issues like Ricoh valuations, the two judicial review application decisions, and made no serious attempt to understand the dispute in its historic context, or the role of ACL and the council in this dispute. For an example of a more balanced approach, however some people have misrepresented it, see this article..
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/news-opinion/les-reid-what-now-coventry-6070265
Two further points:
1/ I believe the Sky Blue Trust board has often adopted a position against the owners of the football club. Do they have a clear mandate from members for this position? They have previously urged "rental discussions", did not want Sisu/Otium to win the golden share. Yet, rightly or wrongly, Otium was handed the golden share on August 2.
As things stand, if the Trust wants to achieve fans' board representation or getting Coventry City back to the Ricoh (which is something I as a fan also passionately want), the Trust will need a constructive and pragmatic relationship with the club's owners. It's recent statement on the judicial review was against the club's position.
Again, I believe the Trust should be free to publish the David Conn Guardian article, but where's the balance? If they want constructive relations with the club, then surely they should be publishing articles with a range of opinions. They should certainly grant the club a right of reply.
2/ Over 20 years in political journalism, I've been threatened many times with the Press Complaints Commission and/or the defamation laws. by national politicians, councils and others, often bizarrely by people who know less about defamation than me.
I won't go into detail (perhaps that will come at a later time), but there have been several attempts to restrict my work by some of the key players in this dispute, including one attached with a fans' group. Not only is it an attempt to limit free speech, it is an attempt to shut down reporting of the facts, and discredit the journalist who has demonstrably scrutinised and held ALL sides to account.
You state "most" fans have accused me of being one-sided. You will forgive me for saying this is a nonsense. You must not assume the noisy people on a certain fans' forum constitute the majority of fans, still less the wider constituency of people who call themselves Coventry fans, still less the taxpayers of Coventry. I can equally demonstrate there has been widespread support for my work.
What's clear is there has been an attempt by a minority of (often anonymous) campaigners and commenters with vested interests and impassioned views to discredit me as a journalist and my journalism, which has been very well received by thousands of others. It won't work. I'm used to it. I laugh at most of it. I take it as a compliment I must be doing something right.
But let's be clear, some fans clearly don't want the other side to be heard. ALL sides are entitled to express their views within the reasonable limits I mention above, and that includes the club, Sisu and journalists.
Let's not pretend that the hostile attempts to shut down freedom of expression have been one-sided in this increasingly acrimonious and very sad dispute which is damaging the football club we all love and want to see back at the Ricoh Arena.
My work will continue with that main aim in mind. I have fully acknowledged in my work that Sisu are deeply unpopular.
I have also forced key admissions from Tim Fisher and the Football League over apparent inconsistencies in the accounts and claims about assets.
I have grilled them very heavily on their accounts, new stadium plans and other matters - and will continue to.
Unfortunately, some people are so hateful of Sisu that they have lost sight of pragmatic ways to get the club back at the Ricoh first and foremost, in a way which might actually represent the best way of ultimately giving Sisu something to sell. I do not believe they will return as tenants - it's a likely non-starter.
In the meantime, I think we should all support Steven Pressley and the team.
Those fans who supported ACL/council actions in rejecting the CVA on August 2 knowing that would mean a points loss for the team should perhaps re-examine what they are trying to achieve, and whether they will achieve it.
We all as fans have to ask ourselves what it is we want. Is it. "Sisu out at all costs" however long it takes, or to get the club back to the Ricoh, whoever owns either? I believe the majority want the latter. I include in this the wider constituency of fans in their tens of thousands who are no longer regulars.
I strongly suspect the city of Coventry generally would want the club back at the Ricoh rather than playing outside the city. The cost to the city's economy of losing the club would likely outweigh the council/ACL's claim to be "protecting a public asset". This is not lost on many councillors, despite what ACL directors may claim, including those who are council officers holding apparently conflicted positions.
Why won't the council commission an independent economic impact survey to assess the loss to the economy and taxpayer of losing the football club? It should assess anything from the macro-economic impact on the "regeneration of north Coventry", to the micro-economic impact on pubs, shops and even city centre restaurants who report a downturn in trade in the absence of football footfall.
In a new era where council finances are increasingly reliant on growing income from business rates, there is a real risk to taxpayers, way beyond the council's £14million cash injection to ACL in January now subject to a judicial review over potential "improper conduct", or the likely taxpayer bill for legal and PR fees.
Cheers,
Les
Ps. oh, forgot to mention.... whether or not the Coventry Telegraph publishes anything about the Sky Blues' approach to the Sky Blue Trust regarding its publication of the Guardian article is not a decision for me. Cheers
i didn't have time to read the reply in full at the time but i then went back to him to ask why would they have to sue, as stated on the SBT web site. Pointing out that surely that would be a conscious decision made by someone within sisu. i also pointed out that the details of the Guardian piece was not the story, the fact that the SBT had received a letter from sisu's lawyers was the story and what they may or may not have said. Les replied with the following.
Dear Tony,
yes, of course that would be their choice. I have requested a copy of the letter. Neither side is willing to release or publish, it would seem.
Tony, I would be perfectly happy for you to post my email to you on Sky Blues Talk, in its complete form - as a new thread.
Cheers,
Les
they are as follows
Dear Tony,
I have stated on Twitter that, until I'm armed with the facts about the club's precise complaint to the Sky Blue Trust, I am not in a position to comment.
In principle, I believe that people have a right of reply to any newspaper article, and that includes asking for corrections, and using the Press Complaints Commission if there can be no agreement.
People also have the right to remind publishers of their responsibilities under defamation laws if appropriate, and of publishers' responsibilities not to recklessly trash reputations. Of course, it can at times be heavy-handed and unreasonable, but freedom of speech has reasonable limits too. There is a balance to be struck. That would extend to the publishers of forums such as Sky Blues Talk.
I would say the Sky Blue Trust has a right to publish David Conn's Guardian article, a newspaper organisation I have written for many times on politics, not football. If the Trust was simply informed and warned by the club about the complaint/action the club has made against The Guardian, that would be reasonable of the club too. It depends what the club's solicitor's letter actually stated, and I have not seen it. The Sky Blue Trust would also be acting fairly were it to publish any subsequent amendments to The Guardian's article.
David Conn is entitled to his opinion based on facts in what was a heavily weighted, one-sided argument. From its headline downwards it blamed the club for the dispute. In my opinion, as a journalist who has worked on this closely, his article was reckless to the facts. It was badly misleading and/or heavily weighted on issues like Ricoh valuations, the two judicial review application decisions, and made no serious attempt to understand the dispute in its historic context, or the role of ACL and the council in this dispute. For an example of a more balanced approach, however some people have misrepresented it, see this article..
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/news-opinion/les-reid-what-now-coventry-6070265
Two further points:
1/ I believe the Sky Blue Trust board has often adopted a position against the owners of the football club. Do they have a clear mandate from members for this position? They have previously urged "rental discussions", did not want Sisu/Otium to win the golden share. Yet, rightly or wrongly, Otium was handed the golden share on August 2.
As things stand, if the Trust wants to achieve fans' board representation or getting Coventry City back to the Ricoh (which is something I as a fan also passionately want), the Trust will need a constructive and pragmatic relationship with the club's owners. It's recent statement on the judicial review was against the club's position.
Again, I believe the Trust should be free to publish the David Conn Guardian article, but where's the balance? If they want constructive relations with the club, then surely they should be publishing articles with a range of opinions. They should certainly grant the club a right of reply.
2/ Over 20 years in political journalism, I've been threatened many times with the Press Complaints Commission and/or the defamation laws. by national politicians, councils and others, often bizarrely by people who know less about defamation than me.
I won't go into detail (perhaps that will come at a later time), but there have been several attempts to restrict my work by some of the key players in this dispute, including one attached with a fans' group. Not only is it an attempt to limit free speech, it is an attempt to shut down reporting of the facts, and discredit the journalist who has demonstrably scrutinised and held ALL sides to account.
You state "most" fans have accused me of being one-sided. You will forgive me for saying this is a nonsense. You must not assume the noisy people on a certain fans' forum constitute the majority of fans, still less the wider constituency of people who call themselves Coventry fans, still less the taxpayers of Coventry. I can equally demonstrate there has been widespread support for my work.
What's clear is there has been an attempt by a minority of (often anonymous) campaigners and commenters with vested interests and impassioned views to discredit me as a journalist and my journalism, which has been very well received by thousands of others. It won't work. I'm used to it. I laugh at most of it. I take it as a compliment I must be doing something right.
But let's be clear, some fans clearly don't want the other side to be heard. ALL sides are entitled to express their views within the reasonable limits I mention above, and that includes the club, Sisu and journalists.
Let's not pretend that the hostile attempts to shut down freedom of expression have been one-sided in this increasingly acrimonious and very sad dispute which is damaging the football club we all love and want to see back at the Ricoh Arena.
My work will continue with that main aim in mind. I have fully acknowledged in my work that Sisu are deeply unpopular.
I have also forced key admissions from Tim Fisher and the Football League over apparent inconsistencies in the accounts and claims about assets.
I have grilled them very heavily on their accounts, new stadium plans and other matters - and will continue to.
Unfortunately, some people are so hateful of Sisu that they have lost sight of pragmatic ways to get the club back at the Ricoh first and foremost, in a way which might actually represent the best way of ultimately giving Sisu something to sell. I do not believe they will return as tenants - it's a likely non-starter.
In the meantime, I think we should all support Steven Pressley and the team.
Those fans who supported ACL/council actions in rejecting the CVA on August 2 knowing that would mean a points loss for the team should perhaps re-examine what they are trying to achieve, and whether they will achieve it.
We all as fans have to ask ourselves what it is we want. Is it. "Sisu out at all costs" however long it takes, or to get the club back to the Ricoh, whoever owns either? I believe the majority want the latter. I include in this the wider constituency of fans in their tens of thousands who are no longer regulars.
I strongly suspect the city of Coventry generally would want the club back at the Ricoh rather than playing outside the city. The cost to the city's economy of losing the club would likely outweigh the council/ACL's claim to be "protecting a public asset". This is not lost on many councillors, despite what ACL directors may claim, including those who are council officers holding apparently conflicted positions.
Why won't the council commission an independent economic impact survey to assess the loss to the economy and taxpayer of losing the football club? It should assess anything from the macro-economic impact on the "regeneration of north Coventry", to the micro-economic impact on pubs, shops and even city centre restaurants who report a downturn in trade in the absence of football footfall.
In a new era where council finances are increasingly reliant on growing income from business rates, there is a real risk to taxpayers, way beyond the council's £14million cash injection to ACL in January now subject to a judicial review over potential "improper conduct", or the likely taxpayer bill for legal and PR fees.
Cheers,
Les
Ps. oh, forgot to mention.... whether or not the Coventry Telegraph publishes anything about the Sky Blues' approach to the Sky Blue Trust regarding its publication of the Guardian article is not a decision for me. Cheers
i didn't have time to read the reply in full at the time but i then went back to him to ask why would they have to sue, as stated on the SBT web site. Pointing out that surely that would be a conscious decision made by someone within sisu. i also pointed out that the details of the Guardian piece was not the story, the fact that the SBT had received a letter from sisu's lawyers was the story and what they may or may not have said. Les replied with the following.
Dear Tony,
yes, of course that would be their choice. I have requested a copy of the letter. Neither side is willing to release or publish, it would seem.
Tony, I would be perfectly happy for you to post my email to you on Sky Blues Talk, in its complete form - as a new thread.
Cheers,
Les
