Some Feedback from Les on SBT Leagal Action (8 Viewers)

[magic82ball]

Sorry, but how can you say that?

Fucking hell, unplug your modem now. Internet forums are not for you.

 

---

[Steve.B50]

Its a joke, a poor one I know, but nonetheless a joke

Best if I just log off and go back to working.

 

[The Prefect]

Sorry but he's a rubbish journalist the so called interview with Joy proved that !!!!

This is entirely unfair. I think Les Reid is reasonably balanced in a complex situation.

Where I do disagree with him is that he makes things much more complicated than needs be. The bottom line is that the club's situation and relationship with ACL and CCC was known at the time of the SISU takeover. Subsequent actions regarding any dispute about the rent and not paying it places the blame at the club and its owners. Neither ACL nor CCC were (are) obliged in any way to improve the club's lot.

What frustrates me is all the talk. I don't disagree with SISU's position that the club should own the stadium and the revenue streams. Fact is I agree with them. But taking the club into administration to dump the Ricoh lease and then moaning about the loss of ten points demonstrates their arrogance towards their former business partners and their customers. Did they expect injured parties to roll over and help them out? SISU play hardball and then seem unable to cope when others do the same. If I owned ACL I would have rejected the CVA - purely because non-payment of rent demands consequences.

Everyone (and I include Les Reid) seem to make this saga much more complicated than it needs to be. The well being of the club rests entirely with its owners and no-one else. It is their responsibility to provide a product that their customers want and in their time at Coventry City SISU have failed to do this. If they need to build a new stadium they should get on with it. SISU constantly talk of buying the Ricoh and then talk of building a new stadium. Why? They should either put up or shut up. I hope that's what they were told by Lucas. They should either come back as tenants or buy the thing at an agreed price and provide proof of funds. No independent valuations - they meet CCC and ACL's asking price and / or negotiate a deal. Neither Higgs or CCC need to sell so independent valuations are not required.

The club could be finished under the present owners. A half-baked cobbled together bag of shite playing in Warwickshire is not Coventry City although the Football League's transfer of the franchise suggests it would be. My hope is that things will be resolved but only expect the warring parties to get closer during 2016. This is because the Football League have allowed up to 5 years so SISU will play the waiting game. SISU will need to start a new stadium in 2016 at the latest so expect a deal to be done then. The small costs they're paying to land agents etc. can be written off if they manage to do a deal for the Ricoh.

Good luck to them. They will need it after alienating 80% of their home support.

 

[Steve.B50]

Fucking hell, unplug your modem now. Internet forums are not for you.

You are probably correct, night.

 

[Astute]

Its a joke, a poor one I know, but nonetheless a joke

Certainly was. You never put SISUE instead of SISU.

 

[wingy]

This is entirely unfair. I think Les Reid is reasonably balanced in a complex situation.

Where I do disagree with him is that he makes things much more complicated than needs be. The bottom line is that the club's situation and relationship with ACL and CCC was known at the time of the SISU takeover. Subsequent actions regarding any dispute about the rent and not paying it places the blame at the club and its owners. Neither ACL nor CCC were (are) obliged in any way to improve the club's lot.

What frustrates me is all the talk. I don't disagree with SISU's position that the club should own the stadium and the revenue streams. Fact is I agree with them. But taking the club into administration to dump the Ricoh lease and then moaning about the loss of ten points demonstrates their arrogance towards their former business partners and their customers. Did they expect injured parties to roll over and help them out? SISU play hardball and then seem unable to cope when others do the same. If I owned ACL I would have rejected the CVA - purely because non-payment of rent demands consequences.

Everyone (and I include Les Reid) seem to make this saga much more complicated than it needs to be. The well being of the club rests entirely with its owners and no-one else. It is their responsibility to provide a product that their customers want and in their time at Coventry City SISU have failed to do this. If they need to build a new stadium they should get on with it. SISU constantly talk of buying the Ricoh and then talk of building a new stadium. Why? They should either put up or shut up. I hope that's what they were told by Lucas. They should either come back as tenants or buy the thing at an agreed price and provide proof of funds. No independent valuations - they meet CCC and ACL's asking price and / or negotiate a deal. Neither Higgs or CCC need to sell so independent valuations are not required.

The club could be finished under the present owners. A half-baked cobbled together bag of shite playing in Warwickshire is not Coventry City although the Football League's transfer of the franchise suggests it would be. My hope is that things will be resolved but only expect the warring parties to get closer during 2016. This is because the Football League have allowed up to 5 years so SISU will play the waiting game. SISU will need to start a new stadium in 2016 at the latest so expect a deal to be done then. The small costs they're paying to land agents etc. can be written off if they manage to do a deal for the Ricoh.

Good luck to them. They will need it after alienating 80% of their home support.

Excellent ,there will be not a lot to come back to I'm afraid .

 

[martcov]

SISU have a right of reply as far as I know. Use it. Besides, would it not be a good move for SISU to post on here the "truth" and therefore the reasons for potential litigation? We would all then see how biased the Guardian is and SISU would win some friends. I won't be holding my breath for that to happen though. ;-)

 

[magic82ball]

You are probably correct, night.

Ha, sorry was only messing, don't leave us!

 

[Jack Griffin]

This is entirely unfair. I think Les Reid is reasonably balanced in a complex situation.

Where I do disagree with him is that he makes things much more complicated than needs be. The bottom line is that the club's situation and relationship with ACL and CCC was known at the time of the SISU takeover. Subsequent actions regarding any dispute about the rent and not paying it places the blame at the club and its owners. Neither ACL nor CCC were (are) obliged in any way to improve the club's lot.

What frustrates me is all the talk. I don't disagree with SISU's position that the club should own the stadium and the revenue streams. Fact is I agree with them. But taking the club into administration to dump the Ricoh lease and then moaning about the loss of ten points demonstrates their arrogance towards their former business partners and their customers. Did they expect injured parties to roll over and help them out? SISU play hardball and then seem unable to cope when others do the same. If I owned ACL I would have rejected the CVA - purely because non-payment of rent demands consequences.

Everyone (and I include Les Reid) seem to make this saga much more complicated than it needs to be. The well being of the club rests entirely with its owners and no-one else. It is their responsibility to provide a product that their customers want and in their time at Coventry City SISU have failed to do this. If they need to build a new stadium they should get on with it. SISU constantly talk of buying the Ricoh and then talk of building a new stadium. Why? They should either put up or shut up. I hope that's what they were told by Lucas. They should either come back as tenants or buy the thing at an agreed price and provide proof of funds. No independent valuations - they meet CCC and ACL's asking price and / or negotiate a deal. Neither Higgs or CCC need to sell so independent valuations are not required.

The club could be finished under the present owners. A half-baked cobbled together bag of shite playing in Warwickshire is not Coventry City although the Football League's transfer of the franchise suggests it would be. My hope is that things will be resolved but only expect the warring parties to get closer during 2016. This is because the Football League have allowed up to 5 years so SISU will play the waiting game. SISU will need to start a new stadium in 2016 at the latest so expect a deal to be done then. The small costs they're paying to land agents etc. can be written off if they manage to do a deal for the Ricoh.

Good luck to them. They will need it after alienating 80% of their home support.

Some good points in your post. Don't 100% agree, especially about Reids' balance. I do agree that this will go on & on...and the victims are the fans.

 

[wingy]

I wonder If ACL were In contact with the FL prior to the Admin .Just what would have happened If they'd locked the gates ,I think that point Is worth mentioning when we judge them.

 

[magic82ball]

This is entirely unfair. I think Les Reid is reasonably balanced in a complex situation.

Where I do disagree with him is that he makes things much more complicated than needs be. The bottom line is that the club's situation and relationship with ACL and CCC was known at the time of the SISU takeover. Subsequent actions regarding any dispute about the rent and not paying it places the blame at the club and its owners. Neither ACL nor CCC were (are) obliged in any way to improve the club's lot.

What frustrates me is all the talk. I don't disagree with SISU's position that the club should own the stadium and the revenue streams. Fact is I agree with them. But taking the club into administration to dump the Ricoh lease and then moaning about the loss of ten points demonstrates their arrogance towards their former business partners and their customers. Did they expect injured parties to roll over and help them out? SISU play hardball and then seem unable to cope when others do the same. If I owned ACL I would have rejected the CVA - purely because non-payment of rent demands consequences.

Everyone (and I include Les Reid) seem to make this saga much more complicated than it needs to be. The well being of the club rests entirely with its owners and no-one else. It is their responsibility to provide a product that their customers want and in their time at Coventry City SISU have failed to do this. If they need to build a new stadium they should get on with it. SISU constantly talk of buying the Ricoh and then talk of building a new stadium. Why? They should either put up or shut up. I hope that's what they were told by Lucas. They should either come back as tenants or buy the thing at an agreed price and provide proof of funds. No independent valuations - they meet CCC and ACL's asking price and / or negotiate a deal. Neither Higgs or CCC need to sell so independent valuations are not required.

The club could be finished under the present owners. A half-baked cobbled together bag of shite playing in Warwickshire is not Coventry City although the Football League's transfer of the franchise suggests it would be. My hope is that things will be resolved but only expect the warring parties to get closer during 2016. This is because the Football League have allowed up to 5 years so SISU will play the waiting game. SISU will need to start a new stadium in 2016 at the latest so expect a deal to be done then. The small costs they're paying to land agents etc. can be written off if they manage to do a deal for the Ricoh.

Good luck to them. They will need it after alienating 80% of their home support.

Les Reid, if you are reading this, and I am sure your ego would compel you to, this is what you should be writing. This is balanced. This is unbiased. This is what you claim to be. Well done Prefect, could not have put it better.

Les Reids article proves how out of touch he is with fans, I believe he believes what he is saying, don't necessarily think there's an agenda, but very misguided if he feels the majority fans feel the same as him. More likely a few sycophants massaging his ego telling him what a grand job he is doing, especially on the "grilling" of the owners, yes Les, it could almost have been Jeremy Paxman...

 

[blueflint]

imho this man les read is a joke

 

[Grendel]

imho this man les read is a joke

Perhaps you could give him some journalistic tips?

 

[chickentikkamasala]

This is entirely unfair. I think Les Reid is reasonably balanced in a complex situation.

Where I do disagree with him is that he makes things much more complicated than needs be. The bottom line is that the club's situation and relationship with ACL and CCC was known at the time of the SISU takeover. Subsequent actions regarding any dispute about the rent and not paying it places the blame at the club and its owners. Neither ACL nor CCC were (are) obliged in any way to improve the club's lot.

What frustrates me is all the talk. I don't disagree with SISU's position that the club should own the stadium and the revenue streams. Fact is I agree with them. But taking the club into administration to dump the Ricoh lease and then moaning about the loss of ten points demonstrates their arrogance towards their former business partners and their customers. Did they expect injured parties to roll over and help them out? SISU play hardball and then seem unable to cope when others do the same. If I owned ACL I would have rejected the CVA - purely because non-payment of rent demands consequences.

Everyone (and I include Les Reid) seem to make this saga much more complicated than it needs to be. The well being of the club rests entirely with its owners and no-one else. It is their responsibility to provide a product that their customers want and in their time at Coventry City SISU have failed to do this. If they need to build a new stadium they should get on with it. SISU constantly talk of buying the Ricoh and then talk of building a new stadium. Why? They should either put up or shut up. I hope that's what they were told by Lucas. They should either come back as tenants or buy the thing at an agreed price and provide proof of funds. No independent valuations - they meet CCC and ACL's asking price and / or negotiate a deal. Neither Higgs or CCC need to sell so independent valuations are not required.

The club could be finished under the present owners. A half-baked cobbled together bag of shite playing in Warwickshire is not Coventry City although the Football League's transfer of the franchise suggests it would be. My hope is that things will be resolved but only expect the warring parties to get closer during 2016. This is because the Football League have allowed up to 5 years so SISU will play the waiting game. SISU will need to start a new stadium in 2016 at the latest so expect a deal to be done then. The small costs they're paying to land agents etc. can be written off if they manage to do a deal for the Ricoh.

Good luck to them. They will need it after alienating 80% of their home support.

The most balanced and accurate post I have read in a long time. :claping hands:

 

[oakey]

Very interesting read. Thanks Mr Reid. Hope we do eventually get to hear who in particular has been trying to get you silenced. Think that will be very interesting indeed. Keep going Les, ignore this lot. There's only a
handful on here shouting, claiming to be a majority.

Nice try. Have you compared the number of posters and browsers on here compared to the huddle on GMK?
Have you compared the numbers at Sixfields to the stayaways?
Stop trying to occupy some moral high ground.

Who is trying to silence Reid? Let's see some evidence not unsubstantiated hysteria.

 

[wes_cov]

My understanding is Les is a Political journalist. In my opinion this is the fundamental reason a significant proportion of his criticism has been aimed at the CCC and ACL. certainly the articles by the sports journalist at the CT seem to be a fairer more open interpretation of the facts.

But as they say everyone has an opinion.

 

[chorlton]

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.

I would very much like the SBT to ask the fans for this very mandate. I'm sick of any criticism of SISU being greeted as though they're from the minority. Surely the 10,000 who stay away each week indicates exactly who has the mandate?

 

[Astute]

Perhaps you could give him some journalistic tips?

I certainly can. Stop being as biased as Grendull.

 

[skybluefred]

SISU have a right of reply as far as I know. Use it. Besides, would it not be a good move for SISU to post on here the "truth" and therefore the reasons for potential litigation? We would all then see how biased the Guardian is and SISU would win some friends. I won't be holding my breath for that to happen though. ;-)

Sisu to post the "TRUTH". I don't think the German air is suiting you.

 

[The Gentleman]

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

Yes Les, we still know you are alive, but do you have to bore us with the same old drivel. Rather than continue on YOUR crusade, have a bash at your day job because I'm sure there must be something political going on in the country somewhere that needs your coverage. While your at it, offer them a signed photo of yourself.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Who is trying to silence Reid? Let's see some evidence not unsubstantiated hysteria.

I know I sent him a few tweets contesting his views & generally pick holes in his articles on this site as do others.. that is just reasonable criticism, permitted in a free society.

But who is supposed to be silencing him .. he still seems to be publishing.. why can't he name names?

 

[mark82]

he certainly backed it, not sure if he was involved in the organising of it though?

Why wouldn't he? I thought we wanted answers. Or do we just want truth from one side?

Les Reid actually talks some sense and is trying to stay impartial. Unfortunately being impartial gets you labelled as pro SISU on here. It's the stupidity of the fans only willing to listen to one side that annoys me, there is more than one player in this situation and none of them come out of this with any credit.

 

[cochese]

Les has been one of the few people to put into question all sides of this mess, including the fans. Yet because he hasn't focused all of his efforts towards SISU, and those in charge of our football club, he is considered on here to be in the wrong. It's noticeable that few people have mention where and why les is "wrong", and instead only given their opinion towards it.

Balance is not about agreeing only with fans who are vocal with their anger towards SISU, but to question everyone involved whether they like it or not.

 

[mark82]

Les has been one of the few people to put into question all sides of this mess, including the fans. Yet because he hasn't focused all of his efforts towards SISU, and those in charge of our football club, he is considered on here to be in the wrong. It's noticeable that few people have mention where and why les is "wrong", and instead only given their opinion towards it.

Balance is not about agreeing only with fans who are vocal with their anger towards SISU, but to question everyone involved whether they like it or not.

Well said.

 

[Jack Griffin]

But his articles stress one side of argument over the other, I have no objection to both sides arguments being put, but please don't pretend he writes balanced articles, his stories are grossly imbalanced.

 

[Skybluesquirrel]

I would very much like the SBT to ask the fans for this very mandate. I'm sick of any criticism of SISU being greeted as though they're from the minority. Surely the 10,000 who stay away each week indicates exactly who has the mandate?

Divide and rule. It could be possible that those that disagreed with the mandate would start a rival organisation, which they are totally within their rights to do. Whatever the outcome. Hardly uniting the fans.

The other option is that the trust board leave themselves open to criticism of not acting for the majority.

 

[wingy]

Divide and rule. It could be possible that those that disagreed with the mandate would start a rival organisation, which they are totally within their rights to do. Whatever the outcome. Hardly uniting the fans.

The other option is that the trust board leave themselves open to criticism of not acting for the majority.

Thats the litmus test .Follow a media urge to bring Balance ,and alienate a segment ,split with a splinter group ,in one extreme or the other, or hold the core value that got the numbers on the march .

 

[wingy]

On another Note I think the trust need a meeting with Its members

 

[mark82]

But his articles stress one side of argument over the other, I have no objection to both sides arguments being put, but please don't pretend he writes balanced articles, his stories are grossly imbalanced.

Please provide an example.

 

[win9nut]

On another Note I think the trust need a meeting with Its members

Think they should install some voting software on their website instead as not everyone can fit inside the squirrel, or indeed any meeting (at the squirrel or any where else) will be inconvenient for a lot of members...

 

[mark82]

Think they should install some voting software on their website instead as not everyone can fit inside the squirrel, or indeed any meeting at the squirrel or not will be inconvenient for a lot of members...

Agree. Also agree with Wingy about meeting, could maybe provide tele-conference for fans who cannot be there.

In my opinion there needs to be an overhaul of the trust. They have alienated themselves from the club to suit the populist opinion on sites like this. Whilst I agree that they should be going with the majority, this should be done in a more professional manner. At the end of the day, what good is a trust that does not have a good working relationship with the clubs owners?

 

[Astute]

Why wouldn't he? I thought we wanted answers. Or do we just want truth from one side?

Les Reid actually talks some sense and is trying to stay impartial. Unfortunately being impartial gets you labelled as pro SISU on here. It's the stupidity of the fans only willing to listen to one side that annoys me, there is more than one player in this situation and none of them come out of this with any credit.

Impartial?

He rallies his thousands of fans that he says agree with him to demonstrate outside the CCC offices. Hardly anyone turns up. When has he ever tried the same against SISUE?

The most he ever says against SISUE is that both sides are to blame. Whereas he frequently rants against ACL/CCC. IIRC he even made untrue comments about CCC on one of his rants. He stopped being impartial after his meeting with Joy.

 

[mark82]

Impartial?

He rallies his thousands of fans that he says agree with him to demonstrate outside the CCC offices. Hardly anyone turns up. When has he ever tried the same against SISUE?

The most he ever says against SISUE is that both sides are to blame. Whereas he frequently rants against ACL/CCC. IIRC he even made untrue comments about CCC on one of his rants. He stopped being impartial after his meeting with Joy.

To be fair there were plenty enough Sisu protests being arranged at the time and the council and ACL were getting away scot free.

I disagree that Reid is now pro Sisu but you are right that he softened on them after the meeting. Nikki Sinclaire completely changed views. Makes me wonder what was said or if they were shown proof of something. Or maybe, for the more cynical amongst you, they were threatened too.

This whole mess needs an independent review to find out what has gone on. Someone with no connection to the club. It's the only way we will find the truth. I hope we get something from the JR but that is only looking at a very specific area so I doubt much will come from it.

 

[Sutty]

Let's see some evidence not unsubstantiated hysteria.

To be fair, if Nick put a blanket 'unsubstantiated hysteria' ban in place this forum would be pretty empty.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Well said Les Reid, everyone has the choice to support their own beliefs but bare in mind that not all the facts are clear and one or two facts could change everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk