It is hard to comment on this without it coming across as a put down. Clearly we must all do what we feel to be right and what we can. GCBTR have chosen this way and feel it is the right way to go and that I understand and respect. My personal opinion is that this is a mis use of the democratic process. Certainly ask questions but stand for office on the basis suggested?
Yes I want the club I have supported for nearly 50 years back in the City in which I live but I do not see this will achieve it. Again others see it differently and fair play to them in their opinion and attempts they make
Who ultimately benefits from the success of such a campaign and when? I am sure the argument will the fans because the team will be back at the Ricoh............ but is it? The proposed end game seems to be - control of the council will allow it to unite the ground and club by selling it to the present owners on the basis of an average of valuations, which gives SISU something to sell to recoup their losses in the hope it will encourage them to move on. Or am I misunderstanding?
But the Club and its owners have said they don't need the Ricoh they are building their own in the Coventry area haven't they? Surely they have a plan and direction already and it no longer involves the Ricoh? But what about the economic impact of no club, of course there is one but has it been counter balanced by commerce that has replaced it at the Ricoh?
To me these elections are about much more than the needs of a football club and its owners. Coventry has far more issues than that. Where would the candidates stand on education, child protection, roads & infra structure, community, local planning, local health care, the council budget etc. How would the GCBTR candidates answers those issues?
One third of the seats are up for election. The council voted unanimously (labour and conservatives standing together in agreement) to approve the loan deal. Even if each of the seats were changed over to GCBTR this time round then there would still be a majority in favour of what was done. There may be a protest vote and no seats of course but so far petitions, campaigns etc have fallen well short of what you might think (even with some national support) so why would this be any different. The City is falling out of love with the team it used to have it would seem.
There are no costs in signing up as a candidate. However there will be campaign costs both financial and otherwise. Who is picking up the tab?
Yes question all and sundry that is what the political campaigning is all about. Those not presently in office wont be in the know as to what went on so can really only give platitudes. Those in office have been told by the Council legal department to stay quiet on the matter. Not saying the questions should not be asked but an expectation of a straight answer or any answer is I feel misplaced.
The facts of the JR are to examined 10th June. There are questions to answer certainly but it is a little bit early to conclude on the basis of skeleton arguments from one side that there is wrong doing. The "evidence" so far is that a council official may have not told a third party that there was a plan B. If true then it is also hard to think that he was the only one who had a plan B and didn't disclose it. Neither were illegal acts from what we know, but not best practice.
Calling on AEHC to do the right thing? I suspect that they believe they have. Certainly the clear opinion of the judge is that they were honest, and acted in good faith towards SISU despite as the Judge put it the "misplaced" and "unfortunate" terms of the allegations made against them by SISU
So in summary Rob - good luck but this is not for me