Ccfc impartial review (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter mattylad
- Start date
TrueSkyBlueLiam
Member
What can you expect from a SISU owned buisiness? To be quite honest, i couldnt give a toss what SISU and the council do in their petty little arguement. I just want these C-Units out of our club and i cant see this review making a blind bit of differance
Danceswithhorses
Well-Known Member
Not agreeing with your opinion, does not make the CET biased
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
What, Les Reid is back?
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
It does when it's Les Reid apparently.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
I think this is just a comment on another broken promise from CCFC/Sisu "clubs promise to post the key points on its website"
Of course they are going to put their own spin on it, but why make promises that they have no intention of keeping?
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
I would expect the football clubs site not to comment until its over; not to run a skewed iteration of their truth, sanctioned North Korea-stylee, edited by Winston Smith. Tell me, is there a running commentary on the council web site?
And for the Telegraph to run the story factually, with a flavour of the reporters view; with was to be frank a touch anti-council of stance under Reid. And less so now.
The amusing thing being that those who didn't comment or have a concern when Reid had his position, do have an issue now that his replacement hasn't...
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
The amusing thing is that those who didn't comment or have a concern when Reid has his position criticising Sisu.
The same went for Nikki Sinclaire of course,
It's the sycophancy that gets me, "Was all "Les, Les, look at this?" or "Nikki, Nikki, i wrote to you, you're great", and now it's all "Simon, doing a great job", "Simon, could you look into this?", "Simon, any new club owning scams to write about?".
Me thinks someone is getting a little bit jealous!!! LOL!!! Only joking, m' Lord!!!
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Reid primarily had a council bashing stance on this. It may have been a view jaundiced by his dealings with certain individuals in his political role; but his appraisal of both sides wasn't measured.
Even now, at this late stage, there's no smoking gun. If SISU win, it'll be a hollow victory gained by a process of distress now all but the insane acknowledgeme, coupled with a nuance of European competition laws. That's not how Reid offered commentary. Not even close
Sub
Well-Known Member
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
To be fair, I had big big concerns over Reid, but I rather like Simon's reporting, but then I'd say that is so because it is less opinion & more factual, others may beg to differ, but that is their prerogative.
No future with SISU
New Member
The Coventry Telegraph are reporting the facts as said in the court case. They may be reporting it from the view of the fans but at least they are not leaving out major facts like the club site is doing. The club site have written "CCFC agreed a £400,000 a year rent deal with ACL" and then nothing about the fact Joy said no way, I will only pay £100,000.Do not read the club account of the case as they have only half of the facts on there.
Great to note that at least someone on here can 'see the wood from the trees'.
Got it in ONE!
stupot07
Well-Known Member
To be fair that article from Les Reid was N Opinion piece not a 'news' report, so was entitle to put his opinion/spin/angle of events in that article. I have no problem with that, pretty much every broadsheet and red top has opinion pieces, and people don't always agree with those.
Re: smoking gun. Was thinking this morning that perhaps the smoking gun was in the 2 arguments that the judge deemed irrelevant to the JR?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
No future with SISU
New Member
To be fair that article from Les Reid was N Opinion piece not a 'news' report, so was entitle to put his opinion/spin/angle of events in that article. I have no problem with that, pretty much every broadsheet and red top has opinion pieces, and people don't always agree with those.
Re: smoking gun. Was thinking this morning that perhaps the smoking gun was in the 2 arguments that the judge deemed irrelevant to the JR?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
The judge (legal expert) deemed the 2 arguments as irrelevant, therefore no smoking gun there surely.
Last edited:
Nick
Administrator
Like on here : http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/six-things-learnt-day-two-7254548
No mention of the 400k rent deal going back up to silly money after 3 years
That was one of the things we actually did learn...
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I still don't understand this base position that newspapers report events objectively.
Of course they don't, and they never have!
So it just comes down to whether you agree with the stance taken or not whether you see it as objective. (you in the general sense, as opposed to you specific
)
Sky Blues
Active Member
Like on here : http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/six-things-learnt-day-two-7254548
No mention of the 400k rent deal going back up to silly money after 3 years
That was one of the things we actually did learn...
Does it matter if it goes back up after 3 years? That's all the time Mr Fisher said he needed for his vision to build a new stadia. Back to the Ricoh for three years at £400,000 then... Bam! Just as the rent goes back up, off to the new home to reap a bountiful harvest of pie income.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
But they didn't have a break clause in the contract.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Not really, there may have been some questionable tactics/decisions, etc that did occur that may have contributed to breakdown of the relationship but it wasn't relevant to the JR. Doesn't mean it never happened, doesn't mean it did.
SISU taking cov to Northampton had no relevance on the JR, as it happened after the council loan. Still happened, still compounded the relationship breakdown, just no relevance to the JR.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Sky Blues
Active Member
They didn't have one in the original contract either NW and they broke that. (Just saying, not condoning contract-breaking).
Nick
Administrator
Yes, but it is something we learned about yesterday and it isn't in the article so it isn't just CCFC only writing certain bits is it? Which was my point.
Sky Blues
Active Member
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Like on here : http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/six-things-learnt-day-two-7254548
No mention of the 400k rent deal going back up to silly money after 3 years
That was one of the things we actually did learn...
Wasn't it a sum 'for renegotiation', no certainty that it would be any particular figure, realistically it wouldn't be the original sum, but something less negotiated as before.. maybe its nice to live in a b&w world, but in my experience life ain't like that.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
We all know that there was a break-down in the relationship; but the point people are trying to make is that there is - seemingly - no smoking gun, or revelation.
We have had the original courts case in Birmingham, the JR application hearing, the Higgs hearing and now the full Judicial Review. If there was anything still 'out there' it would have seen the light of day by now.
Surely, we have to now accept, there was no 'secret deal', there's is no 'ta-da' moment? There is no revelation. SISU knew what the CBRE valuation report of 2012 told us; namely that there was a huge correlation between incomes and the final health - and therefore value - of ACL and therefore it was in their best interests to distress the business with a view to buy it as cheaply as possible. That - my friend - that's it
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I still don't understand this base position that newspapers report events objectively.
Of course they don't, and they never have!
So it just comes down to whether you agree with the stance taken or not whether you see it as objective. (you in the general sense, as opposed to you specific
Ah, so because nothing is perfect, there are no grades of imperfection.
Not everyone likes every food, so there is no such thing as bad food.
Not up to your usual logical standards mate.
There is a difference between AL Jazeera/BBC and Fox News/Daily Sport. There is a reason comment/opinion and news are separate sections in the paper.
At the end of the day, people pulled Reid's articles to pieces, yet the worst Simon has had is a few nasty vague rumours about his editor being part of a conspiracy. Which sounds an awful lot like a certain Mr Reid, who seems to not be getting the plum jobs he once was. Look for the motive. Reid (and by extension his mate RobS) has one to discredit others, what is everyone else's motive?
One other thing. When Simon has been pulled up on inaccuracies, they have been changed immediately, even when he disagrees he does so politely and professionally or he ignores it completely if not worth engaging in. Compare that to Reid's antics on Twitter and in blog comment sections to any fan who disagreed with him/pulled him up on his facts. You can tell a lot about a man by how he treats those he needn't be concerned with IMO.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Not up to my usual logical standards? I could give you tens of thousands of words about how 'objectivity' is naturalised in some of the examples you give, and how actually it's about the representation of objectivity, rather than the actuality
The reason comment/news are separate are about the attempt to present the news as objective in opposition to something else, rather than it actually being skewed through a prism.
Objectivity, in the media, does not exist. It is a myth.