It's an extremely easy concept to grasp, but unfortunately I think that's been your undoing here.
Seriously - I get it. When someone makes a pattern of decisions that you disagree with - whether it's a politician, your boss, your parents, a football manager, whoever - it's very easy to assume there's some sinister ulterior motive at play. Pull a few questionable episodes together and you've got yourself a nice, convenient narrative that these opinions which seem so appalling to you are actually part of some vast conspiracy, which handily explains these decisions that seem so unfathomable to you. There are probably hundreds of people who do the same thing on here when it comes to SISU - you're doing it now with the local newspaper.
All the things you've listed above could hypothetically be the result of a newspaper-wide conspiracy, where a cabal of multiple journalists are commissioned to write pieces with the sole twin purpose of destabilising Coventry City Football Club, and lowering the morale of its fans (one of its core readership groups). They're being told to do this regardless of what facts may counteract them, because....well, because they have to support the council of course. Why do they have to do that? Above all other editorial and commercial concerns? Well, I'm sure you'll explain that to me another day. But either way - you're suggesting something quite major here.
Alternatively, you could take a breath and see them as something much simpler - newspaper articles that you disagree with. You've felt moved to start an entire thread to this article of supposed "spurious bullshit", when there's nothing to suggest it's factually incorrect in any way. You seem outraged at the mention of a potential winding-up order - so why did they include it in the story? Was it to spice the story up to ensure it got more clicks/eyeballs? Was it to cover their journalistic bases, so if a winding-up order did follow they could show they were on top of the story from the start? Or was it included solely to further the council conspiracy? Your previous opinions on the CT's work may well inform your choice.
Do I think the CT is whiter than white? Of course not - I can't think of any newspapers that don't get their hands dirty. The Alan Poole article was a disgrace, and Les Reid has made some pretty serious accusations about the CT's handling of particular stories, which deserve scrutiny. (I have my own opinions on Reid's own calamitous handling of the CCFC drama btw, don't worry) But forgive me if I don't immediately jump to the conclusion that the CT is quietly employing tactics more worthy of Soviet Russia than provincial sports journalism.
