So... This new stadium is taking a while... (25 Viewers)
- Thread starter Samo
- Start date
skyblueinBaku
Well-Known Member
That's a nice thought.
Heard it was your mum Grendel.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Why would I implode? It's very odd how some sisu spokesman articles create headlines which are meant for the readers to fear and others to laugh at. Just another day at the Council Evening Telegraph.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Probably you while salivating with your cock in your hand.:facepalm:
Fucking hell he has already told you that they want to remain anonymous.
A bit like you and 99% of people on here............
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Nothing new there then I laugh when ever a Sisu spokesperson open their mouth, while others including yourself hang on their every word. Keep it up they may say something right one day:laugh:
I was eleven in 87
Well-Known Member
Sorry Grendel but what is the problem?
Simon Gilbert has confirmed the claim that someone on the Sisu legal team has said this could be worth potentially millions to them. When asked for proof or the name of the source, he quite rightly said that he can't reveal his source as that would obviously break that confidence.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
But do those people believe it it bullshit that is the question?
After all people think that sisu have turned a corner because they have signed a new manager.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Well because their are several ways the context of the argument could be construed. It's possible someone could say "hey bet you could shaft the council for hundreds of millions couldn't you?" and then there is a response.
Furthermore the notion was utterly ridiculed on CWR the next day by a finance expert that said they'd be very unlikely to win and laughed at any suggestion it would result in such an outcome.
Now Simon loves interviewing experts on football and football finance when it suits to bring context to an argument from a Sisu spokesman yet oddly hasn't on this issue. Why is that do you think?
Nick
Administrator
I can't think too many people think SISU will get hundreds of millions in compensation apart from the scare stories in the telegraph.
SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
You say scare story, I say printing information from a legitimate source.
That's your prerogative.
Mine will remain to continue to inform.
I was eleven in 87
Well-Known Member
Ok I take your point about the context of the comment, but from what SG has said the comment was not said in such a manner. If it was I doubt very much that SG would have even mentioned it let alone report it in a newspaper.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Christ, it's a slow news day. We need to sign a right winger from Rugby Town, and quick!
Anyway, surely it's in SISU's interests to put out the best case scenario?!? Is it that surprising they'd want such a statement out there?!? Unnerves CCC and makes an out of court settlement more likely if they think they might lose.
Likewise, would be amazed if CCC legal side said anything other than they weren't concerned about the result, nothing to worry about.
Anyway, surely it's in SISU's interests to put out the best case scenario?!? Is it that surprising they'd want such a statement out there?!? Unnerves CCC and makes an out of court settlement more likely if they think they might lose.
Likewise, would be amazed if CCC legal side said anything other than they weren't concerned about the result, nothing to worry about.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Why hasn't he consulted an expert regarding the likely validity of this claim do you think?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Odd when a spokesman was suggesting a new ground was needed you informed us an independent expert suggested this was not what was needed at all. Why haven't you asked for an opinion on the claim from this "sisu source"?
Nick
Administrator
So the article and the headline wasn't aimed to shock at the thought of sisu taking hundreds of millions of pounds worth of tax payers money? Then the thought of a stadium being built with the tax payers money.
What about the legitimate sources in the past ie when the council were saying it's down to ccfc to buy the higgs share, come and get it etc. Most people knew it was impossible and wasps weren't there to share.
Just an example of legitimate sources. You should have heard mark labovitches stuff about the council, could have written stories from months from that off the record stuff. Probably as legitimate as sisu ever winning hundreds of millions and robbing the poor tax payer.
Usually every time somebody from sisu speaks the foi department are on overtime to catch them out.
I understand a story has to be bigged up to get people reading, to make money to pay wages. That's how it works isn't it?
I guess your job is to write stories that get clicks, sell papers and get people talking about it, and you do that!
I was eleven in 87
Well-Known Member
I don't know, maybe he is in the process of arranging such an interview.
But what purpose do you think it would serve him by not approaching such an expert for an interview?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Ahh Grendull. SBT's very own Eric Cartman "You must respect my authoritor"
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
Got to admit I agree with nick and G on this one.
It's so true when sisu went in the bullshit rhetoric about a new stadium all these CT sources and independent experts came out and dismissed the idea first hand obviously we all knew it anyway.
Now independent experts are no where to be seen when a sisu source states the compo bill could be "hundreds of millions" it's deliberate scaremongering. as SG correctly says he is just quoting a source and I'm sure he is but in this instance he fails to give the independent expert view to tidy up the balanced article which is fine but when he did to dismiss a new stadium then it seems a tad unfair to me when it's obvious the bill won't be hundreds of millions if anything at all.
Maybe I'm wrong but that's my opinion.
It's so true when sisu went in the bullshit rhetoric about a new stadium all these CT sources and independent experts came out and dismissed the idea first hand obviously we all knew it anyway.
Now independent experts are no where to be seen when a sisu source states the compo bill could be "hundreds of millions" it's deliberate scaremongering. as SG correctly says he is just quoting a source and I'm sure he is but in this instance he fails to give the independent expert view to tidy up the balanced article which is fine but when he did to dismiss a new stadium then it seems a tad unfair to me when it's obvious the bill won't be hundreds of millions if anything at all.
Maybe I'm wrong but that's my opinion.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Some people on here are ridiculous and clearly have no understanding of how a newspaper works. Because a newspaper print's something as a headline it doesn't mean they said/did it.
For example. It wasn't the CT that fired a gun in a Wood End street just because they run a headline saying so. Probably explains why someone other than that CT has gone to prison for it.
But the moment they print something someone from SISU has said it's the CT who are to blame. It was quite clearly said for effect and in the hope that it would get picked up, which it did. Yet some on here insist on shooting the messenger. Maybe that was the effect it was supposed to have? After all we all know SISU don't like anyone who speaks out about them, they're beyond questioning and clearly some posters on here agree with them as they always jump on any criticism of SISU like deranged monkeys.
Personally I agree with NW. It was said to stir fear in the council. The conspiracy theorists on here are probably a welcome bonus for SISU though.
For example. It wasn't the CT that fired a gun in a Wood End street just because they run a headline saying so. Probably explains why someone other than that CT has gone to prison for it.
But the moment they print something someone from SISU has said it's the CT who are to blame. It was quite clearly said for effect and in the hope that it would get picked up, which it did. Yet some on here insist on shooting the messenger. Maybe that was the effect it was supposed to have? After all we all know SISU don't like anyone who speaks out about them, they're beyond questioning and clearly some posters on here agree with them as they always jump on any criticism of SISU like deranged monkeys.
Personally I agree with NW. It was said to stir fear in the council. The conspiracy theorists on here are probably a welcome bonus for SISU though.
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone is questioning SG. I know he is doing his job and yes that headline gets the sales. That's how it works. We are just saying it's not the full story and when the new stadium came out independent experts came out to dismiss it straight away.
That's all.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
There's been that many stories on the new stadium that I can't remember them all but my recollection is that the expert came in not long after the Ricoh return was announced when TF started pissing in everyone's glee by promptly going on about the new ground and how they've moved on. If my memory is correct then that is hardly straight away is it? We had countless stories before then and probably over a twelve month or more period and guess what, an expert wasn't called in on every story. For instance, when TF was looking for badger poo there was no quotes from Chris Packham.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Was it because he wanted to laugh at you going into meltdown?
Nick
Administrator
I don't think anybody has said it is like that have they?
It would be the same as some bloke in a pub saying he is going to shoot somebody after a petty argument, the headline next day being "STAY IN YOUR HOUSES, GUNMAN ON THE LOOSE".
Not too sure if you are completely missing the points being made or not? You are saying shooting the messenger, but when it is the message wrapped up and exaggerated a bit then it's different isn't it? Has the message been looked into to see how realistic it is before printing?
If I said I now had a multi million pound company from selling blue potatoes, would they check to see if I actually had before printing it or just print it?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
By who? The person that said it?
Nick
Administrator
Surely the people who are printing it? Surely the press look into things before printing them or do they just copy and paste to get an article without seeing if it is true or even realistically going to happen?
I am not sure if you are purposely trying to miss the point now.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
It's true that someone said it as Simon has confirmed on this thread and what he's reported is that someone said it. So when the story is someone connected to SISU has said x,y or z what else is there to check?
It's not difficult to miss a point if no one is making one. You're all just passing in the wind because someone has reported something someone close to SISU has said and what they've said has made SISU look stupid. Not the CT's fault. Either that this person said it or your over melodramatic response.
Last edited:
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
As long as they quote the source or the side they represent people can make their own mind up.
They usually use a bit of artistic licence in the headline but intelligent people read on.
Nick
Administrator
It has made the telegraph look stupid for making out like it could possibly happen though hasn't it?
Hardly Melodramatic is it, pointing something out?
So SISU speak nothing but the truth now, strange, usually FOI's are flying about to prove them wrong. What you are suggesting is if SISU says something that could be possible then the telegraph should go all out to disprove it and make them look stupid. However if it looks a bit silly anyway, just print it straight off without validating it to make them look stupid?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
But they've only made out it could happen in your head.
Nick
Administrator
I think that says it could happen doesn't it? In massive letters across a website / newspaper
Here too.
How many people think this could happen who don't come on here or have Twitter etc but just go by the Telegraph because of the headline and article? I'd say a fair few were / are now under that impression aren't they?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Millions, not hundreds of millions like the quote from the SISU connection said. If anything they're playing down the comments. The meaning of the word "could" also seems lost with you.
Nick
Administrator
Are you reading the same thing?
You just said:
That's why I quoted the bits that used that exact word.I was replying to that comment with parts that used the exact word.
So they haven't only made out if could happen in my head then? They actually have as it says it in black and white?