Report into Ricoh Arena talks (4 Viewers)

[SimonGilbert]

Yes, I understand that but your post also tried to push that it is happening just as we go top.

Why is it self defeating now we have gone top, if they started it in May? Whether it is right or wrong they haven't just started it as we go top of the league have they?

The report into the complaint has become public just as the club has gone top. The observation I have made is that this process seems self-defeating, especially in the current context. But I appreciate Sisu are only responsible for the complaint, not the timing.

I hope that helps to clarify.

 

---

[Sub]

It is dated May I think. So it isn't as if they have thought they were doing well so did it.

The articles don't state that but the leaked letter does. Let's not let that get in the way of a rant against them doing something just as we go top of the league though.

I was not having a rant (if that was what you were saying Nick?) just wish they would let things continue and hopefully build up the trust that has been lost for so long and hopefully get more fans back as that is what is needed not more distractions.

 

[Kingokings204]

Thing is Simon, we all mostly have reservations about the CT and how they piss on ccfc. We just go top of the league and this comes out? Yes I know I know it was published today and you are doing your job but can you see how this looks. You've said it yourself about being a distraction. It's a bit crap isn't it?

 

[Nick]

The report into the complaint has become public just as the club has gone top. The observation I have made is that this process seems self-defeating, especially in the current context. But I appreciate Sisu are only responsible for the complaint, not the timing.

I hope that helps to clarify.

You didn't need to clarify to me, you should maybe clarify to the people who have reacted as expected with the "FUCKING SISU DOING THIS NOW WE ARE TOP OF THE LEAGUE, NEVER GOING AGAIN NOPM ARRGGGGGGGGGGGG".

You can guarantee that a hell of a lot of people reading that won't realise it was started in May and not now, which I guess gets more of a reaction. This is why people point things out, I am not saying it is a conspiracy but you could have got the same information across without whipping up a frenzy couldn't you

 

[SimonGilbert]

Thing is Simon, we all mostly have reservations about the CT and how they piss on ccfc. We just go top of the league and this comes out? Yes I know I know it was published today and you are doing your job but can you see how this looks. You've said it yourself about being a distraction. It's a bit crap isn't it?

The timing is not great - I've acknowledged that. But we are not responsible for the complaint being pursued, or the timing.

We also can't suppress the news, and (even if we could) we never would.

 

[Nick]

The timing is not great - I've acknowledged that. But we are not responsible for the complaint being pursued, or the timing.

We also can't suppress the news, and (even if we could) we never would.

The article surpresses the date it was actually started and makes it look like it is now with this headline:

Sisu chief Joy Seppala accuses Coventry council of 'offensive personal attacks'

Your post on here also makes it look like they have done this while in credit with the fans etc etc. You spin that line to some people on Twitter and you have yourself a hate mob again.

Then you have your tweet:

This all seems a bit self-defeating at a time when most would rather discuss football. But Sisu obviously feel strongly about treatment.

What is that trying to imply? Why not say "But it was started in May?"

[video=youtube;xuQNt45Cjkc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuQNt45Cjkc[/video]

 

[SimonGilbert]

You didn't need to clarify to me, you should maybe clarify to the people who have reacted as expected with the "FUCKING SISU DOING THIS NOW WE ARE TOP OF THE LEAGUE, NEVER GOING AGAIN NOPM ARRGGGGGGGGGGGG".

You can guarantee that a hell of a lot of people reading that won't realise it was started in May and not now, which I guess gets more of a reaction. This is why people point things out, I am not saying it is a conspiracy but you could have got the same information across without whipping up a frenzy couldn't you

I don't think it's really whipped up a frenzy, and I think it's been played with the straightest of straight bats.

If people are pre-disposed to lambasting the owners, I'm not sure any presenting style is going to take the edge off. The same goes with those prone to criticising the council's behaviour, or Wasps, or the Higgs Charity, or the CT.

People are already pretty entrenched in their views. All I can do is present the facts as simply, transparently and as neutrally as possible. We've also included links to the full report, Sisu's response and Joy's letter. All the information is there for people to make up their own minds.

 

[M&B Stand]

Sisu are the ones pursuing this complaint. They may have a case, they may not. What is for certain is that it as unfortunate distraction and comes across as a bit self-defeating at a time when they are top of the table and in credit with the fans.

Just my view.

I'd be genuinely interested in your view of the sale to Wasps, how it was handled and also it's long and short term effects on CCFC.

You're as well informed as anyone, fair play you come here under your own name. Your opinion would be interesting.

 

[Specs WT-R75]

I agree with Nick. All it needs is a clarification at the top that the process started in May and became public today due to the release of info by CCC.

For me, that is how I would convey something from a completely neutral perspective.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Hearing will be held in public on Monday. Come and join me. I've re-arranged my holiday specially.

I'm washing my hair. Maybe the next one.

 

[Nick]

I don't think it's really whipped up a frenzy, and I think it's been played with the straightest of straight bats.

If people are pre-disposed to lambasting the owners, I'm not sure any presenting style is going to take the edge off. The same goes with those prone to criticising the council's behaviour, or Wasps, or the Higgs Charity, or the CT.

People are already pretty entrenched in their views. All I can do is present the facts as simply, transparently and as neutrally as possible. We've also included links to the full report, Sisu's response and Joy's letter. All the information is there for people to make up their own minds.

Surely if you were presenting all of the facts you would have said that it was from May? Rather than completely missing that out in the articles and then coming on here and tweeting about the timing with no mention of when it was started.

Of course people will make their own minds up, but you surely do realise that how an article is written can be powerful? Of course you do, you aren't thick!

 

[SimonGilbert]

The article surpresses the date it was actually started

Why not say "But it was started in May?"

How did you know the complaint was from May?

 

[Nick]

I agree with Nick. All it needs is a clarification at the top that the process started in May and became public today due to the release of info by CCC.

For me, that is how I would convey something from a completely neutral perspective.

Exactly, if it was being totally neutral and transparent it would state that. Not completely missing that out and pushing it as it just happening now.

How many people will have clicked on the letter and even noticed the date?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Best thing we should do Is let the Thread and distraction die.

Yup. What will be, will b- oh :facepalm:

 

[Nick]

How did you know the complaint was from May?

Because I clicked the letter, how many else did and would actually pick up on that. The same as I picked up that just as I clicked on the article the whole page was Wasps ads. The same as I picked up on your post on here trying to put across that it was done just as SISU had credit with the fans. When it wasn't.

If it was being neutral the article would have stated it wouldn't it? It is all well and good saying it is being played with a straight bat, but when you very much make an article seem like it has happened today with things like:

Boss of Coventry City FC owners writes letter of complaint to council about conduct during Ricoh Arena talks

Sisu chief Joy Seppala accuses Coventry council of 'offensive personal attacks'

You could even have put this:

Details of the letter dated in May can be revealed by the Telegraph after it was included as part of an official complaint by lawyers Mischon De Reya, acting for Sky Blues’ owners Sisu.

There is no mention of it being old though.

Yes, you can leave people to make their own mind up about it. It does help when you give them a big massive nudge towards something though.

 

[SimonGilbert]

I'd be genuinely interested in your view of the sale to Wasps, how it was handled and also it's long and short term effects on CCFC.

You're as well informed as anyone, fair play you come here under your own name. Your opinion would be interesting.

I'd rather just present the facts and people can make their own minds up.

 

[SimonGilbert]

Because I clicked the letter, how many else did and would actually pick up on that. The same as I picked up that just as I clicked on the article the whole page was Wasps ads.

If it was being neutral the article would have stated it wouldn't it?

How many people read past the headline? How many people get to the end? How many people click the other links? I can't read it / operate their device for them, all I can do is supply the information.

At some point readers do have to take responsibility for informing themselves.

It's two stories about a 23-page report into a complaint, nobody is daft enough to think they produced the report on the same day the complaint came in are they?

 

[Nick]

How many people read past the headline? How many people get to the end? How many people click the other links? I can't read it / operate their device for them, all I can do is supply the information.

At some point readers do have to take responsibility for informing themselves.

It's two stories about a 23-page report into a complaint, nobody is daft enough to think they produced the report on the same day the complaint came in are they?

So why didn't you supply the information about it being in May rather than relying on them to click through to the letter?

nobody is daft enough to think they produced the report on the same day the complaint came in are they?

Well, when you have no mention of it and you are on here and twitter making a point of the timing and SISU being in credit with the fans then yes, I can guarantee you that people will think this has just been done today.

So readers have to inform themselves, but only of certain things and not others? Why did you not just post the letter than rather than picking bits out of it? Surely when you are pushing the fact about the timing you would inform them of the dates / history of it rather than leaving them to become informed of that themselves?

 

[eastwoodsdustman]

Nick, it seems to me that you think that the Telegraph are and were siding with the council and reporting half truths when it suited the council in their battle with our football club. :sarcasm:
Surely this wouldn't happen would it?

 

[Nick]

Nick, it seems to me that you think that the Telegraph are and were siding with the council and reporting half truths when it suited the council in their battle with our football club. :sarcasm:
Surely this wouldn't happen would it?

I just think that it fails to mention that it was back in May and with Simon coming on here and Twitter pushing about the timing and the dates without mentioning that at all it is very much trying to get an "impression" across.

All well and good saying they are just presenting the facts and letting people make up their own minds, but pushing some facts and leaving others hidden away isn't the way to go about it and will quite clearly make people's minds up in a different way as if the article clearly states it was done back in May.

 

[SimonGilbert]

So why didn't you supply the information about it being in May rather than relying on them to click through to the letter?



Well, when you have no mention of it and you are on here and twitter making a point of the timing and SISU being in credit with the fans then yes, I can guarantee you that people will think this has just been done today.

So readers have to inform themselves, but only of certain things and not others? Why did you not just post the letter than rather than picking bits out of it?

Nick, there's hundreds of pages of documents that have been released today. I have to summarise the key information. The date of the letter doesn't seem to me to be the key thing here, or even in the top ten.

Luckily, if you feel everything hasn't been covered that you would have liked, there are links to the original documents in the articles.

Of course, you are free to disagree, and your points are noted.

We also reported the original complaint to the LGO back in May, but we didn't have the original documents available at the time.

 

[SimonGilbert]

Nick, it seems to me that you think that the Telegraph are and were siding with the council and reporting half truths when it suited the council in their battle with our football club. :sarcasm:
Surely this wouldn't happen would it?

I would have expected to see some sort of smoking gun by now if it had - what with all the disclosures through the court proceedings. I'd also liked to have been kept in the loop if I was meant to be part of a conspiracy.

 

[Nick]

Nick, there's hundreds of pages of documents that have been released today. I have to summarise the key information. The date of the letter doesn't seem to me to be the key thing here, or even in the top ten.

Luckily, if you feel everything hasn't been covered that you would have liked, there are links to the original documents in the articles.

Of course, you are free to disagree, and your points are noted.

We also reported the original complaint to the LGO back in May, but we didn't have the original documents available at the time.

Surely it is key for people to know it started back in May and not now as well as the history of it? So it isn't really anything to do with SISU having credit in the bank with the fans which you tried to push on here, which I could totally understand if they started the action today.

 

[hill83]

Nick is correct on this one Simon.

 

[chiefdave]

nobody is daft enough to think they produced the report on the same day the complaint came in are they?

Is it your first day on the internet?

 

[skybluebeduff]

Appreciate we'd rather not be discussing this stuff at the moment

So you post it anyway.

Coventry go top again, and CET maintain their effort in distributing anything CCFC...

:facepalm:

 

[SimonGilbert]

Surely it is key for people to know it started back in May and not now? So it isn't really anything to do with SISU having credit in the bank with the fans which you tried to push on here, which I could totally understand if they started the action today.

It doesn't seem like we're going to agree on much today.

 

[covcity4life]

council ruin everything, its happening again

please stop supporting them

 

[Deleted member 5849]

It doesn't seem like we're going to agree on much today.

tbf, I could guess that based on the past few months

 

[SimonGilbert]

So you post it anyway.

Coventry go top again, and CET maintain their effort in distributing anything CCFC...

:facepalm:

You think we should suppress news? What's ok to report? Just so I know.

 

[Nick]

It doesn't seem like we're going to agree on much today.

It's not about agreeing though.

Yes the reports only came out today, yes you only got them today, yes you should report it.

It is the way there's no mention of it being from May and you come on here and try to push about the timing. If the timing is important, then you would have mentioned the date it all started.

 

[SimonGilbert]

It's not about agreeing though.

Yes the reports only came out today, yes you only got them today, yes you should report it.

It is the way there's no mention of it being from May and you come on here and try to push about the timing. If the timing is important, then you would have mentioned the date it all started.

Nick, just for you - I've added it into the article. It will cache through shortly.

I trust that means we can be friends again?

 

[Nick]

You think we should suppress news? What's ok to report? Just so I know.

There's no need to get like that though is there? Nobody is saying things should be suppressed.

Haven't seen many articles about councillors owing the tax payer shit loads of money and being investigated for fraud though? We haven't heard how one of the biggest events in sporting history at the Ricoh was less popular than average second tier football matches?

 

[Nick]

Nick, just for you - I've added it into the article. It will cache through shortly.

I trust that means we can be friends again?

Was never in doubt You aren't thick though.....

 

[hill83]

Nick, just for you - I've added it into the article. It will cache through shortly.

I trust that means we can be friends again?

It better be in capitals or at least a slightly larger font. I'll even accept italics.