Search results

The van we took to the HQs of all the major protagonists prior to Wasps' arrival? We've been here and had this conversation before. We will always speak out for what's in the best interests of Coventry. We spoke out against CCFC being removed from the city because there is clear evidence that...

As per previous post. I can't recall a time when I haven't.

I don't think we've ever singled out any one party. We've always looked at the whole picture. That's important for context. Certainly that's he way I've approached it since I started reporting on the fiasco two years ago.

We've never called them a children's charity btw.

I'm not suggesting people won't be angry with Sisu. Different people will be angry with different parties to varying degrees. That's because there's no clear right or wrong party here.

Don't mistake people who comment on the Telegraph site, this forum or other online platforms for "most people". Social media is not the real world. The internet gets angry easily - and not necessarily about the right things. And it can be pretty racist!

I can't think of an article I've written where it doesn't indicate what the story is about. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but it would be a rare mistake. I don't write everything though. Also this "taxpayer cost" line. Why do you assume people will be angry at the club's owners for this...

If the headline told the whole story, there wouldn't be the need for a story would there? Headlines always have, and always will be, a tool to attract the attention of readers. Thanks for reading.

Always best to read past the headline.

I write whatever they tell me to.

I would imagine Wasps would argue they paid the value of ACL without them as tenants/landlords and their presence has added substantial value. But that doesn't matter. Because everything Wasps says is spin isn't it?

RE taxpayers missing out: One of the reasons Sisu has been given permission to appeal is that the council's valuation of ACL was possibly way off. Sisu's argument is that the loan wasn't commercially viable because it was so much more than the value of ACL. That would mean the taxpayer...

I'd imagine he was expecting it when he agreed to take on the the three-year plan. He probably wasn't expecting it as time went on. After all, he knew the targets he had been set.

I'll be covering it live for the CT tomorrow if anyone wants to follow progress. We'll have a live blog running... technology permitting. In the meantime, here's why I'd rather not be there tomorrow - http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/news-opinion/coventry-city-feel-good-factor-dragged-9608652

The new information, from my reliable sources, is that he wasn't paid his bonus. He has received some salary though. I can't give you specific numbers I'm afraid.

Whipping up hatred? Isn't it a good thing that the owners didn't pay him a bonus for failing to meet targets? I would have thought it shows common sense on their part.

It's based on new information. A quote three years ago does not tell us if he has received a bonus today.

We wouldn't print it without knowing the facts behind the story. It's based on new information.

Completely agree.

Exceptionally busy. You can see all the stuff I wrote here: http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/authors/simon-gilbert/ I think you might be slightly missing the point of the article...