BBC article about Saturday's game (1 Viewer)

skyblue1991 said:

There's more to life than CCFC, it's not like the miners strike which really did break up families.

Sixfields and St Andrews are two completely different scenarios. I could possibly understand having some stick going to Sixfields but this time I praise any fan that supports the team in Birmingham

Sent from my I3113 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I agree. Some things I’ve read make it sound like people are refusing to go to war!
Although, at the same time, I don’t think fans should be applauded for attending. It’s not an arduous journey - for many St. Andrews is easier to get to, and like you say, it’s only football!* If you enjoy and have enjoyed going to watch the city just do it!

*i will qualify this by saying I’m completely mad on football - as evidence of this please see me responding to a message on football forum at 9am on a Friday morning.

"We want to go back to Coventry as soon as we possibly can," Sky Blues chief executive Dave Boddy told BBC Sport.

"We're working with the English Football League and everybody that we need to in an attempt to achieve that.

"The owners have a desire to build their own stadium in Coventry. The EFL has put down a timeline for that."

Be interesting to see what the timeline is?

Nice to see Dave is alive and well. I was worried about the chap as he seems to have gone silent for a long time

The only surprise on the reaction to the content is that people are surprised

shmmeee said:

You guys need to stick to the facts here. Not your theories as to why people have done what they’ve done. Anti council cranks are ten a penny and not newsworthy. If you’ve got proof, prove it, you’ve already got a credibility problem by being anonymous internet users. Charging round calling everyone out may feel good but it won’t get you anywhere that doing it on here hasn’t.

Just my 2p

Click to expand...

Shmmeee - I’m sure we’re unlikely to be completely aligned on out thinking with regard to how blame should be allocated. I wouldn’t in a million years suggest that the council are entirely to blame.
But in terms of facts, the council sold the stadium to an out of town rugby club on a 250 year lease.
I totally understand that they were sick of the acrimonious relationship with Sisu. What I don’t understand is why they a) allowed vitriol to the clubs owners (temporary custodians of the club) to cloud their judgement to the extent that it did (to the detriment of the fans) and b) why they didn’t consider selling the stadium to Sisu with some clear, transparent safeguarding clauses involved. Or c) just held fire for a bit longer until some other kind of sustainable solution could have been found to avoid the clusterfuck that we have.
People who fail to acknowledge the culpability of the council sound like they're extremely naive - or extremely jaundiced.

shmmeee said:

You guys need to stick to the facts here. Not your theories as to why people have done what they’ve done. Anti council cranks are ten a penny and not newsworthy. If you’ve got proof, prove it, you’ve already got a credibility problem by being anonymous internet users. Charging round calling everyone out may feel good but it won’t get you anywhere that doing it on here hasn’t.

Just my 2p

Click to expand...

Oh dear, here goes Shmmeee on the defensive again regarding the council

peace ndlovu said:

Shmmeee - I’m sure we’re unlikely to be completely aligned on out thinking with regard to how blame should be allocated. I wouldn’t in a million years suggest that the council are entirely to blame.
But in terms of facts, the council sold the stadium to an out of town rugby club on a 250 year lease.
I totally understand that they were sick of the acrimonious relationship with Sisu. What I don’t understand is why they a) allowed vitriol to the clubs owners (temporary custodians of the club) to cloud their judgement to the extent that it did (to the detriment of the fans) and b) why they didn’t consider selling the stadium to Sisu with some clear, transparent safeguarding clauses involved. Or c) just held fire for a bit longer until some other kind of sustainable solution could have been found to avoid the clusterfuck that we have.
People who fail to acknowledge the culpability of the council sound like they're extremely naive - or extremely jaundiced.

Click to expand...

Im not talking about the high minded argument on here. I’m talking tactically about getting people to listen. The hypothetical arguments are for here, we have to be aware that we come across as a bunch of weirdos in their bedroom because we are anonymous and online and need to show credibility in other ways.

Nick said:

There was a thread on here about investment by the council into sports and he said "the council invest a lot, my business bank account shows that" or something along those lines.

I mean fair play to him, he is doing well with his business but he's hardly going to speak out about them is he? I wouldn't either in that position.

View attachment 13978

Click to expand...

Whats his business?

Henry Winter at Ryton...can we all get tweeting him the article? Hopefully he can read it before putting his own stuff out....

shmmeee said:

Im not talking about the high minded argument on here. I’m talking tactically about getting people to listen. The hypothetical arguments are for here, we have to be aware that we come across as a bunch of weirdos in their bedroom because we are anonymous and online and need to show credibility in other ways.

Click to expand...

Not being snide here - what other ways can we show credibility?

peace ndlovu said:

Not being snide here - what other ways can we show credibility?

Click to expand...

Its about defying expectations I guess. If people assume we are a bunch of angry trolls on the internet then we show we are reasonable and focused. The more conjecture we introduce and the wider we cast out net in terms of targets the less any individual point is taken seriously.

shmmeee said:

Its about defying expectations I guess. If people assume we are a bunch of angry trolls on the internet then we show we are reasonable and focused. The more conjecture we introduce and the wider we cast out net in terms of targets the less any individual point is taken seriously.

Click to expand...

Who is assuming that?

shmmeee said:

Its about defying expectations I guess. If people assume we are a bunch of angry trolls on the internet then we show we are reasonable and focused. The more conjecture we introduce and the wider we cast out net in terms of targets the less any individual point is taken seriously.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by reasonable and focused?

Nick said:

Who is assuming that?

Click to expand...

The media possibly and others who we want to listen

peace ndlovu said:

What do you mean by reasonable and focused?

Click to expand...

This is why I’m saying take one, incontrovertible thing to attack at a time. The more front you open up an argument on at once the less any of your points gain support.

Reasonable means assuming the best and letting people show themselves if that’s not the case rather than going in accusing people of things for which there’s no proof beyond conjecture.

Wait, a member of the Trust is receiving payments into his personal bank account from Coventry Council?

PurpleBin said:

Wait, a member of the Trust is receiving payments into his personal bank account from Coventry Council?

Click to expand...

No, his business gets business from Coventry Council.

A different thing completely but it is going to be in somebodies head before they piss them off.

Fergusons_Beard said:

Leader of the Trust doesn’t go to Home games....

Has had a season ticket for 25 years-does that include the Northampton season then....

Another giant ball of piss stained spin swallowed whole by the BBC.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Click to expand...

I am new to seeing these people in action but what a jumped up martyr that guy sounds like. Reads to me like he wants the attention on him, not the club, like he wants people to admire his undying support and yet also his moral fortitude in staying away, as opposed to using the opportunity to bring attention to the Wasps situation, which is the real story here, not his own maudlin outpourings of sorrow.

I don't see how the Trust has ever achieved anything apart from get themselves some kind of false sense of self worth where they can say they are 'in the trust' and are therefore better than everyone else, and release press statements which call on various people to do things, but that never achieves anything. And I have never heard anyone being called a scab for going to St Andrews, I personally think thats him justifying why he doesn't go, exaggerating things to make out that if if he does go he'll get abuse from these mystery hecklers who presumably hang around Digbeth looking for Sky Blue shirts?

The people that do go to St Andrews are doing more for this club than the Trust will ever do with articles like this- they are cheering on a young, exciting, rejuvinated team towards another promotion, giving them exactly what they and this clubs needs- support as they push for promotion. We could be on the cusp of something very special- already surpassing any success we had in decades & it is beyond me how anyone cannot see that the only way out of the mess is money, and money comes from getting to The Championship & further- if you truly cared about this club as opposed to pretending to be holier than thou you would be supporting these players every week with all that you have- they are the solution to everything- and directing all animosity & diverting all attention to Wasps, the indemnity & the real people responsible for the situation. Thats what they should be doing- use their voices to put the spotlight on the actual root of the problem, not pumping out drivel that doesn't actually say anything useful. Time for them to stop talking, and do something productive.

Anyone notice that the photo of the ‘portable merchandise store’ they’ve used is at the Ricoh and not St Andrews lol.

I don’t like us getting national coverage as the facts always tend to be wrong. It’s even frustrating hearing podcasts talk about it as they usually know very little but pretend to be clued up.

ccfchoi87 said:

Anyone notice that the photo of the ‘portable merchandise store’ they’ve used is at the Ricoh and not St Andrews lol.

I don’t like us getting national coverage as the facts always tend to be wrong. It’s even frustrating hearing podcasts talk about it as they usually know very little but pretend to be clued up.

Click to expand...

That's because you can guarantee it's intended for the facts to be wrong as they always feature the same faces.

No different to when David Johnson was doing videos saying he was boycotting the Ricoh because he couldn't sit by his friends.

Lots of support from other clubs in the comments section and few clarifications about the trust and the real truth.

People also want to see this game on TV. Bit perplexed myself that it isn't on TV but nonetheless will we will make our real voices heard!

Thing is, it isn't just people on here who have an issue like they try to make out.

I would love to see a timeline from start to finish of this saga, only stating facts. Then get it sent far and wide.

Briles said:

I would love to see a timeline from start to finish of this saga, only stating facts. Then get it sent far and wide.

Click to expand...

That times 100.

Briles said:

I would love to see a timeline from start to finish of this saga, only stating facts. Then get it sent far and wide.

Click to expand...

It’s so subjective though
I’m with shmmee on we’ve completely nailed the indemnity being the next thing that needs sorting.

the past should stay in the past and we should focus on the

future - ccfc in coventry
Present - indemnity, legals, media stop misleading

cheers - jimmy hills way have done a huge long article. Lots of subjective information though

Sky Blue Pete said:

It’s so subjective though
I’m with shmmee on we’ve completely nailed the indemnity being the next thing that needs sorting.

the past should stay in the past and we should focus on the

future - ccfc in coventry
Present - indemnity, legals, media stop misleading

cheers - jimmy hills way have done a huge long article. Lots of subjective information though

Click to expand...

The problem is the indemnity issue itself from a neutral view is a bit dull. You can see in that trust statement what actually was the headline maker.

The only national article I’ve seen was that guy in I think the Times ultimately condemning wasps and that struck a nerve. Unfortunately the guy who wrote it is right of Attila the Hun so it’s I guess not the best source

Sky Blue Pete said:

It’s so subjective though
I’m with shmmee on we’ve completely nailed the indemnity being the next thing that needs sorting.

the past should stay in the past and we should focus on the

future - ccfc in coventry
Present - indemnity, legals, media stop misleading

cheers - jimmy hills way have done a huge long article. Lots of subjective information though

Click to expand...

That's the beauty of facts though, they can be unwelcome but they can't be denied. Facts as we know them are what each party has said and at what point. It cannot be disputed. I think if it was laid out that way people would be more inclined to hold all parties to account

Briles said:

That's the beauty of facts though, they can be unwelcome but they can't be denied. Facts as we know them are what each party has said and at what point. It cannot be disputed. I think if it was laid out that way people would be more inclined to hold all parties to account

Click to expand...

I don’t disagree

Folks need to be taking in what @shmmeee is saying in this thread.

The Trust board member did do that 12,000 essay saying why it wasn't the council's fault. Does that count?

Comments allowed on that web page for a change.

PurpleBin said:

Wait, a member of the Trust is receiving payments into his personal bank account from Coventry Council?

Click to expand...

I receive payments into my personal bank account from a local council...

So do countless others for that matter. It's disingenuous to associate role with POV. It's also dangerous to start that, as it's all a bit McCarthyist.

Deleted member 5849 said:

I receive payments into my personal bank account from a local council...

So do countless others for that matter. It's disingenuous to associate role with POV. It's also dangerous to start that, as it's all a bit McCarthyist.

Click to expand...

Yet would you be on the board of an organisation that slated them?

I can understand perfectly why somebody wouldn't want to slate them, it's human nature.

Imagine if I had a business that had a good bank account because of SISU for example, what would the reaction be?

mmttww said:

Folks need to be taking in what @shmmeee is saying in this thread.

Click to expand...

I think most contributors recognise what he's saying, hence the focus on the indemnity over everything else. It is the Sky Blue Trust that constantly conflates various issues and shrouds them in a load of emotive twaddle and out of date / context quotations.

I wonder whether the best form of attack on the indemnity clause is possibly not to ask it to be dropped per se, but ask Wasps for further information on it; what it is, why it is needed (and why from the football club) and what the probable impact is on the football club if they had to pay it. I doubt an answer will come but it exposes them to the sort of scrutiny they don't like.

Nick said:

Yet would you be on the board of an organisation that slated them?

I can understand perfectly why somebody wouldn't want to slate them, it's human nature.

Imagine if I had a business that had a good bank account because of SISU for example, what would the reaction be?

Click to expand...

Personally I think it's disgraceful trying to associate somebody's job with an opinion. I want no part of it.