CCFC in Private Eye again (1 Viewer)

J

Jack Griffin

Guest
http://www.coventrycity-mad.co.uk/n...d__a_letter_to_private_eye_836773/index.shtml

Dear Sir

In Eye 1364, your Rotten Boroughs section gleefully reported the alleged "mishandling" by Coventry City Council of the Ricoh Arena saga. "More embarrassing revelations are expected when SISU goes back to the High Court for a judicial review of the Council's secret decision to loan ACL £14.4m" you wrote, no doubt rubbing your hands at the prospect of a Labour council being humiliated in court.

Unfortunately for you, but fortunately for fans of Coventry City FC and indeed the wider English football community, the only ones embarrassed by the judicial review, the result of which was made public on 30th June, were our owners SISU. Whilst the judge found that the Council had acted entirely legally and "well within the ambit extended to public authorities", and that any accusations of secrecy were "unfounded", he accused SISU of conducting a rent strike in order to "distress ACL’s financial position, with a view to driving down the value of ACL and thus the price of a share in it, which they coveted.” No surprise to those of us who have followed the sorry tale from day one, but obviously news to Private Eye and its sources.

I assume you will be publishing a correction and apology, or at least a follow-up story, in a forthcoming issue?

Yours sincerely
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
I thought Les Reid wrote the articles in Private Eye?
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
If he wrote that one he has done a U-turn just like Fisher has.

I would say that was a readers letter that they published rather than an article Jack. Probably as near as an acknowledgement that they got it wrong as they'll print. If LR did write the original article I would think it hasn't been good for his wider reputation given the battering the council didn't receive in court.
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
I would say that was a readers letter that they published rather than an article Jack. Probably as near as an acknowledgement that they got it wrong as they'll print. If LR did write the original article I would think it hasn't been good for his wider reputation given the battering the council didn't receive in court.

Sure, that much is obvious. It would be interesting to find the thread on here where the eye article was originally brought up & have a chuckle at the views expressed back then, I tried searching but no luck.
 

Kingokings204

Well-Known Member
I would like to think they have the decency to aplogize as they are 200% wrong. (To quote another magazine)
 

olderskyblue

Well-Known Member
Sure, that much is obvious. It would be interesting to find the thread on here where the eye article was originally brought up & have a chuckle at the views expressed back then, I tried searching but no luck.

It's there jack, and is very funny
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
OWN GOAL:

SLOWLY the truth is emerging about how badly Coventry City Council has mishandled the saga of the Ricoh Arena, former home of Coventry City Football Club.

The stadium belongs to Arena Coventry Limited (ACL), which is owned half by the Labour council and half by the local Alan Edward Higgs charity. ACL has been locked in a battle with the club's owners, SISU Capital, which wants to buy the stadium. Relations are so bad that the club currently plays homes games 33 miles away, in Northampton.

In 2012 both the club and ACL were as good as broke, the club because ACL was charging it an unrealistic, crippling rent, and ACL because it was lumbered with an even more crippling mortgage on the stadium - all dating back to a lousy deal agreed between the council and the club's previous owners before the Ricoh opened in 2006.

SISU suggested a solution; it would pay off ACL's debt and buy out the Higgs charity's share of ACL, in return for a long lease on the stadium and a more affordable rent. An outside operator, AEG, would come in to run the venue more efficiently.

The council and ACL both agreed in principle - but then went behind SISU's back. In January 2013 the council's cabinet agreed in secret to lend £14.4 million of taxpayers' money to ACL, in effect to use the public purse to shore up its own failed enterprise by more than twice what anyone believed the stadium was worth. The scheme was hatched by former council leader John Mutton, chief executive Martin Reeves and finance director Chris West. Vast sums were spent with fancy PR company Weber Shandwick to spin the line that a once proud football club was being used in an attempted asset strip by an evil, grasping, hedge fund.

Freedom of Information requests by the Eye and others to the council to disclose exactly how much taxpayers' money has been spent on PR have been rebuffed because Shandwick's client is the "private" ACL, not the council. But at the High Court earlier this month, a Higgs charity email was disclosed which said it had been "invited to join the city council and ACL in the instruction of Weber Shandwick to handle the public relations interests of all three parties at no cost to the charity." In other words, one way or another, the council would pick up the bill.

The court case was brought by Higgs in an attempt to recover legal costs from SISU because the 2012 deal had never been followed through. But the court accepted SISU's argument that Higgs, ACL and the council had never had any intention of making it work.
More embarrassing revelations are expected when SISU goes back to the High Court for a judicial review of the council's decision to loan ACL £14.4 million.

Until recently the saga was excellently covered by the Coventry Telegraph's star reporter, Les Reid, but Reid's editor Alun Thorne, has his head firmly stuck up the backside of council chief exec Reeves, who didn't like the direction Reid's inquiries were heading. Thorne bravely resolved this conflict of interest...by taking the award-winning hack off the story.
 

blend

New Member
A terrible article and really shows up those who choose to offer some defence to SISU. Hindsight a wonderful thing? Not really just common sense if you choose to deploy it.
 

pw362

Well-Known Member
Private Eye

We're in*Private*Eye*again (issue 1351):


PLANET FOOTBALL

Coventry City

Only one of the three companies involved in the ownership of the Sky Blues has finally managed to produce its much-delayed 2012 accounts.

The League One club's new/old owner, Otium Entertainment Group, filed its accounts on 30 September, eight months after they were due. Coventry City Football club (Holdings) and Otium's parent Sky Blues Sport & Leisure have still to file accounts that were due in February. Whether Companies House will carry out its threat, reported in the last*Eye, to prosecute the directors remains to be seen.

The Otium delay may not be unrelated to the need felt by auditor BDO to add an**warning note to its report. These relate to*in the forecast for Otium's continued ability to fund the club over the next 12 months.

Despite promises of funding from Otium's main backer, the Cayman Island ARVO Master Fund, managed by the club's previous hedge fund owners Sisu Capital,*, states BDO. A £6m revolving loan facility from ARVO is due for repayment in December. ARVO helped buy the club out of administration for £1.5m.

The directors had also made forecasts of revenue that may be jeopardised by the ground-share with Northampton Town FC.**That would seem right on the money, given the small number of Coventry fans prepared to make the 65-mile round trip for 'home games'.

Finally, BDO cast doubt on the needed cuts in wages and overheads:*

Otium/Coventry director Tim Fisher signed off these accounts to May 2012 on 26 September. However, BDO did not sign off on the accounts until four days later - which suggests much discussion about its report and that vital**ability to continue in business until the next season. The BDO verdict is not reassuring for Sky Blues fans. There is*.

'Slicker'
This is from October 2013
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
Some of the views expressed before the judges verdict. All with the heady whiff of agendas.

What the Private Eye said article did was nothing new(apart from what was suspected about the CET). The reason i suspect so many on here a shifting uncomfortably is that it very succinctly summarises a narrative of what has happened that doesnt really get much airtime in the coherent way it is presented here. Now, we all know SISU are no saints and its all dog eat dog but does highlight the Council seemed very happy to play this hardball game with just as much disregard for the supporters as SISU.

You can only base your opinion on the facts you know so far as presented in the skeleton argument. It is you who is assuming that there is evidence on the other side that refutes those facts.

Your assumption is that the council cannot possibly be complete bastards determined to stitch the club up, but that SISU are complete bastards out to stitch everybody up.

Sorry Schmeee in the trolling stakes you outdo me every time. Your pro-council anti CCFC stance is now reaching fever pitch

Its not your fault - you have no doing had local political dogma all your life in the same way a religious bible bashing fanatic would. It makes you incapable of rational and independent thought. You are riddled in bias.

Les Reid is an established journalist who writes for the guardian amongst other journals. The notion his views are dismissed as they are thoughts and facts that your closed mind is incapable of opening up tells us what we all know. The very fact you don't consider the lookout a plant or a troll means I suggest you need a long hard look in the mirror before you start to throw stones.
 

olderskyblue

Well-Known Member
What you proving Jack? Was I not just stating what i knew prior to the JR? Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Steady on FP, there are more from you he could have quoted...I should leave it alone mate ;)
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
how much of that skeleton arguement ended up being fact? as sisu lost the JR i assume most, if not all was deemed fiction?
The argument wasn't fiction (it's an argument based on presentation of the facts). The counter argument was stronger and it was found that the council bailing out a company was legitimate. The end.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
The argument wasn't fiction (it's an argument based on presentation of the facts). The counter argument was stronger and it was found that the council bailing out a company was legitimate. The end.

So the facts in the skeleton arguement just didn't bring anything to the agrument? So it was just a skeleton then. They should have scheduled the JR for the 31st of October then, at least it would have been topical ;)
 

davebart

Active Member
I'm big enough to hold my hands up on the JR to be honest. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

You're not a politician are you. You are happy to hold your hands up to the council presenting a 'better' argument than SISU in the JR (and hence that SISUs case was valid but not sufficiently strong enough) but not to berating anyone on here who held the opinion that SISU were wrong and have thus been proved right.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
You're not a politician are you. You are happy to hold your hands up to the council presenting a 'better' argument than SISU in the JR (and hence that SISUs case was valid but not sufficiently strong enough) but not to berating anyone on here who held the opinion that SISU were wrong and have thus been proved right.

You got it.
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
Nobody banded the phrase "illegal state aid" around in the direction of CCC like FP before the JR. Despite certain posters requesting caution over the complex legislation. Despite Chris West always being adamant it did not constitute illegal state aid.
 
Last edited:

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
:D See that post from Grendel and I'm all:

11590722.jpg
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Nobody banded the phrase "illegal state aid" around in the direction of CCC like FP before the JR. Despite certain posters requesting caution over the complex legislation. Despite Chris West always being adamant it did not constituent illegal state aid.
I dared to have my own opinion on the case. So what? I was wrong.

There is always the appeal.....;)
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
I dared to have my own opinion on the case. So what? I was wrong.

There is always the appeal.....;)

In fairness I don't have a problem with anyone's opinion, especially when they try and expand on their stance. But you seemed to adopt a phrase and present it as fact.

That's my opinion of course. Just to make things clear, I have no interest in who backed who, winners and losers....more interested where CCFC are currently at and moving forward.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Has this letter actually been printed in Private Eye, as I have looked through the last four editions (eight weeks worth) and cant find it anywhere.

To say it has been posted on social media doesnt mean it has been printed in Private Eye. I would be happy if anyone could say which one it was in.

Don't think it has, from what I can tell it's just something someone's sent in.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top