or if he claimed to know the site of the new stadium in an Observer exclusive and it turned out to be exclusive bollocks.... Could happen
But that is just normal, it is fine.
Imagine if Les Reid had found out about the Northampton move a month before but agreed to keep it hush hush until it was all confirmed and announced and set in stone.
That's a very polite word for what he is.
Love the mutual back slapping when someone has an informed opinion that goes against the grain.
Sometimes you just need to accept Sisu are leading you down a blind alley with all these challenges on authority.
CCFC/Sisu knew exactly what was going on.
They would have known Wasps were homing in during the Summer.
In fact I would say it gave them the chance of getting into the Ricoh under ACL before Wasps had a say on it.
But they started talking in 2012!!!
I said in a thread at the time that lots of people would be looking at what they could do with an empty stadium. I think I got laughed at by the clueless few at the time.
Lets look at the complaints then.
Whether Coun Mutton’s conduct was unacceptable
We find there’s insufficient evidence to show Coun Mutton’s behaviour was unacceptable.
Whether the councillors had made inappropriate or defamatory comments.
We do not consider that the comments made by either councillor amounted to a breach of the code of conduct.
He admits to the comments attributed to him and chanting SISU Out at the Ricoh! How much more open and shut could it be?
Whether the relevant interests had been declared by Coun Mutton.
We have concluded that Coun Mutton did not fail to disclose his interests”.
This is an easy one. Even Goacher had a problem with this "in other authorities it wouldn’t have had to have been registered, but under Coventry’s code it should have been".
So the independent expert states that under the council's code of conduct Mutton failed to disclose an interest yet the committee say he did not.
Failure by councillors to make a decision objectively and in without bias.
We find there was no failure to make decisions in an objective and unbiased way.”
Another easy one for me. I really don't see much of an argument against there being a council bias against SISU. Sure SISU's actions might have pushed them down that path but as a council they need to rise above that, hence why they have a code of conduct in place. Can anyone really keep a straight face and say CCC were not biased against SISU?
Whether there was a public smear campaign against the football club’s owners
We have concluded there is no evidence that councillors instigated a public smear campaign against the complainants.”
A key point here is that Goacher states that ACL and CCC have to be viewed as separate entities despite CCC owning 50% of ACL and CCC having representation on the ACL board. This is of course at odds with his insistence in the first hearing that it was impossible to view CCFC and SISU as two separate entities. This despite emails from council officers stating CCC was “going on the offensive with Sisu”. Cllr Andrews questioned why this wasn't gone into in more depth. The response from Goacher was that discussions might have taken place in non-minuted meetings with no records, he didn't even bother to check!
There are emails from Weber Chadwick discussing a “PR strategy”, along with emails suggesting Seppala's home address is made known and the suggestion that she be doorstepped by the local media. Cllr Andrews, the only non Labour person on the committee, said he found the emails “disturbing”.
The defence for Mutton and Lucas appears to be solely that, as leaders of CCC, they had absolutely no idea what was going on and therefore can't take any responsibility.
I'm really struggling to see how the council are in the clear on any of these points let alone all of them. If you read the councils code of conduct there's numerous cases of the code being breached during this whole affair that come to mind.
Of course that isn't to say SISU's behaviour was any better but unfortunately as a private company they can do what they like as long as they stay on the right side of the law. CCC however should adhere to their code of conduct.
Would that not be because most people would not expect the cities own council to sell the stadium to a rugby club from London? Especially as they took every opportunity they could in local media to tell everyone how wrong it was for a club to be playing outside their home city.
Didn't seppala ask for a private confident meeting which Lucas ran to the press about? After it was said it should be out of the public eye?You missed one of the points out for starters. They alleged that Mutton had said that SISU was a predator with greed running through it's DNA. It was Ainsworth that said it with parliamentary privilege. They put so much on it to make him look like his conduct was unacceptable.
They never came out with true comments on what the two had said that amounted to a breach of the code of conduct. Singing SISU out during a game wasn't making comments on behalf of CCC. Just like whoever joined in didn't do it on behalf of their employer. Wasn't a wise thing to do though.
Public smear campaign? It was Lucas that kept asking for talks. The bad feeling was caused by SISU.
You say that Mutton never declared his interests. He did each year until 2012. So nothing was hidden.
There was a PR strategy. It could have been done much better. But by the sound of it there is nothing unusual with it from local authorities. Not happy with it myself.
Mutton and Lucas can't be held responsible for what others might have said. And it is a might to me after how much SISU made of the DNA comment and made it one of the six complaints when he didn't even say it.
The most telling comment for me was when he said that this was about ethics and not for SISU to go on a fishing trip. And if you are truthful you must have thought that it is what it was all about.
Love the mutual back slapping when someone has an informed opinion that goes against the grain.
Sometimes you just need to accept Sisu are leading you down a blind alley with all these challenges on authority.
There is a big difference between talking about it and actually doing it.
I said in a thread at the time that lots of people would be looking at what they could do with an empty stadium. I think I got laughed at by the clueless few at the time.
Pity Sisu were also clueless to what was going on or they may have played it differently for us.
Didn't seppala ask for a private confident meeting which Lucas ran to the press about? After it was said it should be out of the public eye?
Didn't matton repeat what ainsworth said to agree with it?
With the crap offers and pulling out of deals are you surprised that she wanted it kept a secret?
No Mutton didn't repeat it. Haven't you read it before commenting on it?
With the crap offers and pulling out of deals are you surprised that she wanted it kept a secret?
No Mutton didn't repeat it. Haven't you read it before commenting on it?
You missed one of the points out for starters. They alleged that Mutton had said that SISU was a predator with greed running through it's DNA. It was Ainsworth that said it with parliamentary privilege. They put so much on it to make him look like his conduct was unacceptable.
Public smear campaign? It was Lucas that kept asking for talks. The bad feeling was caused by SISU.
You say that Mutton never declared his interests. He did each year until 2012. So nothing was hidden.
It was for sale and only one offer was received
Mutton said it on a cwr interview. What are you on about?
Did he? I take it that was when Seppella hugged him
Did he? I take it that was when Seppella hugged him
Lets compare the actual quotes.
Ainsworth said "Many of us accept the need for a realistic approach to the lease and management issues if the stadium is to reach its full potential. Changes would be supported with the right partner at the right time. But Sisu is not entitled to bully its way into control of an asset that it did not provide, build or pay for. It must prove that it is not simply a predator with greed running through its DNA before it can expect such treatment."
Mutton said "“It’s absolutely true that Sisu is a predator with greed running through its DNA”
To me that is pretty clear that Mutton is not just quoting Ainsworth, in fact I would say the wording of Mattons quote is a lot stronger than Ainsworths. Ainsworth states SISU need to prove that are not a predator- he does not state they are a predator, Mutton states it is absolutely true that they are a predator.
Bad feeling caused by SISU is irrelevant to the council's code of conduct. There's nothing in there that says ignore the code if someone has annoyed you or is acting unreasonably. There is a clear email trail showing there was a campaign against SISU. The only defence that has been offered to this is that Mutton and Lucas are such incompetent leaders that they have no idea what is going on under their leadership.
If that's the case why did the independent investigator state that he was in breach of the councils code of conduct and why is Mutton now stating that he doesn't agree?
Just read it all again. You should have done the PR for SISU. Try reading the whole day instead of trying to find fault with the decision.
He did indeed, he said “It’s absolutely true that Sisu is a predator with greed running through its DNA”. That's not being disputed. He's now saying he was only quoting Ainsworth but he (Ainsworth) didn't actually say SISU was a predator :thinking about:
Which bit should be read?
Just read it all again. You should have done the PR for SISU. Try reading the whole day instead of trying to find fault with the decision.
He didn't say he quoted Ainsworth. He was asked about the quote on a radio show. Think he said he agreed with it. Similar but totally different at the same time.
Coun Mutton says quote about “greed running through Sisu’s DNA” was actually him quoting Bob Ainsworth who had made those comments with Parliamentary privilege in the House of Commons.
Those that say the opposite to what was said.
He said himself he was quoting him?
So what was going on with the bit at 12:02 then?
So what was going on with the bit at 12:02 then?
It's him trying to get out of it. The quote is there for all to see. He wasn't repeating what Ainsworth was saying, anyone can see that.
And where is that quote? Like I said it wasn't anywhere that I can see it although Grendel tells us it is on where we are talking about. What a shock.
And where is that quote? Like I said it wasn't anywhere that I can see it although Grendel tells us it is on where we are talking about. What a shock.
And where is that quote? Like I said it wasn't anywhere that I can see it although Grendel tells us it is on where we are talking about. What a shock.
Because they weren't involved in the sale to Wasps....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?