Council meeting for Mark and I (5 Viewers)

[Evo1883]

Can they come and fix the fences on our street please... Cheers

 

---

[tisza]

Ask why CCC are giving wasps 3-5 million for improvements to Ricoh when they are receiving 18 million from the sale of a share of the Rubgy partnership to CVC Capital which the Rugby Chief Executive urged them to spend on infrastructure?

thought that money had already gone (inc bond payment ??)

 

[tisza]

don't see much point in rehashing old ground - they'll just say it was documented in various court cases.
Focus on recent events and future

 

[Irish Sky Blue]

Most of these questions can easily be batted away with stock statements about how they'd love CCFC to come home but it's a private commercial negotiation they aren't part of, or how they don't discuss ongoing legal issues.

Need to work on confirming or denying they're part of negotiations first. The lawyers won't let them discuss anything around the historic deals with Sisu or the sale of the stadium while there's investigations open. All the 'economic impact' stuff rests on the assumption that it's in CCC's gift to get CCFC home, which you haven't proven yet.

Similarly, need concrete statements about not impeding any new stadium at planning. Less Corbyn, more Starmer.

Has the indemnity not been proved to be a fact?

 

[clint van damme]

thought that money had already gone (inc bond payment ??)

that's their fucking problem! I didn't think they could use it for bond payments?

 

[tisza]

that's their fucking problem! I didn't think they could use it for bond payments?

didn't they could do a lot of the things they seem to have done

 

[Nick]

I imagine they’re getting uncomfortable with the success of the football club and a shift away from SISU being to blame for it all. I expect this will be their attempt to try and reignite that.

It will be, 100%. Duggins isn't so sure about public opinion now like he was when he was gloating.

Especially now people can see the Trust have fuck all about them and people don't believe anything they say.

 

[shmmeee]

Has the indemnity not been proved to be a fact?

We don't know what the indemnity is. Wasps say it doesn't exist. Sisu say it'll bankrupt the club. Leaks say it's protection against future legal action against CCC, which Wasps have always accepted they want. Nowhere do we have proof CCC have anything to do with it. So asking them about it without that proof will just get 'blah blah commercial deal, not us guv' answers. So first you have to get them to establish they don't want or need it and that they have communicated that to Wasps.

If they can't/won't do that then you've got your smoking gun to go to the LAO or the press or political opponents about CCC interfering with negotiations and lying about it. If they will do that then you know to pressure Wasps with 'but CCC say they don't want it'. In an ideal world you'd also get CCC to confirm that they will pay for anything that needs paying around the sale of the Ricoh, basically to indemnify Wasps and give Wasps the guarantees that they want from Sisu. Might not be enough for Wasps but it's worth a shot. Thought I'd be very surprised to see CCC give such a wide ranging assurance, you never know.

 

[Cranfield Sky Blue]

Ask the CET what questions they would ask and then ask anything else!

 

[COVKIDSNEVERQUIT]

Thinking about the new stadium. I reckon the best line is “will you promise not to object based on the existence of the Ricoh (duplication of functionality, lack of need, etc)”. They won’t be able to give a general refusal to object in case Sisu propose a smog spewing three hundred foot stadium shaped like Ann Lucas being buggered by a Wasp in the middle of green belt. But shouldn’t be objecting based on the Ricoh as the situation there has become unsustainable.

You’re looking to tease out two things IMO: CCC to distance themselves from Wasps requests for the Ricoh action to stop (not just didn’t ask for it but don’t need it and it’s all on Wasps), and to accept that it’s up to CCFC what is viable for CCFC not what’s viable in CCCs opinion.

Will the Council BACK the Stadium, YES OR NO.

 

[RegTheDonk]

We don't know what the indemnity is. Wasps say it doesn't exist. Sisu say it'll bankrupt the club. Leaks say it's protection against future legal action against CCC, which Wasps have always accepted they want. Nowhere do we have proof CCC have anything to do with it. So asking them about it without that proof will just get 'blah blah commercial deal, not us guv' answers. So first you have to get them to establish they don't want or need it and that they have communicated that to Wasps.

If they can't/won't do that then you've got your smoking gun to go to the LAO or the press or political opponents about CCC interfering with negotiations and lying about it. If they will do that then you know to pressure Wasps with 'but CCC say they don't want it'. In an ideal world you'd also get CCC to confirm that they will pay for anything that needs paying around the sale of the Ricoh, basically to indemnify Wasps and give Wasps the guarantees that they want from Sisu. Might not be enough for Wasps but it's worth a shot. Thought I'd be very surprised to see CCC give such a wide ranging assurance, you never know.

Yeah. CWR haven't retracted any of the reports by Gilbert so there is obviously SOME kind of barrier to us doing a deal with Wasps that has been insigated by the council. They can tart it up with any kind of doubletalk, as has rightly been pointed out by people here, oooh, it's not that it's spelt differently or whatever the hell they want to call it, indemnify, porkypie, legals, shmmeegals ... point being the council are the stumbling block to us having any long or interim deal at the Ricoh. We all know that and we all know why they are bricking it. Be men and admit it.

 

[Tommo1993]

Promise not to be seduced like PSB Group with Eastwood.

 

[shmmeee]

Yeah. CWR haven't retracted any of the reports by Gilbert so there is obviously SOME kind of barrier to us doing a deal with Wasps that has been insigated by the council. They can tart it up with any kind of doubletalk, as has rightly been pointed out by people here, oooh, it's not that it's spelt differently or whatever the hell they want to call it, indemnify, porkypie, legals, shmmeegals ... point being the council are the stumbling block to us having any long or interim deal at the Ricoh. We all know that and we all know why they are bricking it. Be men and admit it.

We don’t know that. We think that. The trick is proving it. Currently the conversation goes like this “are you part of the negotiations?” “No” “Did you ask for the indemnity?” “No”.

If you want to play into that game then crack on, but don’t come whining when all you get are the same bland statements about “we want CCFC back in Cov and urge all parties to strike a deal”.

If your working theory is that the council are pressing Wasps to include something Wasps don’t want, then you need to base your questions around exposing that.

If you go in frothing about “why do you hate CCFC you meanies and why aren’t you blocking Wasps asking the government for money grrr!” you’ll get palmed off as fundamentally unserious and not worth engaging with.

As I said, Foresnic Starmer not Base Pleasing Corbyn. You’re trying to enhance what we know, not vent your spleen.

 

[shepardo01]

 

[Skybluemichael]

1) (the only really important one) Will the confirm they do not require indemnity as part of the Ricoh deal? If so have they informed Wasps of this? If not lose your shit quite frankly.

2) Will they confirm they’ll support any application for a new ground at UoW? Don’t accept the “look at each case on its merits”, get across CCFC fans want a quick resolution and if Sisu feel they can’t accept terms that’s their choice as a business.

 

[Hiraeth]

Thank you to those involved in arranging this meeting and for those who have already provided thoughtful responses which cover a lot of the forward looking questions which I would like to be raised.


Can anyone present provide evidence for previous claims that have been made that the council's October 2014 public written commitment to the security and future of Coventry City Football Club under the stadium's sale was limited to just the four year (or two years plus two years) timescale of the previous tenancy arrangement?

What tangible benefit do those present believe the people of Coventry have received from the current / previous insistence of Coventry City Council and other parties that any legal action be dropped or that further legal protections be provided by Coventry City Football Club or its owners?
If this policy has not curtailed the ongoing European Commission investigation or the ability of the football club owners to raise further legal action then can those present conceive that a new approach of publicly recommending that the insistence be dropped for additional legal protections or an end to legal action might be a good idea given the apparent failure of the status quo to achieve anything beyond the resulting costs to the people and businesses of the Longford Ward, the City of Coventry and the wider area that come from the football club not being able to play in the city that bears its name?

 

[jordan210]

It does look like he has some sort of contact with email leaks

 

[shmmeee]

Thank you to those involved in arranging this meeting and for those who have already provided thoughtful responses which cover a lot of the forward looking questions which I would like to be raised.


Can anyone present provide evidence for previous claims that have been made that the council's October 2014 public written commitment to the security and future of Coventry City Football Club under the stadium's sale was limited to just the four year (or two years plus two years) timescale of the previous tenancy arrangement?

What tangible benefit do those present believe the people of Coventry have received from the current / previous insistence of Coventry City Council and other parties that any legal action be dropped or that further legal protections be provided by Coventry City Football Club or its owners?
If this policy has not curtailed the ongoing European Commission investigation or the ability of the football club owners to raise further legal action then can those present conceive that a new approach of publicly recommending that the insistence be dropped for additional legal protections or an end to legal action might be a good idea given the apparent failure of the status quo to achieve anything beyond the resulting costs to the people and businesses of the Longford Ward, the City of Coventry and the wider area that come from the football club not being able to play in the city that bears its name?

The commitment is an interesting point, as always it’ll hinge on word definition (yay!). The leaked council report states:

"It will include a requirement in agreements underpinning the sale that this option must exist for CCFC subject to it reaching a commercial agreement with ACL.”

Now it could be argued that CCFC and Wasps reached a commercial agreement, and therefore Wasps are in breach. Of course it can also be argued that the phrase “commercial terms” is just shorthand for “everything but the indemnity issue”, would be interesting to see the wording of that agreement.

Can we ask to see it?

 

[shmmeee]

It does look like he has some sort of contact with email leaks

He is Richard Heneghan isn’t he?

 

[Grendel]

He is Richard Heneghan isn’t he?

yes

 

[Nick]

Oh dear.

 

[Grendel]

Oh dear.

I know

 

[BornSlippySkyBlue]

He is Richard Heneghan isn’t he?

yes

Oh dear.

I know

So, for those of us who don’t know — who is Richard Heneghan and why is that relevant?

 

[shmmeee]

So, for those of us who don’t know — who is Richard Heneghan and why is that relevant?

No idea, I just assumed it was him as the only non council person in the emails.

 

[BornSlippySkyBlue]

No idea, I just assumed it was him as the only non council person in the emails.

But who is he? The name must’ve come from somewhere I assume.

 

[shmmeee]

But who is he? The name must’ve come from somewhere I assume.

 

[Nick]

You were commenting about him on another thread weren't you?

 

[Nick]

So, for those of us who don’t know — who is Richard Heneghan and why is that relevant?

He is the bloke who runs that kovblog account on Twitter.

Same person who leaked about the council being told to stay quiet about ccfc.

He's the guy who ties them in knots about bus lanes and stuff. Think he has somebody at the council leaking him stuff.

 

[BornSlippySkyBlue]

He is the bloke who runs that kovblog account on Twitter.

Same person who leaked about the council being told to stay quiet about ccfc.

He's the guy who ties them in knots about bus lanes and stuff. Think he has somebody at the council leaking him stuff.

Yeah, I get what he does in his twitter account, just wondering why that name is relevant. It’s not important, just trying to fill the gaps in my knowledge!

 

[shmmeee]

You were commenting about him on another thread weren't you?

I mean I've come across the account before, the guy's a crank. But I don't know who he is other than that. I only guessed his name because it's the only one on the emails. Someone said 'He must have sources because he's getting leaked emails' which is why I asked. And Grendel confirmed. Then you two got weird again.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

I mean I've come across the account before, the guy's a crank. But I don't know who he is other than that. I only guessed his name because it's the only one on the emails. Someone said 'He must have sources because he's getting leaked emails' which is why I asked. And Grendel confirmed. Then you two got weird again.

Why is he a crank?

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[BornSlippySkyBlue]

I mean I've come across the account before, the guy's a crank. But I don't know who he is other than that. I only guessed his name because it's the only one on the emails. Someone said 'He must have sources because he's getting leaked emails' which is why I asked. And Grendel confirmed. Then you two got weird again.

Ha ha. Not trying to start an argument here, was just wondering why his name was familiar to people. He’s clearly got an agenda, valid or not. But he does seem to have some kind of access to ‘stuff’ and a bee in his bonnet.

Maybe a useful source, if we knew his raison d'etre. So to speak.

 

[shmmeee]

Why is he a crank?

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Got a chip on his shoulder about CCC, posts up weird theories about stuff but doesn't go beyond that, writes many many letters of complaint to people. The sort usually seen complaining about his wheelie bins, except for him it's bike lanes seemingly. Another with a long history of whining about the council (any council) that's jumped on bandwagon with the Ricoh. He might get something, but it'll be very much broken clock territory, most of his stuff is 'Duggins spoke to Aldi' type stuff or picking up on minor procedural errors. Have a read of his feed.

 

[Nick]

Got a chip on his shoulder about CCC, posts up weird theories about stuff but doesn't go beyond that, writes many many letters of complaint to people. The sort usually seen complaining about his wheelie bins, except for him it's bike lanes seemingly. Another with a long history of whining about the council (any council) that's jumped on bandwagon with the Ricoh. He might get something, but it'll be very much broken clock territory, most of his stuff is 'Duggins spoke to Aldi' type stuff or picking up on minor procedural errors. Have a read of his feed.

Has managed to get a fair bit of stuff sorted about the bus lane fines hasn't he?

I bet it's a nightmare that he's making your old man's mates look like dickheads. No shock you think everything is made up.

Have a word, your desperation seemingly has no bounds. The only cranks that have come out of the woodwork are you, your old man and his mates with the strange social media accounts.

 

[Nick]

Ha ha. Not trying to start an argument here, was just wondering why his name was familiar to people. He’s clearly got an agenda, valid or not. But he does seem to have some kind of access to ‘stuff’ and a bee in his bonnet.

Maybe a useful source, if we knew his raison d'etre. So to speak.

He seems to have issues with the council and will spend a fair amount of time pointing out things going on. Incorrect fines being issued to people, corruption etc. He has leaked a few things CCFC related too.

He's exactly the sort of person you would want on side when going against a council as he would know how how to get information if possible etc.