torchomatic
Well-Known Member
To be fair, it's worked a treat so far.
To be fair, it's worked a treat so far.It's because they genuinely think they can just say "it was all sisu" and thats that.
and if they'd stuck to that and kept it vague they would have been fine. its all fallen apart as soon as Duggins started getting specific, made it easy for SISU to fire back with evidence showing that he's wrong.To be fair, it's worked a treat so far.
Yeah he tried to get too clever and quote things but started slipping up. That's when their statements started.and if they'd stuck to that and kept it vague they would have been fine. its all fallen apart as soon as Duggins started getting specific, made it easy for SISU to fire back with evidence showing that he's wrong.
Well if he can’t get the most basic facts, like Chris West’s name, right then surely we should ignore everything else he comes out with.
Not sure why people are upset at their identities being linked to their social media. Personally think it would be a lot better if everyone had to use their real name and was identifiable.
Couldn't agree less, I'm afraid. Doxxing is a hideous practice, which chills free speech. I'm entitled to hold my opinions and express them (within the bounds of the law) without worrying if a potential future employer or client might tie them to me at some point in the future.
For example, my last employer did occasional work for the council. They clearly wouldn't want me expressing my opinion with my name attached, whether it was honestly held or not.
I've no problem with people being anonymous, as long as they're staying within the bounds of legality. Does not knowing who someone is somehow invalidate their opinion?
Challenge the facts of things that you're not happy with rather than worrying about the identity of the poster is the way that I'd see it.
Couldn't agree less, I'm afraid. Doxxing is a hideous practice, which chills free speech. I'm entitled to hold my opinions and express them (within the bounds of the law) without worrying if a potential future employer or client might tie them to me at some point in the future.
For example, my last employer did occasional work for the council. They clearly wouldn't want me expressing my opinion with my name attached, whether it was honestly held or not.
I've no problem with people being anonymous, as long as they're staying within the bounds of legality. Does not knowing who someone is somehow invalidate their opinion?
Challenge the facts of things that you're not happy with rather than worrying about the identity of the poster is the way that I'd see it.
Ha that's embarrassing.
Challenge the facts of things that you're not happy with rather than worrying about the identity of the poster is the way that I'd see it.
Embarrassing
Good guys might be a stretch! There's certainly only a small number of people left who can't see that other parties involved share the blame.Dare i say it but are Sisu looking like the good guys at the moment. Backing Robins and the council and wasps being shown up for what they are
If he actually scrutinised then the council probably wouldn't be putting such nonsense out every time."It comes after I scrutinised...".
No, it came after Tynan did, as per the timeline on Twitter. Why would he try to claim credit for something like that?
Spoiler: I already know the answer.
Is that the first time he's admitted he was given the information in private by Wasps? Should probably have a think about why they would leak that sort of information through him and how they stood to benefit.He still says senior sources told him wasps stopped talks, wasps and ccfc both say talks didn't stop. The council also keep contradicting wasps too, who are his senior sources?
Exactly, he's admitting they have misled him off the record.Is that the first time he's admitted he was given the information in private by Wasps? Should probably have a think about why they would leak that sort of information through him and how they stood to benefit.
Tried having a sensible conversation with him as he claims Wasps issued a statement saying they stopped talks. Pointed out I could only find one that said ball is in SISUs court and he said that's the one!Exactly, he's admitting they have misled him off the record.
Most people do the moment you speakSnore
Most people do the moment you speak
Interesting but missing a lot of key information that isn't public, i.e. what was happening within ACL post the proposal in Gidney's email in March. It can't be written off that it was a message to nothing.
No mention that it has been shown to be incorrect. Assumed the article had been quickly thrown up when the statement came out and not updated but the editor is saying that is the updated article!"Top councillors say there was a deal "on the table" for Coventry City to remain at the Ricoh Arena next season.
The football club will instead be groundsharing with Birmingham City at the St Andrew's stadium after talks broke down with Ricoh owners' Wasps.
Cllr George Duggins - leader of Coventry City Council - and Cllr Gary Ridley - leader of the Conservative opposition - said in a statement today that the only reason the football club is leaving the city for the second time in six years is because of owner Sisu's complaint to the European Commission over the sale of the stadium in 2014."
John Stretton is a weird one - is fuming that they’re in Birmingham but will be going to his councillors if they look to build a new stadiumHere is a belter from "John Stretton"
The article on the Telegraph site regarding this is poor to say the least.
No mention that it has been shown to be incorrect. Assumed the article had been quickly thrown up when the statement came out and not updated but the editor is saying that is the updated article!
Duggins having to change his statement is swept under the carpet as "updated by the council to clarify timings".
Oddly that seems to have been missed. I don't think they have ever addressed that since it first came out in one of the court cases. If it was the correct course of action and justifiable why not give an explanation.Did they ever mention the bit about the CET Editor being briefed / media war?
Should come out publically and say what the terms are then. If it’s a good as they’re making out then the public will surely be on their sideThe article on the Telegraph site regarding this is poor to say the least.
No mention that it has been shown to be incorrect. Assumed the article had been quickly thrown up when the statement came out and not updated but the editor is saying that is the updated article!
Duggins having to change his statement is swept under the carpet as "updated by the council to clarify timings".
Should come out publically and say what the terms are then. If it’s a good as they’re making out then the public will surely be on their side
I thought one of the quotes from Lucas you sighted gave some hints, the one about moving onIt cant be assumed it got any further at that time either. The only certainty is they were in contact. Was that the only club they were in contact with for instance? Why were they in contact with anyone else at all? etc etc etc
The purpose of the post was to provide a more detailed timeline based on court evidence of what happened, that was not based on cherry picked items from either CCC or SISU. To try to cut through the PR from both sides. Which is why i included almost no opinion or assumption, nor have i targeted it at either side
We are not going to see the documents that were not included in the court cases, I am sure there are others that might shed light on what really went on. So far what we know has been largely based on the documents from CCC, ACL & Charity. I would assume if there was something more that was really damning of CCC and ACL it would have surfaced by now. Why would they hold it back?
What of course would also be very interesting would be seeing the external and internal documents created by SISU and their advisors in respect of the stadium and investment in CCFC relating to that period. Not going to happen but that would provide a more balanced understanding
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?