Labo on sky NOW (1 Viewer)

[AJB1983]

Why would acl or council want to deal with these people after this.

Also if he said that coventry was a deprived area it is now also deprived of a football club because of him and his mates.

He must forget that that area of coventry was regenerated as part of the Ricoh build.....

Unbelievable stuff

 

---

[shmmeee]

So if this isn't true then he should expect a letter in the post?

Not everyone is a litigious piece of shit Nick.

 

[oldskyblue58]

I agree, although if we want clarity of this mess we need to be asking questions of both sides.

yes we do but not on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations which ever side it is......... to do so only serves to confuse further and distract from the real issues

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Not everyone is a litigious piece of shit Nick.

Surely you'd support legal action if not true?

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

Not everyone is a litigious piece of shit Nick.

Are you calling me litigious.. why, why, why, you :jerkit:....... well I'm gonna sue you...get your ass to court...

 

[shmmeee]

I agree, although if we want clarity of this mess we need to be asking questions of both sides.

Frankly, if it ain't directly related to my club, I don't give a shiny shite.

I don't care how the Ricoh is funded, or where the money goes. All I care about is: Are my club on sound footing?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I don't care how the Ricoh is funded, or where the money goes. All I care about is: Are my club on sound footing?

Problem is, one does affect the other.

 

[shmmeee]

Surely you'd support legal action if not true?

Not really, as they say "never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". Only in this case it's "never sue a laywer".

 

[The lost fan]

Do like that little saying ! Must try to remember that !

 

[shmmeee]

Problem is, one does affect the other.

Does it?

Really?

Or is it all smokescreen from "issues" that change more often than my socks?

First it's "the rent's too high"

Then it's "the revenues aren't ours"

Then it's "the business model is crap"

Then it's "they won't talk to us"

Now it's "they have some vague, unspecified issue we won't talk about"

They can fuck off.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Not really, as they say "never fight with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". Only in this case it's "never sue a laywer".

In a world of innuendo and counter-innuendo, just get it all out in the open, see who does own the simple sword of truth.

 

[Noggin]

Surely you'd support legal action if not true?

It's hard to see how labovitch would win even if were true, it would be up to him to prove the allegations something he wouldn't be able to do. if I accuse you of watching child porn (sorry for the poor comparison but it was the easiest one I could think of) and you sued me, I'd have to prove it, as far as im aware the burden of proof would completely be on me, you wouldn't have to bring your dvd collection and computer into court to prove me wrong. feel free to correct me if im mistaken.

who losses out if he gets sued and losses? himself or ccfc?

 

[Jack Griffin]

Clearly SISU have launched a media offensive.. Labo is doing the rounds, shall record Midlands Today & Central News so I can see what is said.. I fully expect he'll be interviewed on those programs too.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Does it?

Really?

Or is it all smokescreen from "issues" that change more often than my socks?

First it's "the rent's too high"

Then it's "the revenues aren't ours"

Then it's "the business model is crap"

Then it's "they won't talk to us"

Now it's "they have some vague, unspecified issue we won't talk about"

They can fuck off.

Whatever our views of the owners, how the stadium many want the club to play in is funded, and where the money goes *does* affect the club directly.

Personally I'd like it sorted so we don't go through similar stories with a different cast, like an Eastenders scriptwriter.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

It's hard to see how labovitch would win even if were true, it would be up to him to prove the allegations something he wouldn't be able to do. if I accuse you of watching child porn (sorry for the poor comparison but it was the easiest one I could think of) and you sued me, I'd have to prove it, as far as im aware the burden of proof would completely be on me, you wouldn't have to bring your dvd collection and computer into court to prove me wrong.

Which surely is a perfect reason to sue him then?

Edit - unless that was actually your point - which it might be

 

[Otis]

We need clarity from ALL sides.

I'm getting sick to death of the whole saga.

 

[shmmeee]

In a world of innuendo and counter-innuendo, just get it all out in the open, see who does own the simple sword of truth.

Fine. Except as I said before, I only care about current issues that affect my club now.

Fisher's MO is to throw allegations around, see what shit sticks, fuck whoever gets hurt in the process.

Maybe John Mutton likes donkey porn, Maybe Ann Lucas is spending taxpayers money on her rattan cat collection, maybe Bryan Richardson spunked all our cash on brylcreme. I don't give a fuck, it's just gossip at this point and detracts from the actual issues. All that matters: how can my club be successful going forward? As I've said since day 1: show me that this plan makes sense and I'll back it. Why are we even spending the PR time for the new stadium on talking about the council?

Or do you buy the "We're the white knights of justice and cannot bear to see council tax payers hard done by" line?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

it's just gossip at this point and detracts from the actual issues.

Which is why making it official through the courts stops the gossip.

 

[shmmeee]

Whatever our views of the owners, how the stadium many want the club to play in is funded, and where the money goes *does* affect the club directly.

Personally I'd like it sorted so we don't go through similar stories with a different cast, like an Eastenders scriptwriter.

That's the thing, I honestly don't think there's a story. This shit is straight from the Daily Mail's playbook. I mean if we have a massive enquiry we may well find the odd bit of impropriety, you would in ANY organisation eventually. But what impact does it have compared to say: who signed off the rental deal in the first place or who sold the Ricoh shares and why, etc.

This is just mudslinging.

 

[oldskyblue58]

This bloke claims to be an un paid director, at least timmy gets paid for being a complete bastard.

Thought TF said in the SCG minutes that ML received a small salary

ML claims to be non executive (ie makes none of the decisions) but is simply listed as a director at Company House and therefore legally shares joint and several liability with the other directors...... plus is idependent (yet is paid by Otium)

At least thats my understanding happy to be corrected

 

[shmmeee]

Which is why making it official through the courts stops the gossip.

Tell that to Nigella.

 

[Noggin]

Which surely is a perfect reason to sue him then?

Edit - unless that was actually your point - which it might be

not 100% sure what my point was I was more commenting because some people seemed to think that the council would sue if this were false and not do so if it were true, this suggests if they don't sue and they probably won't that its somehow legitimate, my point was that I think the council could sue even if it were true without fear and so weather or not they sue isn't going to be based on the validity or lack thereof of his accusations.

do I want them to sue no idea really, who would be responsible? him?, the football club? presumably not sisu as he is *cough bullshit* independent. Would it drag things out further? would it actually be at all enlightening?

 

[shmmeee]

OK, let's say CCC sues CCFC, what do you think the next interview with Labovitch/Fisher will say?

 

[oldskyblue58]

is there a statute of limitations on sueing for libel or slander?

It wouldnt be the club being sued it would be the individual wouldnt it?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Would it drag things out further? would it actually be at all enlightening?

Well given we've had statement wars for a good year or two now, could it actually be 'dragged out' any more, or does it move it to a point of closure?

Enlightening? Possibly not.

All these statement wars and interviews bore me however (I'd rather there was some doing than saying), so I'd kind of like the mechanisms that help them stop to be enacted, if there's a case to hear.

 

[tisza]

Did my shorthand reflect what was said OSB.. if not let me know will edit... dont want to be a SISU sue victim?

no this was what was said. It was valuations thw council were trying to keep quiet.

 

[shmmeee]

no this was what was said. It was valuations thw council were trying to keep quiet.

So it wasn't what was said?

I'm confused. Did he say the council are hiding a valuation or refusing to get one done?

 

[torchomatic]

Forgive me but I thought that was your line. "Don't sell the Ricoh on the cheap, etc. Let's not let SISU rip off the poor council, etc"

Or do you buy the "We're the white knights of justice and cannot bear to see council tax payers hard done by" line?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Christ, you know things are bad when this whole affair drives me to wish I had Sky!

 

[RPHunt]

Why the hell would the council sue Labovitch - the only reputation he is damaging is that of SISU (assuming it is possible to damage it further).

 

[covcity4life]

sky is awesome.

 

[oldskyblue58]

no this was what was said. It was valuations thw council were trying to keep quiet.

if it was that then thats going to be wrong too from what I understand. CCC have not done any valuations of the site or ACL so they have no legal right to make public any valuations that may have been done for other parties.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

The difference is that for a council exec to do so he has to use tax payers money. Is that the way taxpayers would want there money spent?

Sisu know this so say what they please.

So if this isn't true then he should expect a letter in the post?

 

[tisza]

Several valuations done - one of which came to light in recent court case. Doesn't think the council wants them made public. I thought it had been made clear that the "public" valuation was of ACL not the RICOH. He also said that other recent financial transactions were trying to be kept hidden.

 

[shmmeee]

Forgive me but I thought that was your line. "Don't sell the Ricoh on the cheap, etc. Let's not let SISU rip off the poor council, etc"

I really don't get your point.

Man born and bred in Coventry, council tax payer and London based hedge fund with no regard for government. Might have different motives?