no_loyalty
Well-Known Member
Because that Nigel fella said it was on channel 117, I put it on at about 5 to 7, and because the channel was made in Birmingham I turned the fucker off
Phone in (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Paxman II
- Start date
Because that Nigel fella said it was on channel 117, I put it on at about 5 to 7, and because the channel was made in Birmingham I turned the fucker off
georgehudson
Well-Known Member
Did my ears deceive me or did the garrulous Pete say something about that black bloke who was on the board & Clive replied 'Oh yes, Inwee Ogyay'.
If so does that qualify as an Eakinball ?
If so does that qualify as an Eakinball ?
Monkeyface
Well-Known Member
Bloody hell, me and my mate we're talking about that the other day... to our teenage ears it was comedy gold!
stevefloyd
Well-Known Member
If they have invested £70M how much have they creamed off in the way of assets ????
Nick
Administrator
What assets?
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
What investments worth 70M is what needs answering have they written off all the debt then?
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
70 million so 35M for the new ground and 35M on players wages
MatthewWallis
Well-Known Member
Is this Clive's first show or something?
Les Reid is on now, pretty sure he said some of the fans group must take responsilbity for the demise of the club :bored:
Les Reid is on now, pretty sure he said some of the fans group must take responsilbity for the demise of the club :bored:
I_Saw_Shaw_Score
Well-Known Member
Rumours we are after Jay Simpson, is that right Clive......he signed for Philadelphia 2 weeks ago!!
AFCCOVENTRY
Well-Known Member
I would be pretty cheesed off about that rumour...
I_Saw_Shaw_Score
Well-Known Member
Amended so you get a 10/10
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
Doesn't surprise me.
Did you see how many times "anti-SISU" was said in his article? Along with the SISU/TF slogans.
Last edited:
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
anyone know what he said re: the fans?
thekidfromstrettoncamp
Well-Known Member
Did not hear all the program was dipping in and out but heard Tim Read or Les Fisher or whoever he calls himself say all sides have made mistakes the ones made by CCC Higgs CSF and anyone else is talking to SUSI in the first place
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I would hate it if I had a promising career. Then I trusted someone and thought it would really better my career. Turns out they were using me and it really hampered my career instead. Then because I couldn't accept that I had been used by someone else, plus the fact I did actually get mistreated by my employers.
I continue to allow myself to not get taken that seriously, as it is clear to most that I am purely driven by vegence, as oppose to actually doing my job properly. Also I am desperately hoping I was right in the first place and didn't get used. So I don't do my job properly.
I continue to allow myself to not get taken that seriously, as it is clear to most that I am purely driven by vegence, as oppose to actually doing my job properly. Also I am desperately hoping I was right in the first place and didn't get used. So I don't do my job properly.
Last edited:
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Didn't listen to the show tonight but if he did say that he's right. I personally take full responsibility and if he goes to the game tomorrow, I'll get on my knees in front of him and beg for his forgiveness. He can then tell me where I went wrong.
georgehudson
Well-Known Member
Dong, I think I see exactly where u are coming from.
My personal view, on hearing Les Fisher, on the joke radio program, was one of utter disgust, or should we all wring ourselves & pray to the great god Sue Parlour for forgiveness.
Of course Clive was only presenting a balanced view;
if that's the case, then, where 99.5% of fans despise our owners, the a balanced view would be a majority against sisu, whereby the program would be predominantly anti - sisu with 1 in 200 giving the Les Reid/Firm Shite view,
I seriously suspect someone has been given the 'lay off it' message.
PUSB
My personal view, on hearing Les Fisher, on the joke radio program, was one of utter disgust, or should we all wring ourselves & pray to the great god Sue Parlour for forgiveness.
Of course Clive was only presenting a balanced view;
if that's the case, then, where 99.5% of fans despise our owners, the a balanced view would be a majority against sisu, whereby the program would be predominantly anti - sisu with 1 in 200 giving the Les Reid/Firm Shite view,
I seriously suspect someone has been given the 'lay off it' message.
PUSB
georgehudson
Well-Known Member
Les Reid - in the words of Madness, 'You're an Embarassment'
georgehudson
Well-Known Member
Message for Ben S, trust in your own judgement, don't get used & abused by people who tell you black is white.
I have to say that in MHO I have never known levels of deceipt like this;
PUSB
I have to say that in MHO I have never known levels of deceipt like this;
PUSB
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I'm sure it was after the 5-1 defeat at Tranmere
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Is it me or did Mr Reid seem a bit rattled in that contribution to CWR last night?
A few points..... yes a lot of it is my opinion, I am entitled to have one it is as valid as everyone else's including Mr Reid's
The "campaign" the observer is running to hold all parties to account not sure I see any real evidence of a ground swell of support. No not all fans support the SISU out campaign but a significant number seem to. Some support Mr Reid's view. Has anyone claimed they represent all fans? - how could they with such an obviously fractured fan base? Isnt the biggest reaction apathy, giving up and doing something else, arguably far more dangerous that shouting "SISU OUT "
What does the Observer campaign really consist of? It seems to be largely opinion based articles by Mr Reid (yes there are facts in there too), the odd twitter spat, and a letter signed a couple of years ago by what 15 people?
Things have changed and moved on since that letter from "prominent" Coventry fans have they not? Circumstances and attitudes have changed and hardened in many ways.
To be balanced surely you have to be able to access all parties involved, can Mr Reid do that? Seems to me he provides a counter balance to Mr Gilbert which is something different and not the same thing at all.
Multi party dispute? What disputes are there? Yes I agree that historically there is an element of blame attaching to all parties involved. The two biggest culprits are CCC and by far the biggest SISU and the directors appointed by them. SISU had the opportunity and were largely given a clean slate in 2008 and look where they have taken us
- A deal to stay at the Ricoh. It is a stalled negotiation isn't it not a dispute, and the deal runs out August 2018. Seems to me you have two parties taking a position and a defined time frame being used to apply pressure. The deadline has been known since 2014 but there is no plan B it seems. So is there a dispute between CCFC & Wasps? or is it a negotiation stand off? No one is saying as yet CCFC cant be there. Has the contract they have been disputed? - it doesn't seem to be
- A base for the Academy. Again its a negotiation isn't it not a dispute. The contract ends 30 June 2017 (5 months away). Progress is what exactly. No one disputes they need a base but the directors signed up for an agreement that finishes very soon with no plan B. So is there a dispute between COWAT/CSF and CCFC? Are CCC or anyone else blocking any site identified as an alternative? has a definite site been identified and a commitment made by CCFC to progress it backed by the finance? What is actually being disputed? Again is the current contract disputed? again it doesn't seem to be
- Training base. Well that's a decision taken by the Directors and Owners of CCFC to sell Ryton. Is anyone disputing their right to do so? Not sure why that immediately places responsibility on CCC to find CCFC an alternative. Isnt the onus on the club to identify the site that best suits them? Have CCC indicated they would block anything? Do the RBC terms indicate a replacement needs to be in their borough?
- BPA what is the dispute there? Yes there is that one email seemingly blocking the professional football being there, but it failed, it didn't happen (never should have), so is a poor excuse to hide behind. CCC are politically blocking it - are they because it is only a couple of weeks since CRFC got the lease, John Sharp says they are now working on putting together a plan. So have CCC seen the plan, can it be financed? The club have said this is the preferred option. CRFC are saying they wont deal with SISU, sorry but if they want CCFC there they will have to. What exactly is it being disputed?
- Legal actions. SISU are quite entitled to issue any legal proceedings they like, it would be reasonable to expect any party named in those actions to react less than favourably to the SISU action wouldn't it?. So yes there is a legal dispute, instigated by SISU against parties that CCFC need on their side in the above negotiations to take the club forward in a positive manner. These are not new actions and behind them are masses of correspondence and man hours on both sides. It is bound to be wearing, an irritation, frustrating and will colour decision makers attitudes (rightly or wrongly), just as each set back seems to harden the attitude of those bringing the actions. It also colours the reaction of the general populace too so John Sharp is quite correct in that in Coventry there is an anti SISU sentiment, that sentiment has grown and a rising rugby team would quite rightly want to distance from it. As SISU control CCFC and have used CCFC as a tool to progress legal actions (if they didn't control CCFC would they have taken any of the actions they have) then it is very understandable that the general public associate the two - CCFC & SISU - as the same and wonder what the hell is going on, why CCFC seems to be at odds with so many other entities and people
Reality seems to be that right now there are not any disputes instigated by or with multi parties other than JR1 & JR2 and whose choice are they?, there are a number of tricky negotiations that need commitment and positive relationships, there are hardened attitudes and an alienation of large chunks of the fan base
The CT have ridden on the back of the fans frustration with the team and its owners yes. But that frustration hasn't suddenly just happened it has grown over seasons, sometimes it peaks but other times the team does well and it recedes - it has never gone away. Frankly why shouldn't fans have their say, have an opinion on the owners and express it. All team fans do, just we have the misfortune to have the calamity that has been SISU club management and few other teams will get to experience its kind. The CT couldn't campaign without something being there to latch on to in the first place - it would quickly wither as a campaign
So question. How have either newspaper, but in this case Mr Reid, actually assisted in pushing for a viable solution, what has been achieved by this holding all parties to account in a multi party dispute? Have they managed to hold any one to account? Surely newspapers and their reporters are well placed to do so - I do not mean opinion pieces. In any case is the history of all this so important it warrants more detailed inquiry than has already taken place, isn't CCFC present and future far more important? This repeated reference to holding everyone to account masks the real issue ...... what is the way forward for CCFC that's where everyone should be held to account and focus, but particularly the owners of CCFC as they make the CCFC decisions within the business environment they are set.
The way forward is going to require commitment, compromise and partnership on all sides. It is going to require changes in attitude. It is going require engagement with the fans, the people who provide £2m pa in cash flow presently. Worryingly a certain blonde person once said to me "I don't do compromise I tell people what I want"
As Mr Reid is keen to say "show us the plan" ............ as it stands isn't the most important plan the one that SISU have for our club (because there is no willing seller) .... surely that cant be disputed? Of course a commitment to a plan means that other parties are pressured to react, not simply say no we don't want to deal with you as is presently the case now. Saying no, of course, is not a dispute its a decision and it is a decision too easy to take for those that CCFC and its future need on their side. So CCFC/SISU show us the plan convince us to get behind it if you can, if there is one.
Everyone wants a fair deal for CCFC but as with any other company the onus is on its directors to identify and get the best deal they can. To have a plan and means to progress it, to communicate it and create a positive atmosphere to drive it through.
Just my opinion
A few points..... yes a lot of it is my opinion, I am entitled to have one it is as valid as everyone else's including Mr Reid's
The "campaign" the observer is running to hold all parties to account not sure I see any real evidence of a ground swell of support. No not all fans support the SISU out campaign but a significant number seem to. Some support Mr Reid's view. Has anyone claimed they represent all fans? - how could they with such an obviously fractured fan base? Isnt the biggest reaction apathy, giving up and doing something else, arguably far more dangerous that shouting "SISU OUT "
What does the Observer campaign really consist of? It seems to be largely opinion based articles by Mr Reid (yes there are facts in there too), the odd twitter spat, and a letter signed a couple of years ago by what 15 people?
Things have changed and moved on since that letter from "prominent" Coventry fans have they not? Circumstances and attitudes have changed and hardened in many ways.
To be balanced surely you have to be able to access all parties involved, can Mr Reid do that? Seems to me he provides a counter balance to Mr Gilbert which is something different and not the same thing at all.
Multi party dispute? What disputes are there? Yes I agree that historically there is an element of blame attaching to all parties involved. The two biggest culprits are CCC and by far the biggest SISU and the directors appointed by them. SISU had the opportunity and were largely given a clean slate in 2008 and look where they have taken us
- A deal to stay at the Ricoh. It is a stalled negotiation isn't it not a dispute, and the deal runs out August 2018. Seems to me you have two parties taking a position and a defined time frame being used to apply pressure. The deadline has been known since 2014 but there is no plan B it seems. So is there a dispute between CCFC & Wasps? or is it a negotiation stand off? No one is saying as yet CCFC cant be there. Has the contract they have been disputed? - it doesn't seem to be
- A base for the Academy. Again its a negotiation isn't it not a dispute. The contract ends 30 June 2017 (5 months away). Progress is what exactly. No one disputes they need a base but the directors signed up for an agreement that finishes very soon with no plan B. So is there a dispute between COWAT/CSF and CCFC? Are CCC or anyone else blocking any site identified as an alternative? has a definite site been identified and a commitment made by CCFC to progress it backed by the finance? What is actually being disputed? Again is the current contract disputed? again it doesn't seem to be
- Training base. Well that's a decision taken by the Directors and Owners of CCFC to sell Ryton. Is anyone disputing their right to do so? Not sure why that immediately places responsibility on CCC to find CCFC an alternative. Isnt the onus on the club to identify the site that best suits them? Have CCC indicated they would block anything? Do the RBC terms indicate a replacement needs to be in their borough?
- BPA what is the dispute there? Yes there is that one email seemingly blocking the professional football being there, but it failed, it didn't happen (never should have), so is a poor excuse to hide behind. CCC are politically blocking it - are they because it is only a couple of weeks since CRFC got the lease, John Sharp says they are now working on putting together a plan. So have CCC seen the plan, can it be financed? The club have said this is the preferred option. CRFC are saying they wont deal with SISU, sorry but if they want CCFC there they will have to. What exactly is it being disputed?
- Legal actions. SISU are quite entitled to issue any legal proceedings they like, it would be reasonable to expect any party named in those actions to react less than favourably to the SISU action wouldn't it?. So yes there is a legal dispute, instigated by SISU against parties that CCFC need on their side in the above negotiations to take the club forward in a positive manner. These are not new actions and behind them are masses of correspondence and man hours on both sides. It is bound to be wearing, an irritation, frustrating and will colour decision makers attitudes (rightly or wrongly), just as each set back seems to harden the attitude of those bringing the actions. It also colours the reaction of the general populace too so John Sharp is quite correct in that in Coventry there is an anti SISU sentiment, that sentiment has grown and a rising rugby team would quite rightly want to distance from it. As SISU control CCFC and have used CCFC as a tool to progress legal actions (if they didn't control CCFC would they have taken any of the actions they have) then it is very understandable that the general public associate the two - CCFC & SISU - as the same and wonder what the hell is going on, why CCFC seems to be at odds with so many other entities and people
Reality seems to be that right now there are not any disputes instigated by or with multi parties other than JR1 & JR2 and whose choice are they?, there are a number of tricky negotiations that need commitment and positive relationships, there are hardened attitudes and an alienation of large chunks of the fan base
The CT have ridden on the back of the fans frustration with the team and its owners yes. But that frustration hasn't suddenly just happened it has grown over seasons, sometimes it peaks but other times the team does well and it recedes - it has never gone away. Frankly why shouldn't fans have their say, have an opinion on the owners and express it. All team fans do, just we have the misfortune to have the calamity that has been SISU club management and few other teams will get to experience its kind. The CT couldn't campaign without something being there to latch on to in the first place - it would quickly wither as a campaign
So question. How have either newspaper, but in this case Mr Reid, actually assisted in pushing for a viable solution, what has been achieved by this holding all parties to account in a multi party dispute? Have they managed to hold any one to account? Surely newspapers and their reporters are well placed to do so - I do not mean opinion pieces. In any case is the history of all this so important it warrants more detailed inquiry than has already taken place, isn't CCFC present and future far more important? This repeated reference to holding everyone to account masks the real issue ...... what is the way forward for CCFC that's where everyone should be held to account and focus, but particularly the owners of CCFC as they make the CCFC decisions within the business environment they are set.
The way forward is going to require commitment, compromise and partnership on all sides. It is going to require changes in attitude. It is going require engagement with the fans, the people who provide £2m pa in cash flow presently. Worryingly a certain blonde person once said to me "I don't do compromise I tell people what I want"
As Mr Reid is keen to say "show us the plan" ............ as it stands isn't the most important plan the one that SISU have for our club (because there is no willing seller) .... surely that cant be disputed? Of course a commitment to a plan means that other parties are pressured to react, not simply say no we don't want to deal with you as is presently the case now. Saying no, of course, is not a dispute its a decision and it is a decision too easy to take for those that CCFC and its future need on their side. So CCFC/SISU show us the plan convince us to get behind it if you can, if there is one.
Everyone wants a fair deal for CCFC but as with any other company the onus is on its directors to identify and get the best deal they can. To have a plan and means to progress it, to communicate it and create a positive atmosphere to drive it through.
Just my opinion
Last edited:
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
can someone confirm he actually said he blamed the fans?
Someone posted on here that he was blaming the fans in his latest Observer article but I didn't read it that way at all.
If there's one group in this whole sorry state of affairs who are completely blameless it's the fans.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
No he didn't really clint...... just the usual playing with words but not quite saying much at all ..... at least that's the way I took it.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Thanks for clarifying. I'm not surprised by that answer OSB.