Private Eye Todays Issue (1 Viewer)

Ian1779 · Apr 16, 2014

Yes it was. But you don't produce a document for court with 5000 pages of supplementary evidence that is completely fictional. If they for example said a meeting happened on a specific date then it was supplemented with minutes. Or if an email correspondence happened copies of it are put in. If it was fictional it never would have even been read by the court.

It is exactly what it states. Factual events. Have you read it?

Interpretation - well that is another matter.. hence the JR.

lewys33 · Apr 16, 2014

There is a lot of experts on this forum these days.

Rusty Trombone · Apr 16, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Yes it was. But you don't produce a document for court with 5000 pages of supplementary evidence that is completely fictional. If they for example said a meeting happened on a specific date then it was supplemented with minutes. Or if an email correspondence happened copies of it are put in. If it was fictional it never would have even been read by the court.

It is exactly what it states. Factual events. Have you read it?

Interpretation - well that is another matter.. hence the JR.

It would be nice to see the Higgs skeleton argument though wouldn't it. If only Benno's friend would send him that.

Florence1898 · Apr 16, 2014

That's because Labovitch went to University with the Editor, not a clever move

lewys33 · Apr 16, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
It would be nice to see the Higgs skelteton argument though wouldn't it. If only Benno's friend would send him that.

Benno, Ian and Rob all seem to have come out the woodwork at the same time. Maybe they all have the same contacts? #CONSPIRACY

Hobo · Apr 16, 2014

No news, same old squabbling.

wingy · Apr 16, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
It would be nice to see the Higgs skeleton argument though wouldn't it. If only Benno's friend would send him that.

Thought Andreasb would have given us the early steer on this again.

Nick · Apr 16, 2014

lewys33 said:
Benno, Ian and Rob all seem to have come out the woodwork at the same time. Maybe they all have the same contacts? #CONSPIRACY

Benno and rob have been on here for a while too be fair

Hobo · Apr 16, 2014

Nick said:
Benno and rob have been on here for a while too be fair

Nick this 'find it for less' what they like with football stadiums ;-)

Ian1779 · Apr 16, 2014

lewys33 said:
Benno, Ian and Rob all seem to have come out the woodwork at the same time. Maybe they all have the same contacts? #CONSPIRACY

The funny thing about coming out of the woodwork is that you expose the cracks...

lewys33 · Apr 16, 2014

Nick said:
Benno and rob have been on here for a while too be fair

Why don't you leave me alone to play with my cauldron and spoon?!

Nick · Apr 16, 2014

Hobo said:
Nick this 'find it for less' what they like with football stadiums ;-)

They have lego ones and maybe subbuteo

Nick · Apr 16, 2014

Florence1898 said:
That's because Labovitch went to University with the Editor, not a clever move

Did he? The editor of private eye?

lewys33 · Apr 16, 2014

Ian1779 said:
The funny thing about coming out of the woodwork is that you expose the cracks...

I am a kind of fix the crack kind of bloke rather than stand there going "look, look its a crack!" Hence why I need 3 million from all the fans to save the day.

spider_ricoh · Apr 16, 2014

Normally have a lot of respect for the Eye but this reads like a SISU press release

Bennets Afro · Apr 16, 2014

I have been around for a couple of years on this forum and if you go through my previous posts i have not been too favourable towards our owners. I have been involved protests against them and been kicked out the ricoh for protesting against them.

The fact that i now don't completely blame SISU and put a lot of blame on ACL/ CCC is because i have asked questions and spoke to people. I feel that what i have been told, and what i have read enables me to form my own opinion on who is right and wrong. I think the council have a lot to answer for as do SISU.
I guess we will all find out everything when the JR happens and thats if it gets that far, as i don't think the council have a cat in hells chance of winning.

Everyone can make their minds up then, rather than arguing with ACL/CCC PR people on a message board twisting things and defending ACL/ CCC to the hilt

Gosford Green · Apr 16, 2014

Is this the same CT that was told to tow the SISU line or be stopped any access to the club including Sixfileds ? Now it seems they are in the councils corner.

Private Eye reporting about incompetent councils, groundbreaking. Nothing we dont know about in the peice except Les Reid being an award winning star reporter.

Nick · Apr 16, 2014

Boom another new user, how do I invoice for rent for marketing companies?

RegTheDonk · Apr 16, 2014

chiefdave said:
:thinking about: Odd then that Reid appears to have not written any articles for the CT or anyone else since getting removed from covering the Ricoh saga.

Well according to the Private Eye article, its because the CT editor has his head stuck up the council's backside. Its ironic as many see Les as having his head stuck up Joy's.

Godiva · Apr 16, 2014

Bennets Afro said:
I have been around for a couple of years on this forum and if you go through my previous posts i have not been too favourable towards our owners. I have been involved protests against them and been kicked out the ricoh for protesting against them.

The fact that i now don't completely blame SISU and put a lot of blame on ACL/ CCC is because i have asked questions and spoke to people. I feel that what i have been told, and what i have read enables me to form my own opinion on who is right and wrong. I think the council have a lot to answer for as do SISU.
I guess we will all find out everything when the JR happens and thats if it gets that far, as i don't think the council have a cat in hells chance of winning.

Everyone can make their minds up then, rather than arguing with ACL/CCC PR people on a message board twisting things and defending ACL/ CCC to the hilt

Fair play to you!
I am sure more have changed their opinion to various degrees, but most seem to just vanish from the debate - great you stay on.

Grendel · Apr 16, 2014

shmmeee said:
These kind of coincidences don't just happen, the word for word repetition of certain phrases doesn't just happen. It's very clumsy and very obvious PR.

I know so why do you keep doing it. The council employ a proper pr company - you are just not needed anymore.

duffer · Apr 16, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Yes it was. But you don't produce a document for court with 5000 pages of supplementary evidence that is completely fictional. If they for example said a meeting happened on a specific date then it was supplemented with minutes. Or if an email correspondence happened copies of it are put in. If it was fictional it never would have even been read by the court.

It is exactly what it states. Factual events. Have you read it?

Interpretation - well that is another matter.. hence the JR.

Yes. I've read it. I also read a similar 'statement of facts' they put forward in the counterclaim for the Higgs case, much of which was shot down in court of course. Have you read those transcripts?

The problem is that what is in SISU's JR case is selective and unchallenged, being as it is designed to support one point of view. What worries me is that you and others use it unquestioningly as evidence. Until we've heard both sides, to put this forward as 'factual' is just plain wrong imho.

Since you'd like to use it as 'fact' though, can I propose this. Dig out the specific detail that you're relying on in your argument, and reference it (i.e. on page x of SISU's skeleton argument, found here <link>). It's bloody hard work that, but I'd respect it a lot more than the argument you seem to be proposing which is we should accept the whole thing at face value because it supports your opinion.

blueflint · Apr 16, 2014

its an old story regurgitated

Godiva · Apr 16, 2014

duffer said:
Since you'd like to use it as 'fact' though, can I propose this. Dig out the specific detail that you're relying on in your argument, and reference it (i.e. on page x of SISU's skeleton argument, found here <link>). It's bloody hard work that, but I'd respect it a lot more than the argument you seem to be proposing which is we should accept the whole thing at face value because it supports your opinion.

It's a great tactic - I use it from time to time when one of my staff is getting too keen or overambitious. This will keep him quiet for some time, and when he finally gets back with loads of details, links and even more stuff to back up his theories, it can easily be shot down as 'not relevant anymore' or whatever.

lewys33 · Apr 16, 2014

Bennets Afro said:
I have been around for a couple of years on this forum and if you go through my previous posts i have not been too favourable towards our owners. I have been involved protests against them and been kicked out the ricoh for protesting against them.

The fact that i now don't completely blame SISU and put a lot of blame on ACL/ CCC is because i have asked questions and spoke to people. I feel that what i have been told, and what i have read enables me to form my own opinion on who is right and wrong. I think the council have a lot to answer for as do SISU.
I guess we will all find out everything when the JR happens and thats if it gets that far, as i don't think the council have a cat in hells chance of winning.

Everyone can make their minds up then, rather than arguing with ACL/CCC PR people on a message board twisting things and defending ACL/ CCC to the hilt

I was on a trolling session earlier out of boredom. Don't take what I said seriously.

Sbarcher · Apr 16, 2014

Has anyone ever seen Brenda Slagg and Joy in the same room? Hmmmm

letsallsingtogether · Apr 16, 2014

Funny how I meet with Labovich last night along with some other supporters he mentioned this article and this poster and boom here it is......:thinking about:

Funny he also said it is not a comic that many in Cov subscribe to now we know why......

Sbarcher · Apr 16, 2014

Sbarcher said:
Has anyone ever seen Brenda Slagg and Joy in the same room? Hmmmm

OOps... it's Glenda!

Ian1779 · Apr 16, 2014

duffer said:
Yes. I've read it. I also read a similar 'statement of facts' they put forward in the counterclaim for the Higgs case, much of which was shot down in court of course. Have you read those transcripts?

The problem is that what is in SISU's JR case is selective and unchallenged, being as it is designed to support one point of view. What worries me is that you and others use it unquestioningly as evidence. Until we've heard both sides, to put this forward as 'factual' is just plain wrong imho.

Since you'd like to use it as 'fact' though, can I propose this. Dig out the specific detail that you're relying on in your argument, and reference it (i.e. on page x of SISU's skeleton argument, found here <link>). It's bloody hard work that, but I'd respect it a lot more than the argument you seem to be proposing which is we should accept the whole thing at face value because it supports your opinion.

So do tell us about the 'statement of facts' produced for the court case - I didn't even know one existed. Share it all with us.

And last time I checked the judge threw out BOTH SISU's counterclaim and the original claim from Higgs. In which case both sides put forward this 'selective and unchallenged' piece that was equally dismissed.

At no point have I used the statement of facts as 'evidence'.

But how can you deny in said document that meetings and correspondence took place if there is minutes or letters/emails that were exchanged? Yes we have yet to see the Council's version of events - which we will see in JR. Meetings and dialogue did take place between parties. That is not fiction. Emails were exchanged, letters were sent, draft heads of terms were agreed then not followed through.

I fail to see anything that was said in there that is not correct as it only stipulates events, times and dates. The opening paragraphs are the only part that has any opinion in - which is their application reasons. Everything else is a chronological sequence of events.

duffer · Apr 16, 2014

Godiva said:
It's a great tactic - I use it from time to time when one of my staff is getting too keen or overambitious. This will keep him quiet for some time, and when he finally gets back with loads of details, links and even more stuff to back up his theories, it can easily be shot down as 'not relevant anymore' or whatever.

I use it to stop lazy people saying, "Yeah but this is a fact", when really it isn't. Especially when it's chucked in alongside the implication that no one other then them has ever bothered to read the document in question.

If you want to use it as a stalling tactic, that's down to you - I just like to make the distinction between opinion and fact.

(Fwiw, the business I'm in is pretty small and I'm honest with the few staff I do look after. If they've got good ideas and they're ambitious, brilliant - why would I want to put them down? I don't do that even when they're wrong and break things, as sometimes happens. Perhaps a discussion for a different day.)

Jack Griffin · Apr 16, 2014

@Ian1779, are you the Ian Palmer chap that wrote this article?

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/sport-opinion/fans-zone-coventry-city-can-6945670

duffer · Apr 16, 2014

Ian1779 said:
So do tell us about the 'statement of facts' produced for the court case - I didn't even know one existed. Share it all with us.

And last time I checked the judge threw out BOTH SISU's counterclaim and the original claim from Higgs. In which case both sides put forward this 'selective and unchallenged' piece that was equally dismissed.

At no point have I used the statement of facts as 'evidence'.

But how can you deny in said document that meetings and correspondence took place if there is minutes or letters/emails that were exchanged? Yes we have yet to see the Council's version of events - which we will see in JR. Meetings and dialogue did take place between parties. That is not fiction. Emails were exchanged, letters were sent, draft heads of terms were agreed then not followed through.

I fail to see anything that was said in there that is not correct as it only stipulates events, times and dates. The opening paragraphs are the only part that has any opinion in - which is their application reasons. Everything else is a chronological sequence of events.

It's an unchallenged document, created by one side, SISU - to support a court case. Like I say, if you think there's evidence in there then point to the specific thing that proves your assertion. I'm not denying anything, the 'facts' that you mention have been chosen by one side and obviously (to me at least) probably do not represent all of the facts. The troubling thing about legal documents is that they tend to only mention the 'facts' that support their side's argument.

HoTs aren't necessarily binding contracts. The HoT between SISU and Higgs, for example, failed because the sides couldn't come to a final agreement.

To come to your argument, the 'event' here was that a HoT was signed but not progressed. If you couldn't be bothered to read the court transcripts, you might take the opinion that it failed because Higgs didn't really ever want to sell or that the council vetoed the deal (or that they entered into a "secret and perverse plan" to use the actual words in the skeleton argument). That was broadly what SISU argued in their counterclaim, but funnily enough that wasn't exactly what the court found despite the 'facts' therein. So as it turns out, a skeleton argument from just one side turns out not be the most reliable source of facts or interpretation of events.

Per your request, SISU's (SISU v Higgs) skeleton argument is around to view - I think there generally has to be one for every court case of this nature. I've got it as a pdf, but it's too big to upload, I just tried. If you dig around the forum I'm sure you'll find a link to it - it's where I will have got it.

Edit: Found it. There you go:

http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/43908-Higgs-v-SISU-Court-Document?highlight=sisu+higgs

Nick · Apr 16, 2014

Funny how people are trying to out Ian and find out who he is but not the other anti sisu people who are quite clearly in the know.

tbh444 · Apr 16, 2014

Disappointing from private eye, is it really a fact that the club was broke because of the rent? We all know it was high but the implication being all would have otherwise been rosy, because the other 90% of expenditure was entirely affordable?

Could live with most of it but then the paragraph about les reid, I dread the thought of him returning to prominence, not because he had a different opinion but because he was a wind-up merchant who wrote provocative shit that set fans against each other presumably for purposes of self-promotion (remember his "and another who supports with the council ruining our season" series of tweets). Since he has stopped writing for CET I think fans are less polarised despite a fair few unhelpful people on both sides...

Spionkop · Apr 16, 2014

There is this myth that the fans are divided. So far away from the truth. The pitiful attendances at Sixfields kick that myth into touch.
I'd venture CCFC fans, the huge majority of them, are very together in their stance.

Private Eye Todays Issue (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Administrator

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Member

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency