Private Eye (2 Viewers)

martcov · Oct 17, 2014

Moff said:
As its quite simple as you stated, I will point out the following,

1) Private Eye tend to check quite heavily that the items they write are factual and correct, as the content in it is often quite damning...and more often about more hard hitting things than badly owned football clubs and badly run councils.
2) Yes I have looked back at the previous articles, they are all quite damning. I am a subscriber so have the back copies. I take it you haven't?
3) If you haven't looked back at them, how would be able to know that in your opinion one is correct and one isn't?

They are all quite damning, and all contain facts, its just some people choose to take a different view whilst quickly sidestepping the content.

1) they also make mistakes and have been sued often enough

2) saw previous articles, but cannot remember every word, but they were quite damning for SISU and the council

3) they do not contain all facts and use vague terms in order to slant it in the direction they want. At first against SISU and now against the council. The court papers from the JR give a more balanced account and the judges comments are based on deliberations of the arguments presented by both sides of the past offers for the Ricoh or loan repayments.

So, take the article with a pinch of salt. No new facts about the wasps deal. We know at least as much as Private Eye.

Sick Boy · Oct 17, 2014

Moff said:
Missed this thread yesterday so apologise if I am duplicating anything already written.

I foind the ironyometer exploded when it became clear that all those who lauded Private Eye for writing two damning articles about SISU last year, and praised its investigative journalism, are now accusing it of biased and unfactual journalism, after it has written an equally unflattering piece on Ann Lucas and the Council.

Laughable really

It's gone past depressing, these moronic hypocrites won't be happy until the club has been shut down because their hatred of sisu is far greater than their love of the club they claim to support.

fernandopartridge · Oct 17, 2014

martcov said:
1) they also make mistakes and have been sued often enough

2) saw previous articles, but cannot remember every word, but they were quite damning for SISU and the council

3) they do not contain all facts and use vague terms in order to slant it in the direction they want. At first against SISU and now against the council. The court papers from the JR give a more balanced account and the judges comments are based on deliberations of the arguments presented by both sides of the past offers for the Ricoh or loan repayments.

So, take the article with a pinch of salt. No new facts about the wasps deal. We know at least as much as Private Eye.

The court papers are irrelevant. The premise of the story is that the council appear to be selling a public asset on the cheap.

Rusty Trombone · Oct 17, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
The court papers are irrelevant. The premise of the story is that the council appear to be selling a public asset on the cheap.

Exactly, that's an error. They are selling half of a management company on the cheap.

Rusty Trombone · Oct 17, 2014

Moff said:
Missed this thread yesterday so apologise if I am duplicating anything already written.

I foind the ironyometer exploded when it became clear that all those who lauded Private Eye for writing two damning articles about SISU last year, and praised its investigative journalism, are now accusing it of biased and unfactual journalism, after it has written an equally unflattering piece on Ann Lucas and the Council.

Laughable really

You seem to suggest a lot of people are involved in this hypocrisy, care to list some names, or was it just a sweeping generalisation?

Grendel · Oct 17, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
Exactly, that's an error. They are selling half of a management company on the cheap.

With a lease that is effectively freehold entitlement,
Interesting to see this premier league stadium is in fact worth as much as that hive of retail luxury known as cathedral lanes.

dadgad · Oct 17, 2014

Sick Boy said:
It's gone past depressing, these moronic hypocrites won't be happy until the club has been shut down because their hatred of sisu is far greater than their love of the club they claim to support.

One of the therapies for depression is recognising the impasse in your own mind.

martcov · Oct 17, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
The court papers are irrelevant. The premise of the story is that the council appear to be selling a public asset on the cheap.

It does refer to the past arguments and it does leave many points out, presumably to make the "rotten borough" more rotten. They refer to Bob Ainsworth's figure, which is as researched as anyone's on here. Our estimates range from nil - "a white elephant" - to 60 mil plus. Private Eye seem to know less than us on this subject - or are deliberately leaving facts out. I suspect they get information from people who are, or have been involved in SISU.

martcov · Oct 17, 2014

Grendel said:
With a lease that is effectively freehold entitlement,
Interesting to see this premier league stadium is in fact worth as much as that hive of retail luxury known as cathedral lanes.

If you are indirectly having a dig at Cathedral Lanes, then I would agree that the project is a white elephant. I hate it.

Grendel · Oct 17, 2014

martcov said:
If you are indirectly having a dig at Cathedral Lanes, then I would agree that the project is a white elephant. I hate it.

It's just been sold for £5.5 million so looks like that's the going price for a white elephant.

Noggin · Oct 17, 2014

Grendel said:
It's just been sold for £5.5 million so looks like that's the going price for a white elephant.

you can't compare these in the slightest but you know that.

Hopefully it turns out to be a good thing, food in this city is terrible, we take family and friends to Leamington, Kenilworth or even Birmingham to go out and eat, be good to actually have somewhere nice here, can highly recommend the Stag at offchurch and The cross in Kenilworth, they are both pubs but very nice pubs with awesome food. The Cross has a michelin star for pubs.

Rusty Trombone · Oct 17, 2014

Grendel said:
With a lease that is effectively freehold entitlement,
Interesting to see this premier league stadium is in fact worth as much as that hive of retail luxury known as cathedral lanes.

It must have enough differences, otherwise it wouldn't be called something different, and Joy wouldn't have been so set on getting hold of the freehold.

wingy · Oct 17, 2014

Regards the OP
Hardly objective was it, full of factual inconsistencies

skybluetom · Oct 17, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
It must have enough differences, otherwise it wouldn't be called something different, and Joy wouldn't have been so set on getting hold of the freehold.

It's a 250 year lease isn't it? It sounds like freehold in all but name to me. I don't think many of us will see the day the lease expires, lets put it that way.

duffer · Oct 17, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
You certainly don't...

In fact, the argument should be to get them to return as, indeed, you quite rightly mention has been their stated aim.

The problem always is, when things get down to numbers. If only a thousand went to see Wasps in Sudbury, then so what? Those thousand count, don't they? If there's a market for 20,000 pent up Rugby fans in Telford, say, then a local Telford club can benefit, the fans of the 'smaller' club carry on as you were, and it's a win-win all round.

And what's wrong with that?

Where it goes wrong is if you're taking a top-division team away from their historic fanbase, and moving it to (say) Telford. That means that those fans, which for the real Wasps seems to include around 7,000 die hards, are deprived of watching their team play at the top level.

Unless you're saying that both Telford and Sudbury Wasps remain at the top level, but I don't think you are, and I don't think that idea flies either.

If there's a pent-up demand for premiership rugby in a town, then I'd say the best way forward for that town is to invest in and support their local team and try to get it there.

Buying your way into a given division by taking another team away from its fanbase (the people who likely enough have put their money in, year after year) is franchising - and that isn't something that should ever be encouraged in my book - regardless of numbers...

Jack Griffin · Oct 17, 2014

skybluetom said:
It's a 250 year lease isn't it? It sounds like freehold in all but name to me. I don't think many of us will see the day the lease expires, lets put it that way.

I don't think any of us will!

lapsed_skyblue · Oct 17, 2014

Jack Griffin said:
I don't think any of us will!

Personally, I much prefer to say "if I die" rather than"when". I'm going to live forever or die in the attempt.

Rusty Trombone · Oct 17, 2014

skybluetom said:
It's a 250 year lease isn't it? It sounds like freehold in all but name to me. I don't think many of us will see the day the lease expires, lets put it that way.

Keeping the freehold means the Council can still have some say in what happens to the site, including the stadium, depends what is written in to the lease. The differences are enough for experts like SISU to want a freehold stadium rather than make an offer for a long lease.

Grendel · Oct 17, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
Keeping the freehold means the Council can still have some say in what happens to the site, including the stadium, depends what is written in to the lease. The differences are enough for experts like SISU to want a freehold stadium rather than make an offer for a long lease.

Sisu were never offered the alternative of a. 250 year lease

Rusty Trombone · Oct 17, 2014

Grendel said:
Sisu were never offered the alternative of a. 250 year lease

Were Wasps offered one, or did they make an offer for one?

chiefdave · Oct 17, 2014

Grendel said:
Sisu were never offered the alternative of a. 250 year lease

Probably because they kept saying they weren't interested in a lease!

Joy Sepalla said:
The club needs 100 per cent ownership of the freehold of the Ricoh.

duffer · Oct 17, 2014

chiefdave said:
Probably because they kept saying they weren't interested in a lease!

Ah no, now I'm not SISU's biggest fan, but I'm pretty sure that TF suggested a long-leasehold is pretty much the same as ownership.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/buying-land-new-coventry-city-6404266

As I've said before, notwithstanding SISU's continued statements regarding building a new stadium, I would have liked the council to have offered what Wasps are getting to the club.

The fact that the club has at least expressed interest in the Higgs share via the liquidator might suggest that there would have been some interest in the deal.

chiefdave · Oct 17, 2014

duffer said:
Ah no, now I'm not SISU's biggest fan, but I'm pretty sure that TF suggested a long-leasehold is pretty much the same as ownership.

Unfortunately, or fortunately depending how you look at it, Fisher isn't the one calling the shots and Sepalla said she was only interested in the freehold and even then only if the freehold was unencumbered!

My preference was for CCC to retain the freehold with SISU buying ACL and getting an extension to the lease in return for paying off the loan. That way there would be security and CCC could put clauses in to prevent SISU charging the club rent, taking out a mortgage etc while SISU had all the financial benefits of ownership but they never seemed to push for that. If they were interested in a lease rather than the freehold they didn't do a very good job of communicating that fact.

Moff · Oct 17, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
You seem to suggest a lot of people are involved in this hypocrisy, care to list some names, or was it just a sweeping generalisation?

Funny I cant see anywhere where I have said 'a lot of people' are involved in this hypocricy, but then that's what you seem to be good at, seeing things that aren't there.

Read my post again dipshit, oh and it wasnt a sweeping generalization it is a true reflection. I am not going to list a ream of names, as I cant be bothered to go back through old posts, but you seem the sort of boring individual that would so you go for it and feel special.

Keep twisting things to suit your agenda, and like I said irony is obviously lost on some.

Hobo · Oct 17, 2014

Grendel said:
Sisu were never offered the alternative of a. 250 year lease

Did they ask? Or did I miss it?

I know Joy asked for unencumbered freehold; which is totally different of course.

Rusty Trombone · Oct 17, 2014

Moff said:
Funny I cant see anywhere where I have said 'a lot of people' are involved in this hypocricy, but then that's what you seem to be good at, seeing things that aren't there.

Read my post again dipshit, oh and it wasnt a sweeping generalization it is a true reflection. I am not going to list a ream of names, as I cant be bothered to go back through old posts, but you seem the sort of boring individual that would so you go for it and feel special.

Keep twisting things to suit your agenda, and like I said irony is obviously lost on some.

An interesting post. So it's not a lot of people, but your irony meter exploded, so how many is it?

If you look closely you'll not find that I stated that you did say a lot of people, I mentioned that's what it seemed you were suggesting. You have the right of reply, and you have used it so eloquently.

So you can't back up any names, and I'm suggesting that they aren't there in any real numbers, so how on earth could I find them?

What have I twisted? What in your view is my agenda? Cheers.

duffer · Oct 17, 2014

chiefdave said:
Unfortunately, or fortunately depending how you look at it, Fisher isn't the one calling the shots and Sepalla said she was only interested in the freehold and even then only if the freehold was unencumbered!

My preference was for CCC to retain the freehold with SISU buying ACL and getting an extension to the lease in return for paying off the loan. That way there would be security and CCC could put clauses in to prevent SISU charging the club rent, taking out a mortgage etc while SISU had all the financial benefits of ownership but they never seemed to push for that. If they were interested in a lease rather than the freehold they didn't do a very good job of communicating that fact.

The clear the debt, takover ACL, and extend the lease was broadly speaking Fisher's 'roadmap', I think.

Regardless, I can't see any reason why the Wasps deal couldn't have been put forward to the club. Whatever JS or TF may or may not have said, it looks like the club might've been interested.

However, the council went from "let's get the club back and rebuild trust" to "we've sold it all to Wasps" in around three weeks! That wasn't exactly a stellar job of communicating either.

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 17, 2014

olderskyblue said:
In this case? who knows, I haven't looked back at the SISU stuff that was printed. Have you?

I did. Seemed reasonable as opinion pieces tbh, and in keeping with Private Eye's whole reason to exist of challenging just about everybody.

As, indeed, did this article.

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 17, 2014

duffer said:
Where it goes wrong is if you're taking a top-division team away from their historic fanbase, and moving it to (say) Telford. That means that those fans, which for the real Wasps seems to include around 7,000 die hards, are deprived of watching their team play at the top level.

Unless you're saying that both Telford and Sudbury Wasps remain at the top level, but I don't think you are, and I don't think that idea flies either.

If there's a pent-up demand for premiership rugby in a town, then I'd say the best way forward for that town is to invest in and support their local team and try to get it there.

Buying your way into a given division by taking another team away from its fanbase (the people who likely enough have put their money in, year after year) is franchising - and that isn't something that should ever be encouraged in my book - regardless of numbers...

I suspect we're agreeing

duffer · Oct 17, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
I suspect we're agreeing

There's always a first time

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 17, 2014

duffer said:
Ah no, now I'm not SISU's biggest fan, but I'm pretty sure that TF suggested a long-leasehold is pretty much the same as ownership.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/buying-land-new-coventry-city-6404266

Labovitch said the same too at the SCG one time, that long leasehold wasgetting close to the same deal as freehold. It's in the minutes.

But it suits propoganda to suggest otherwise, and focus on the one time it was oversimplified.

Does that make SISU sweetness and light? Of course not.

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 17, 2014

duffer said:
There's always a first time

A few recently

Kind of worrying huh.

Still, it's nicely reassuring that in this warped world we live in, at least I can re-iterate my opposition to the commodification of sport over and over again ad nauseum.

It's almost like GMK again in its pomp

Rusty Trombone · Oct 17, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
Labovitch said the same too at the SCG one time, that long leasehold wasgetting close to the same deal as freehold. It's in the minutes.

But it suits propoganda to suggest otherwise, and focus on the one time it was oversimplified.

Does that make SISU sweetness and light? Of course not.

Shame it wasn't close enough to put an offer in before it was too late.

martcov · Oct 17, 2014

duffer said:
The clear the debt, takover ACL, and extend the lease was broadly speaking Fisher's 'roadmap', I think.

Regardless, I can't see any reason why the Wasps deal couldn't have been put forward to the club. Whatever JS or TF may or may not have said, it looks like the club might've been interested.

However, the council went from "let's get the club back and rebuild trust" to "we've sold it all to Wasps" in around three weeks! That wasn't exactly a stellar job of communicating either.

The stadium is definately going ahead "I'm not bluffing" TF. "I don't negotiate" "negotiating wastes time" JS. Healing - back to the Ricoh, then the confirmation that the stadium is going ahead and SISU are following the JR to the bitter end..

It doesn't look as if the club was interested until now. I hope they are now working out some way of getting together with Wasps. New situation, maybe...... just maybe it will bring new ideas from SISU.... hope so.

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 17, 2014

martcov said:
I hope they are now working out some way of getting together with Wasps.

Personally I'd rather they distressed Wasps to buggery...

Private Eye (2 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

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

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency