Nick, I love your apparent amazement that sisu would resort to such tactics and then, in the same statement ,have a bash at ACL.
SCG/ Garlick Stadium group to merge? (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Broken Hearted Sky Blue
- Start date
Nick
Administrator
I wasnt amazed by it, I was asking if that was what he meant or if there was more?
I then went on to say everybody has been at it. Sorry, can that not be mentioned for some reason?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Don't bite my head off.
I was just reminding you about the letter that the Trust received regarding the David Conn article that you seemed to have forgotten about. To be honest I was quite surprised you needed to ask the question.
Nick
Administrator
I hadn't forgotten or biting anybody's head off, I was making sure you were on about that in case there were more, that's all.
Notice nobody seems bothered about anybody else doing it though
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I hadn't forgotten or biting anybody's head off, I was making sure you were on about that in case there were more, that's all.
Notice nobody seems bothered about anybody else doing it though
Genuine question. What other parties apart from sisu have threatened members of the SCG and how?
Nick
Administrator
I'm talking about fans in general
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
So who's done it fans in general?
Nick
Administrator
Acl and a well known protest group. Both have sent me pms insinuating legal action. Other members have had the same sort of pms too.
Difference is I didn't wet myself and send them to the cet. Just tried to see what the issue was.
My favorite was the reminder all of the higgs family are lawyers.
skyblueinBaku
Well-Known Member
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
SCG and Garlick group !!! What a bleeding irrelevance, nothing more than tea and biscuit brigades, and now they seem to be united atleast it will save money on tea and biscuits.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The Trust didn't wet themselves by going to the CET. SISU's action was wrong on every level, the Trust was right to handle it the way they did.
The same principles would apply to you and any other fan who have found themselves in the same position regardless of who the party was.
Nick
Administrator
How would me going to the cet resolve anything? Me asking them to send me links to posts they were referring to so I can see their problem and their failure to even reply pretty much solved it.
Taking it straight to the press doesn't solve anything, it's like the people who's kid gets sent home from school for wearing trainers and pink hair so the first they do is ring the paper.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Sorry. I mistook you for someone who would want the truth out there so people can make informed decisions based on all the facts.
It's nothing like chavs chasing column inches. The Trust did nothing to deserve receiving said letter. If you send your kids to school deliberately out of uniform you have done something wrong.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Were SISU right to send the letter?
Nick
Administrator
I have said I thought it was ott but if the trust did publish incorrect facts about them then they were within their rights.
Just like people are on here.
They didn't publish incorrect facts; they merely put a link on their website to the David Conn Guardian article. Interesting that Mr Conn himself left the article in the public domain - stood by it other words - with the content being referred to many times since in national and local media. The Trust should have kept the link on the site, but I understand their twitchyness with Sisu's record of litigation and bullying first, negotiation and consensus later (if at all).
Edit: I won't go running to the papers if I am threatned with being sued for this outrageous anti Sisu/CCFC/pro ACL/CCFC post.
Last edited:
Nick
Administrator
They emailed out the content didn't they? Im not saying it was incorrect facts but they re published it. I don't know which bits sisu deemed incorrect or not.
It would be the same if I emailed all sbt members content somebody thought was incorrect, the same as retweets etc.
The trust should have asked what was incorrect about it and tried to resolve it.
The fact I have just proven other people have been doing the same but people are only focuused on what sisu did explains it all
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
They emailed out the content didn't they? Im not saying it was incorrect facts but they re published it. I don't know which bits sisu deemed incorrect or not.
It would be the same if I emailed all sbt members content somebody thought was incorrect, the same as retweets etc.
The trust should have asked what was incorrect about it and tried to resolve it.
The fact I have just proven other people have been doing the same but people are only focuused on what sisu did explains it all
Great take the owners side against the fan body who only disseminated some news from a reputable source, that legal action was simply a blatant attempt to censor opposition or dissent.
Looks like you prefer censorship to free expression of opinion.
Nick. David Conn stands by the content - non of it has been withdrawn so there cannot be much wrong with the facts as published can there. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to conclude that Sisu's actions against the largest supporters group that we have (and I am not a member) is nothing more than bullying. If anyone/organisatoin adopts similar actions it should quite rightly be condemned.
In addition, the actions of the SCG towards the Trust were entirely inappropriate, and Mr Strange (who represents no-one apart from himself) was totally out of order in his actions - that is not the role of the Chair of any group. I made this view clear to the SCG representative for the supporters group that I am a member of.
In addition, the actions of the SCG towards the Trust were entirely inappropriate, and Mr Strange (who represents no-one apart from himself) was totally out of order in his actions - that is not the role of the Chair of any group. I made this view clear to the SCG representative for the supporters group that I am a member of.
Nick
Administrator
Where did I take sides? I said it was ott, I said what sisu thought was incorrect. I didn't say it was incorrect. I have no idea if the facts were correct or not. I was pointing out that they published it by emailing the content out to all of the members. I am pretty sure if I sent out a newsletter to all members on here with what somebody else deemed as incorrect I would be getting a phone call / email wouldn't I?
Funny though how the facts I pointed out get brushed under the carpet eh
Selective reading at it's best.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Where did I take sides? I said it was ott, I said what sisu thought was incorrect. I didn't say it was incorrect. I have no idea if the facts were correct or not. I was pointing out that they published it by emailing the content out to all of the members. I am pretty sure if I sent out a newsletter to all members on here with what somebody else deemed as incorrect I would be getting a phone call / email wouldn't I?
Funny though how the facts I pointed out get brushed under the carpet eh
Funny how you continually imply a position & then when challenged about the way it sounds say you 'didn't say that', language that is as slippery as an eel.
The quote below assigns blame to the trust.. and by implication says the owners were right to challenged them.
Nick
Administrator
It doesn't blame the trust at all, I said they should have asked SISU what the issue was with the article instead of going to the telegraph about it.
In the same thread I put that it was OTT from SISU when they could have had a quiet word or a phone call. You seem to be missing that bit though and not quoting it. I also said it at the time it happened.
I have to word my posts carefully don't I? It isn't being slippery, it is just being sure that people like you can't try and pick it apart with bullshit.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
They couldn't have a quiet word as Sisu refused to talk to any trust committee member.
Why because the trust backed their members who Voted to boycott Sixfields.
Funny how people forget the relevant parts.
Trust were only following the mandate of their members Sisu did not like this so refused to speak to them tried to throw them of the SCG with the help of some of the other members who by the way represent no one or a very small minority compared to the trust, they also did not like the minutes that the trust were putting out!!! wonder why?
As for going to the Telegraph why shouldn't they show what they were up against? or should they just keep quiet and pretend that every thing is hunky dory?
Why because the trust backed their members who Voted to boycott Sixfields.
Funny how people forget the relevant parts.
Trust were only following the mandate of their members Sisu did not like this so refused to speak to them tried to throw them of the SCG with the help of some of the other members who by the way represent no one or a very small minority compared to the trust, they also did not like the minutes that the trust were putting out!!! wonder why?
As for going to the Telegraph why shouldn't they show what they were up against? or should they just keep quiet and pretend that every thing is hunky dory?
Nick
Administrator
Because running to the press isn't really the way to go about things is it? That goes for when SISU do it, ACL do it or anybody does it.
As I have said I think SISU were out of order and OTT with it, they could have had a quiet word through the correct channels (usually Advent). Did SISU refuse to talk about the letter when the Trust tried?
spider_ricoh
New Member
Can someone quickly summarise this threats/letter thing in the thread...what happened?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I know what you are saying Nick but a couple of points regarding that situation
- SISU could have picked the phone up and said to the Trust look we have a problem with this article can you remove reference to it. They didn't first thing the Trust knew about a problem was a letter from Speechley Bircham.
- the legal situation is that the members of the Board could have been personally liable for any costs or court remedies. No wonder they were concerned. It hadn't got to that no but it could have. As we know you can be right in law and it still costs you thousands
- no other internet outlet to my knowledge received a similar letter, for example your good self, but the Conn article and links were freely available at those other sites. Why was the Trust the only ones targeted?
- was the onus on the Trust to go to SISU or the other way round?
There was only one purpose in my opinion to the letter and that was to bully and silence the Trust. As such the only real defence against it without spending thousands was to go public. I would agree running to the press repeatedly to fight battles is not a good strategy but not sure that is the case here. The softly softly approach I think would have failed and weakened the Trust without the reasons becoming known
Not only that as I understand it Mr Conn is no longer subject to a press complaint, the article is still there in full and many of the contents seem to have brought out in the various court cases.
Seems to me to be a clear case of bullying by one party that failed almost totally. But that's just my opinion
- SISU could have picked the phone up and said to the Trust look we have a problem with this article can you remove reference to it. They didn't first thing the Trust knew about a problem was a letter from Speechley Bircham.
- the legal situation is that the members of the Board could have been personally liable for any costs or court remedies. No wonder they were concerned. It hadn't got to that no but it could have. As we know you can be right in law and it still costs you thousands
- no other internet outlet to my knowledge received a similar letter, for example your good self, but the Conn article and links were freely available at those other sites. Why was the Trust the only ones targeted?
- was the onus on the Trust to go to SISU or the other way round?
There was only one purpose in my opinion to the letter and that was to bully and silence the Trust. As such the only real defence against it without spending thousands was to go public. I would agree running to the press repeatedly to fight battles is not a good strategy but not sure that is the case here. The softly softly approach I think would have failed and weakened the Trust without the reasons becoming known
Not only that as I understand it Mr Conn is no longer subject to a press complaint, the article is still there in full and many of the contents seem to have brought out in the various court cases.
Seems to me to be a clear case of bullying by one party that failed almost totally. But that's just my opinion
spider_ricoh
New Member
Why are we debating the critical link / Guardian legal threat in a thread about the SCG?
Nick
Administrator
I agree, SISU should have just gone to the Trust which is why I think it was OTT and it was out of order. What I didn't agree with from the Trust was going straight to the CET about it to try and start a media war.
I wouldn't expect the Trust to go to court over it, but maybe at least question it to see what the exact issue with it was before going to the Telegraph.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Surely the first question is why were the Trust included in potential legal action at all when no one else was? Having been included what was the most effective way to deal with it?
I hear what you are saying and its a way that should be honoured...... but believe me a softly softly behind closed doors approach would not have worked in this instance
I hear what you are saying and its a way that should be honoured...... but believe me a softly softly behind closed doors approach would not have worked in this instance
Nick
Administrator
Didn't SISU say it was also sent to the Guardian? Though I bet newspapers get so many they just bin them anyway.
I wouldn't have expected the Trust to start going to court over something so silly and putting their homes on the line, just not made so much of a meal out of it. I can see that the news would have got to the CET and then dramatised some more.
I have said from the incident it was out of order and OTT. My point was that it isn't just them who throw their legal weight around but nobody seems interested in anybody else doing it. My only point from the trust side was the CET Stuff, I wouldn't have expected them to get silly legal bills.
I have had DMCA's in the past from bigger companies than SISU from other things, laywers letters etc but when actually finding out the issue and speaking to them it gets sorted.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Nick you go on about being open?
Sorry but if I had that letter.
1, I would not have been happy
2 I would have told everyone who would listen look out this is what your dealing with.
3, defiantly would not have spoken to a company that refused to talk to me and then threaten me and my family.
To say it was OTT is an understatement! It was pure we are bigger then you shut up tow the line or else.
Good job the Trust had the balls to call their bluff.
Sorry but if I had that letter.
1, I would not have been happy
2 I would have told everyone who would listen look out this is what your dealing with.
3, defiantly would not have spoken to a company that refused to talk to me and then threaten me and my family.
To say it was OTT is an understatement! It was pure we are bigger then you shut up tow the line or else.
Good job the Trust had the balls to call their bluff.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Forget the going to the press bit for a minute Nick. You keep saying that the letter was a bit OTT like it was nothing really. But tell me what law in this country states that if they took legal action against The Guardian means that they would have to take simular action against the Trust for posting the link to the article? I don't remember the letter in full but the line where they said that if they took legal action against The Guardian that they would HAVE TO take action against the Trust also, or words to that effect.
That sounds like a direct threat to me. That's a good bit more than a bit OTT don't you think?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
It reminded me of that scene in Erin Brokavitch when they send half a dozen lawyer's to a meeting as a show of strength to scare them.