Sky Blues owners reject public meeting with MP (3 Viewers)

Jack Griffin · Sep 15, 2014

If only openness & honesty could be the order of the day, but I'm afraid that isn't the SISU way.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sky-blues-owners-reject-public-7774722

However even a behind closed door meeting with the interested MP's would be better than nothing..

Grendel · Sep 15, 2014

No one cares jack we are back home. Go and form a new protest group with ginnetta.

Otis · Sep 15, 2014

They're meeting and that's the main thing.

stupot07 · Sep 15, 2014

I'm not a fan of public meetings with MPs, they're usually in it for themselves so for me it's better that it's behind closed doors.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

DazzleTommyDazzle · Sep 15, 2014

For an MP, his comments seem pretty sensible to me.

Huckerby · Sep 15, 2014

Grendel said:
No one cares jack we are back home. Go and form a new protest group with ginnetta.

Do you not care whatsoever what our owners do or don't do as long as we are playing at he Ricoh?

skybluetony176 · Sep 15, 2014

I thought they'd be up for a public meeting. After all ML wanted CCC, ACL and any man and his dog at his public meeting he was organising.

How did that go by the way, it seems to have slipped by me. Perhaps it was when I was on holiday

lapsed_skyblue · Sep 15, 2014

I guess he wanted a public meeting for safety reasons. After all, people have had private meetings with Joy and emerged with different opinions. I think more than persuasive arguments are involved.

skybluetony176 · Sep 15, 2014

Grendel said:
No one cares jack we are back home. Go and form a new protest group with ginnetta.

Everyone, including you should care. If football governance isn't dealt with who's to say that the next lot aren't worse than SISU?

Not for the first time, I think you've missed the point.

Grendel · Sep 15, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
Everyone, including you should care. If football governance isn't dealt with who's to say that the next lot aren't worse than SISU?

Not for the first time, I think you've missed the point.

I think the government has far more important things to deal with than football governance. Oh and the hypocrisy of moral football fans really is something. Face it fans care not about morals, financial stability only results. If results are right nothing else ever matters.

skybluetony176 · Sep 15, 2014

Grendel said:
I think the government has far more important things to deal with than football governance. Oh and the hypocrisy of moral football fans really is something. Face it fans care not about morals, financial stability only results. If results are right nothing else ever matters.

I'm sure you're right. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be dealt with. No one is suggesting that the government put Syria on the back burner until the FL and FA are sorted out but it does need sorting.

Face it. Fans do have morals. Hence the successful boycott of Suxfields by Coventry fans.

Astute · Sep 15, 2014

Grendel said:
I think the government has far more important things to deal with than football governance. Oh and the hypocrisy of moral football fans really is something. Face it fans care not about morals, financial stability only results. If results are right nothing else ever matters.

We were playing good football and scoring lots of goals last season until we ended up without a striker to play. We were winning games. Yet we kept getting record low gates. Yet the results were right.

Huckerby · Sep 15, 2014

I think the government probably earn a shit load of money in tax revenue from clubs and players and so its probably pretty important for them to keep it sustainable

letsallsingtogether · Sep 15, 2014

Grendel said:
I think the government has far more important things to deal with than football governance. Oh and the hypocrisy of moral football fans really is something. Face it fans care not about morals, financial stability only results. If results are right nothing else ever matters.

ointlaugh:ointlaugh:ointlaugh:

Fuck me if that was true none of us would truly Support City.

All of us have seen them lose more games then they have won!!

Unless I suppose they are one of your bandwaggoners:thinking about:

Ian1779 · Sep 15, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
Everyone, including you should care. If football governance isn't dealt with who's to say that the next lot aren't worse than SISU?

Not for the first time, I think you've missed the point.

There isn't really any desire for football to be 'fixed' and that includes governance. Not saying that we shouldn't care, but when push comes to shove the majority of fans will reject the notion if it means that the financial advantage is removed for their club.

Frisky blue · Sep 15, 2014

Grendel said:
I think the government has far more important things to deal with than football governance. Oh and the hypocrisy of moral football fans really is something. Face it fans care not about morals, financial stability only results. If results are right nothing else ever matters.

Speak for yourself Grendel, some of us do in fact have morals and integrity. But then what would one expect from an individual, who could not care less about a children's charity being disadvantaged by a hedge fund. Says all we need to know about your ideas on morality.

Ian1779 · Sep 16, 2014

Frisky blue said:
Speak for yourself Grendel, some of us do in fact have morals and integrity. But then what would one expect from an individual, who could not care less about a children's charity being disadvantaged by a hedge fund. Says all we need to know about your ideas on morality.

Blah blah blah... childrens charity distressed by hedge fund... utter bollocks.

skybluetony176 · Sep 16, 2014

Ian1779 said:
There isn't really any desire for football to be 'fixed' and that includes governance. Not saying that we shouldn't care, but when push comes to shove the majority of fans will reject the notion if it means that the financial advantage is removed for their club.

How many clubs enjoy a financial advantage really under the current status quo? I would guess 6 or 7 off the top premier league clubs, unless you know better? I would think that a reform of governance is what's needed to level the playing field somewhat. That surely has to be in the best interests of the vast majority of football fans.

skybluetony176 · Sep 16, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Blah blah blah... childrens charity distressed by hedge fund... utter bollocks.

Despite the ridiculous counter claim that forced the hearing from country to crown Court increasing the legal costs considerably of said charity? Despite the proposed "charitable donation" of £2M which the judge ridiculed?

There are facts that have been stated and accepted as facts in a court of lawso hardly "utter bollocks". Again, unless you know better? Perhaps the judge got it wrong again?

Grendel · Sep 16, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
Despite the ridiculous counter claim that forced the hearing from country to crown Court increasing the legal costs considerably of said charity? Despite the proposed "charitable donation" of £2M which the judge ridiculed?

There are facts that have been stated and accepted as facts in a court of lawso hardly "utter bollocks". Again, unless you know better? Perhaps the judge got it wrong again?

I don't recall the judge saying that anyone was distressing a children's charity.

spider_ricoh · Sep 16, 2014

Grendel said:
No one cares jack we are back home. Go and form a new protest group with ginnetta.

Face it dude, most fans still hate Sisu because of the pain they have caused. It's not rosy in the garden just because they are gone. Most fans want them out - you're in a tiny minority.

BackRoomRummermill · Sep 16, 2014

Grendel said:
I think the government has far more important things to deal with than football governance. Oh and the hypocrisy of moral football fans really is something. Face it fans care not about morals, financial stability only results. If results are right nothing else ever matters.[/QUOTE

Agreed, the Scottish referendum comes to mind

skybluetony176 · Sep 16, 2014

Grendel said:
I don't recall the judge saying that anyone was distressing a children's charity.

Have 2 judges not said that there was a deliberate effort by SISU to distress ACL in an attempt to aquire it on the cheap? You obviously don't know so I'll help you out, the Higgs Trust owns a 50% share of ACL. Surely you're capable of joining the dots. Or do you believe Tim Fisher that "the judge got it wrong".

Why did SISU have to put in a counter claim so large that it forced the case directly connected to the Higgs to crown court? How much time was that counter claim given? How much time was the Higgs claim given? One was taken seriously one wasn't. Which way around was that?

Ian1779 · Sep 16, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
Despite the ridiculous counter claim that forced the hearing from country to crown Court increasing the legal costs considerably of said charity? Despite the proposed "charitable donation" of £2M which the judge ridiculed?

There are facts that have been stated and accepted as facts in a court of lawso hardly "utter bollocks". Again, unless you know better? Perhaps the judge got it wrong again?

We all know that the counter-claim was to illicit information and was never going to come to fruition. Perhaps if said children's charity hadn't begun the proceedings in the first place and paid their own costs.. which was ultimately the outcome of the dispute.

Trying to distress ACL - the judge got it right. Not one mention from the judge about trying to distress a 'children's charity'

The same charity that spent £29,000 on legal advice on a deal that no party had a desire to pursue.

Grendel · Sep 16, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
Have 2 judges not said that there was a deliberate effort by SISU to distress ACL in an attempt to aquire it on the cheap? You obviously don't know so I'll help you out, the Higgs Trust owns a 50% share of ACL. Surely you're capable of joining the dots. Or do you believe Tim Fisher that "the judge got it wrong".

That's not distressing a charity. That is a private business that Higgs purchased a share in and must have fully evaluated associated risks and benefits. If sisu were trying to get it on the cheap it could only have been described as cheap if they could have sold to a higher bidder or retained it to maximise value.

Oh and it's not actually a children's charity is it?

skybluetony176 · Sep 16, 2014

Ian1779 said:
We all know that the counter-claim was to illicit information and was never going to come to fruition. Perhaps if said children's charity hadn't begun the proceedings in the first place and paid their own costs.. which was ultimately the outcome of the dispute.

Trying to distress ACL - the judge got it right. Not one mention from the judge about trying to distress a 'children's charity'

The same charity that spent £29,000 on legal advice on a deal that no party had a desire to pursue.

Aside from CCC who has a 50% share and financial interest in ACL? If ACL were successfully distressed would the owners of that 50% share gained or lost financially? Come on Ian, I know you're not that stupid you can't join the dots. Stop pretending you are.

mark_ccfc · Sep 16, 2014

Grendel said:
No one cares jack we are back home. Go and form a new protest group with ginnetta.

At the end of the two year deal the sh1t will hit the fan again and then you an everyone else will care - but never mind, stick your head back up your arse 'til then. (not that it ever left in your case).

Ian1779 · Sep 16, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
How many clubs enjoy a financial advantage really under the current status quo? I would guess 6 or 7 off the top premier league clubs, unless you know better? I would think that a reform of governance is what's needed to level the playing field somewhat. That surely has to be in the best interests of the vast majority of football fans.

I would suggest that a minimum value of £52m from the Premier League TV rights is quite the advantage.

Ian1779 · Sep 16, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
Aside from CCC who has a 50% share and financial interest in ACL? If ACL were successfully distressed would the owners of that 50% share gained or lost financially? Come on Ian, I know you're not that stupid you can't join the dots. Stop pretending you are.

Higgs - not ACL. There's enough distinction to seperate them... especially in this particular example.

skybluetony176 · Sep 16, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Higgs - not ACL. There's enough distinction to seperate them... especially in this particular example.

So your saying that if ACL had off gone bump Higgs would have been able to recover it's investment in full enabling it to invest this money into the numerous projects its involved in to help the people of Coventry and the wider area? I doubt that, so they were being stressed.

Grendel · Sep 16, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
So your saying that if ACL had off gone bump Higgs would have been able to recover it's investment in full enabling it to invest this money into the numerous projects its involved in to help the people of Coventry and the wider area? I doubt that, so they were being stressed.

Why do t they sell it today to Preston Haskell ? In sure he will pay what its worth - £6 million isn't it ?

Ian1779 · Sep 16, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
So your saying that if ACL had off gone bump Higgs would have been able to recover it's investment in full enabling it to invest this money into the numerous projects its involved in to help the people of Coventry and the wider area? I doubt that, so they were being stressed.

The point is that the two would never have got it on in court if Higgs hadn't instigated the proceedings.

skybluetony176 · Sep 16, 2014

Grendel said:
Why do t they sell it today to Preston Haskell ? In sure he will pay what its worth - £6 million isn't it ?

Send all available power to the deflector shields.

That comment coming from you only confirms that I'm right and you know it. Hence definition shields are deployed.

skybluetony176 · Sep 16, 2014

Ian1779 said:
The point is that the two would never have got it on in court if Higgs hadn't instigated the proceedings.

Higgs believed that they had a case and judging by the fact that the judge gave it the time of 2 days IIRC then they at least had an argument. How long did the counter claim get? Did it even make an hour. You're also conveniently ignoring the size of the counter claim meaning it HAD to go to crown court greatly increasing both parties costs. Again, given how quickly the counter claim was kicked out so quickly what effect could it have on Higgs other than costing them more money?

Grendel · Sep 16, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
Send all available power to the deflector shields.

That comment coming from you only confirms that I'm right and you know it. Hence definition shields are deployed.

So are you saying it would not be worth £6 million on the open market?

Interesting.

Sky Blues owners reject public meeting with MP (3 Viewers)

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Huckerby

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Huckerby

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New 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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency