Do you think Grendel has imploded?
So who said it then?
Do you think Grendel has imploded?
Probably you while salivating with your cock in your hand.:facepalm:So who said it then?
Why would I implode? It's very odd how some sisu spokesman articles create headlines which are meant for the readers to fear and others to laugh at. Just another day at the Council Evening Telegraph.
Why would I implode? It's very odd how some sisu spokesman articles create headlines which are meant for the readers to fear and others to laugh at. Just another day at the Council Evening Telegraph.
Aren't people saying it's bullsjit rather than hanging on it?
Sorry Grendel but what is the problem?
Simon Gilbert has confirmed the claim that someone on the Sisu legal team has said this could be worth potentially millions to them. When asked for proof or the name of the source, he quite rightly said that he can't reveal his source as that would obviously break that confidence.
But do those people believe it it bullshit that is the question?
After all people think that sisu have turned a corner because they have signed a new manager.
I can't think too many people think SISU will get hundreds of millions in compensation apart from the scare stories in the telegraph.
Well because their are several ways the context of the argument could be construed. It's possible someone could say "hey bet you could shaft the council for hundreds of millions couldn't you?" and then there is a response.
Furthermore the notion was utterly ridiculed on CWR the next day by a finance expert that said they'd be very unlikely to win and laughed at any suggestion it would result in such an outcome.
Now Simon loves interviewing experts on football and football finance when it suits to bring context to an argument from a Sisu spokesman yet oddly hasn't on this issue. Why is that do you think?
Ok I take your point about the context of the comment, but from what SG has said the comment was not said in such a manner. If it was I doubt very much that SG would have even mentioned it let alone report it in a newspaper.
You say scare story, I say printing information from a legitimate source.
That's your prerogative.
Mine will remain to continue to inform.
So the article and the headline wasn't aimed to shock at the thought of sisu taking hundreds of millions of pounds worth of tax payers money? Then the thought of a stadium being built with the tax payers money.You say scare story, I say printing information from a legitimate source.
That's your prerogative.
Mine will remain to continue to inform.
Why hasn't he consulted an expert regarding the likely validity of this claim do you think?
Why hasn't he consulted an expert regarding the likely validity of this claim do you think?
Some people on here are ridiculous and clearly have no understanding of how a newspaper works. Because a newspaper print's something as a headline it doesn't mean they said/did it.
For example. It wasn't the CT that fired a gun in a Wood End street just because they run a headline saying so. Probably explains why someone other than that CT has gone to prison for it.
But the moment they print something someone from SISU has said it's the CT who are to blame. It was quite clearly said for effect and in the hope that it would get picked up, which it did. Yet some on here insist on shooting the messenger. Maybe that was the effect it was supposed to have? After all we all know SISU don't like anyone who speaks out about them, they're beyond questioning and clearly some posters on here agree with them as they always jump on any criticism of SISU like deranged monkeys.
Personally I agree with NW. It was said to stir fear in the council. The conspiracy theorists on here are probably a welcome bonus for SISU though.
I don't think anyone is questioning SG. I know he is doing his job and yes that headline gets the sales. That's how it works. We are just saying it's not the full story and when the new stadium came out independent experts came out to dismiss it straight away.
That's all.
Odd when a spokesman was suggesting a new ground was needed you informed us an independent expert suggested this was not what was needed at all. Why haven't you asked for an opinion on the claim from this "sisu source"?
For example. It wasn't the CT that fired a gun in a Wood End street just because they run a headline saying so. Probably explains why someone other than that CT has gone to prison for it.
I don't think anybody has said it is like that have they?
It would be the same as some bloke in a pub saying he is going to shoot somebody after a petty argument, the headline next day being "STAY IN YOUR HOUSES, GUNMAN ON THE LOOSE".
Not too sure if you are completely missing the points being made or not? You are saying shooting the messenger, but when it is the message wrapped up and exaggerated a bit then it's different isn't it? Has the message been looked into to see how realistic it is before printing?
If I said I now had a multi million pound company from selling blue potatoes, would they check to see if I actually had before printing it or just print it?
By who? The person that said it?
Surely the people who are printing it? Surely the press look into things before printing them or do they just copy and paste to get an article without seeing if it is true or even realistically going to happen?
I am not sure if you are purposely trying to miss the point now.
Surely the people who are printing it? Surely the press look into things before printing them or do they just copy and paste to get an article without seeing if it is true or even realistically going to happen?
I am not sure if you are purposely trying to miss the point now.
It's true that someone said it as Simon has confirmed on this thread and what he's reported is that someone said it. So when the story is someone connected to SISU has said x,y or z what else is there to check?
It's not difficult to miss a point if no one is making one. You're all just passing in the wind because someone has reported something someone close to SISU has said and what they've said has made SISU look stupid. Not the CT's fault. Either that this person said it or your over melodramatic response.
It has made the telegraph look stupid for making out like it could possibly happen though hasn't it?
Hardly Melodramatic is it, pointing something out?
So SISU speak nothing but the truth now, strange, usually FOI's are flying about to prove them wrong. What you are suggesting is if SISU says something that could be possible then the telegraph should go all out to disprove it and make them look stupid. However if it looks a bit silly anyway, just print it straight off without validating it to make them look stupid?
But they've only made out it could happen in your head.
Coventry taxpayers could lose millions after Sky Blues' owners Sisu win right to appeal Ricoh Arena deal
Coventry City owners Sisu have been handed a major boost by the Court of Appeal [FONT=PT Sans, sans-serif]in the Ricoh Arena saga[/FONT] - which could now end up costing Coventry council tax payers millions of pounds in compensation.
I think that says it could happen doesn't it? In massive letters across a website / newspaper
Here too.
How many people think this could happen who don't come on here or have Twitter etc but just go by the Telegraph because of the headline and article? I'd say a fair few were / are now under that impression aren't they?
Millions, not hundreds of millions like the quote from the SISU connection said. If anything they're playing down the comments. The meaning of the word "could" also seems lost with you.
But they've only made out it could happen in your head.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?