A spade's a spade (3 Viewers)

[dongonzalos]

Given the reactions on here to the interview seem to be mostly negative, if it was supposed to be PR aimed at the fans then it might have slightly backfired. She may have just wanted to get her point of view/opinions out there.

I think it was PR aimed at the fans but not one to get the fans onside. More of a bluff to make the NOMP seem futile.

It was an attempt to convince a voice to the fans that they are here and can fund the loses.

Also it is was a chance to put another message and pressure into the council.

 

---

[Hobo]

Is it a change of tack though?

The not budging, the setting out what they want, the disputes with councils... this can all be documented in their past dealings places other than Coventry!

And Seppala speaking is not unique to the Telegraph either. All that interview, to an extent, could have been a C&P from previous media commentary, limited though it is.

The only way it is a change of tack that I can see wrt CCFC is getting more entrenched, and more bloody minded! But in doing so, becoming 'more SISU' as it were.

And to an extent, if you deal with SISU anywhere but CCFC, it suits them to keep this message consistent across the board, doesn't it?

Oh and yes, the logical thing to suggest is it is a message to the council. We're here, deal with it, and deal with us or lose your club.

Northern Wisdom,
Now I have woken up realise my gaff from this morning about this post.

Regarding your last remarks, I think you are right, it is still SISU being SISU or Seppala being Seppala take your pick.

Although they have funded the team to date, state they are prepared to carry on funding the club, shortfalls, and build a new stadium, I am not convinced.

I still think they are trying to destabilise ACL....I don't think they will fund us past the end of the season. Buying land won't convince me, until I see stands going up I am not prepared to reconsider my position from what I have heard from Seppala to date.

Hope the team can pick themselves up after today. Still along way to go.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I don't think they will fund us past the end of the season. Buying land won't convince me, until I see stands going up I am not prepared to reconsider my position from what I have heard from Seppala to date.

FWIW (not a lot, but!), I agree with all that. They start actually building a ground and I'll get behind them, accept I'm wrong, and there might actually be a long term plan there...

I fully expect to see the club die if this doesn't resolve itself however.

 

[shmmeee]

Is it a change of tack though?

The not budging, the setting out what they want, the disputes with councils... this can all be documented in their past dealings places other than Coventry!

And Seppala speaking is not unique to the Telegraph either. All that interview, to an extent, could have been a C&P from previous media commentary, limited though it is.

The only way it is a change of tack that I can see wrt CCFC is getting more entrenched, and more bloody minded! But in doing so, becoming 'more SISU' as it were.

And to an extent, if you deal with SISU anywhere but CCFC, it suits them to keep this message consistent across the board, doesn't it?

Oh and yes, the logical thing to suggest is it is a message to the council. We're here, deal with it, and deal with us or lose your club.

I see what you're saying, and maybe we who obsessively check websites for news notice a standard press brief schedule as a sudden burst of news ("News on Thursday" springs to mind).

Well this thread has depressed me.

 

[Sky Blue Spud]

"The man who could call a spade a spade should be compelled to use one. It is the only thing he is fit for." Oscar Wilde ;-)

I thought that nowadays we had to call it a shovel.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Well this thread has depressed me.

Just to depress you more, here's a past interview with her. Spot the similarities with the one with Les Reid!

I’m not one for publicity and I do not care what people — beyond my investors and my family — think of me

I do think that it is critical that we defend our legal rights. We cannot be in a position where we compromise on the legal position we have

I am concerned about protecting my investors’ investments and our legal and legitimate rights. I would prefer not to be active. But we cannot afford to be inactive. We cannot afford not to defend our positions when we are treated outrageously

To me, I can make countless, countless parallels with the Telegraph interview. Same shit, different company. With the conclusion of the point of this interview as suggested previously:

But critics argue that the case was actually about sending a message to the market: “Don’t mess with me.”

In my experience, Leopards don't change their spots, especially when their way of working is fundamental to their very existence, and also their future existence. Win or lose is almost irrelevant in this, what is relevant is the statement that they won't be pushed around.

Think this is panic? Or think this is repetition of a position. I'd go for the latter, every day.

 

[chiefdave]

where's that interview from? what business was she trying to do over then?!