Search results

Would a fans' team in Coventry be considered a breakaway club if its first article of association said something like the following? "The club will only exist to provide fans of Coventry City (CCFC) with an opportunity to watch association football in Coventry until CCFC returns to Coventry...

1. I suppose our transfer embargo does allow "one in, one out"... 2. Nope. Remember this? http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/18821-Jordan-Clarke

Otis, there are two important points arising from your suggestion that I don't think you've adequately considered: 1. If you do what you suggest should be done to him, he won't last an entire season and a new scapegoat would be needed. We could run out of scapegoats. 2. Who will feed his cat?

Hmmm... :thinking about: Richardson - Lost (sold) the ground McGinnity - Lost (sold) the food and beverage income Fisher - Lost the fans

First the Guardian and now The Times. I'm inclined to put this upturn in national attention down to one group of people - the fans. By turning out in huge numbers in Milton Keynes for an away match it reminded the national newspapers that Coventry is not just another former top flight team...

I have a few questions and a couple of observations (in bold)...

I get the sense from the message boards that threatening their own fans with legal action reminded some who tend to direct their fire more at the council than Sisu just what wonderful owners we have. I wonder if that played a part in the lower attendance today? :facepalm:

:wave:Glad to see you've got your sense of humour back in full flow too Otis. :claping hands:

He was an Andy Thorn signing... *pokes Grendel* ;) Sorry, couldn't resist. :D

I believe the Reynold's Defence is primarily aimed at protecting investigative journalism. The issue with libel defences is that the person accused of publishing the libellous words would have to prove the defence in court - and that carries the risk of incurring a large legal bill that many...

I'm not familiar with that and will have to look at it before commenting.

From memory, the test of whether something is libellous in English law essentially boils down to whether it would lower someone's (person or company) standing in the eyes of others. Truth is a defence and would need to be proved by the defendant if a case came to court.

See my post, number 135, in this thread.

As I understand it, the law around whether links constitute re-publication is not settled. I haven't looked if there is precedent set in court regarding Twitter, but I would imagine that if someone wrote something libellous and you retweeted it then you would be repeating it and opening...

Wow, that was quick. It was there 20 minutes ago!

I agree. #SendCoventryToCoventryForChristmasGoOnDoIt

Nick, regarding your post of 5 hours ago (I'm not going to repeat it) and regardless of whatever else you may have seen, the lawyer's letter specifically and singularly identifies the link as the issue, nothing else. Fair play to the Coventry Telegraph for providing a link to the Guardian...

By my rough calculations, neither does ignoring a lower rent offer to build a new stadium (unless long-term is defined as 50+ years) but that is what Sisu say they plan to do. Having said that, I agree franchising the club is unlikely (unless they could get approval to play in Dublin in the...

Neverneverland?

Sadly, I fear the trust has been left with little choice but to spend a good chunk of its money on legal fees. :( All so unnecessary (and I'm not blaming the trust for that).