Search results

cf "The elephant in the room" ... the blindingly obvious thing that everyone can see but on-one will talk about!

No, Otis, I didn't mean to imply that, and apologies if my wording gave that impression. It was shameful that they removed the only decent presenter who was willing to ask questions that councilors found it tough to answer. To be replaced by an hour long discussion of the menopause, using...

Here's an example from the Observer website yesterday http://coventryobserver.co.uk/news/revealed-coventry-councillors-eateries-breaching-planning-rules/

Not if they are too closely aligned. Why do you think the only stories criticizing CCC (in stuff utterly unrelated to CCFC/Sisu) come from the Observer? And from Shane O'Connor before he was shamefully removed from his breakfast slot at CWR? Because they are willing to challenge CCC, not just...

Presumably Millerchip is shit scared that being seen to be involved with Sisu will blight any plans that Cov Rugby put forward for years to come

Now that WOULD be breaking news for the Telegraph: "Reporter in investigative journalism shock" You've noticed that they call them reporters now, not journalists? They simply regurgitate what falls into their lap or what they get from the internet.

Spot on! Exactly what I was going to say. Doesn't seem like an objective business decision to me!

When do we want them?

That's not quite true, Marcus. It CAN be enforced, but there are a lot of things that the parking company has to do very precisely, in order to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and many people will be able to find a loophole which would cause a District Judge in the County Court...

Nick, IIRC, you set up the "Politics/Ricoh/SISU" forum for this type of discussion. Please can you move it so that those of us who want to talk about football matters don't have to encounter it?

No sign of any ticket news for Bradford in 2 weeks either

It'll be the usual pre-match stuff, but maybe with him reiterating his (possibly ill-judged) comments earlier in the week that we shouldn't see the team or performance tomorrow as the finished article. As has been said elsewhere, we have 6 games before the transfer window closes, and we all know...

At least he had the balls to turn up, but he could not have made a case in 3 minutes. Nor could anyone, I doubt. As said previously, the planning arguments were set out in the letter. What was the alternative? Not to go or not to speak. Have a word with yourself

Hold on ... there were many on here who said that if they sent MV rather than CA, we wouldn't be taken seriously. So Tim Fisher (is he MD or Chair of the Board, I lose track) goes, TRIES to get over many of the points raised in yesterday's letter which he was signatory to, and gets pilloried for it!

What about PAYP???

This is not "lip service" or the club "clutching at straws" - it is a robust legal argument based on specialist planning advice, in response to previous (belated) correspondence. It's a shame it has probably come too late for this reason to make a difference tomorrow, but it is a national...

Yeah, but OSB makes a good point about the club not having responded to the consultation before the required deadline, so the Council weren't under any obligation to allow them to speak.

I'm not bothered if the planning application gets approved in a form where our Cat 2 academy can still be accommodated.

I don't think it's a special exception. Speaking from personal experience, if you make a representation through your local councillor, for example, he/she should ask if you wish to speak at the planning meeting. And you get your 3 minutes. That's the whole point of a public meeting, I think.

The RECOMMENDATION from the planning officer is for the committee to approve the application, but they are not under any obligation to do so, particularly if they hear strong arguments at the public meeting. I know this is "cloud cuckoo land" thinking, but that is the process, and if CCFC want...