Search results

Can someone reword “why are you acting such a nob?” In a format appropriate for prime time BBC radio? Cheers.

And they would argue that in my experience. They basically hate WFH people. I suspect the exchequer would be fucked if we could all claim what used to be standard.

Except my job doesn’t require that. I could move to London if I wanted. Believe me I checked. It means things like “go live in the bum fuck nowhere to keep an eye on the company sheep” or something.

But only if your company requires you to live away from the office or there is no office. Not like most WFH people who work from home despite there being an office somewhere (in my case London).

Again pedantry but that seems to be the order of the day in these meetings but IIRC it said something like “following the admission the council had talks”. But yeah I agree. Just take the debate. Duggins is an idiot though.

Rice will be a big miss. Thought he played that roles really well against Senegal

The Council refers to the however many councillors there are in the room. We had this discussion before and I know you think it’s pedantic (and it is) but it implies that the councillors have admitted talks with Wasps which several have been explicit in denying. Ridley knows this and was hoping...

“Debate on the recent failure of Wasps/ACL/sale of the Arena Head Lease and the councils involvement” would cover it, no? Ridley does this a lot, claims ignorance of basic procedures as a career councillor rather than actually try and expose information. The whole thing is shit TBH, both sides...

Super Dougie … King-o?

Why not just have that as the debate topic then? As I say it came across as playing politics rather than any serious attempt to get to the bottom of anything.

I can’t believe he survived a leadership challenge by such a big margin TBH https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/leadership-challenge-coventry-council-defeated-20572034?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target...

Why would someone buying a building want to do that?

Well initially it was just justify the wording. There’s nothing against the constitution with wording a debate in a way that falsely accuses councillors of something you know they didn’t do, but equally it’s not going to get the best response. If you want a debate on it there’s nothing wrong...

From the sounds of it even at triple the cost it’s worth it if we increase sales that much. I meant more the “no more Hummel” stuff than the ongoing issues with supply this season.

Well we do know cos we’ve seen the dilapidations report.

Really don’t get this. Surely Hummel aren’t breaking ties with all U.K. clubs so why can’t we do whatever everyone else is doing?

I mean if I were in Coventry Labour group getting outwitted bu Gary Ridley alone would be grounds for a leaders dismissal

That was after they wouldn’t explain i think and again not a massive ask. But it’s hard to hear what they’re saying on the webcast when they’re shouting out. Feels a lot like a very obvious bit of political theatre to me, and Duggins/Maton is so dense he keeps walking into it. Man has all the...

I mean again, Maton being a prick, but he didn’t block it, the Tories just refused to explain the wording and staged a walkout instead.

How about Ashley doesn’t want the club and bought the stadium because he thought he could make money on it by developing it? And King has bought the club and is waiting on EFL approval? Nah, just too out there as a theory, sorry lads.