He's correct TBF ,the clubs own sample produced from a similar sized sample gave the same outcome ,except the reality was even greater .They suppressed that data until after they had the OK from the FL by the way.
How about this one?
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/fans-poll-shows-huge-chunk-6930683
That epically huge poll of how many.... 397 people?
My personal favourite is the one from the beginning of the season where he publicly humiliates 2 twitter users for saying they would go to Sixfields. Putting their Twitter handles on and everything. You can imagine the dogs abuse they will have got as a result. (sadly I can't find the link)
Context is very clever thing. In your headline you state Coventry City owner in court battle with charity.
Your sub heading then says claim and counter-claim which implies that's the order of action respectively. SISU claim, Higgs counter-claim. You then reversed the name sequence further down the article to sit respectively.
Subtle changes that completely change the context of your headline.
Secondly - the real story was that the liquidation process hadn't finished, why wasn't that your headline? Yet your headline implied owners had deliberately not paid ACL.
It's subtle - but seems very deliberate.
olderskyblue - This is 2 I was referring to yesterday.[/QUOTE
Your reference to the that second point re non payment due to the Liquidation being Incomplete.Does anyone of us know whether It's dependent upon that ?
Is It conditional ?
olderskyblue - This is 2 I was referring to yesterday.
The main reason I just appear to have Higgs/ACL questions is because everything that SISU has done has been scrutinised, analysed and deconstructed. What's Higgs/ACL have been doing has generally gone under the media radar. That's why I have the questions primarily for them.
One thing I do want to know about SISU is why they didn't do proper due diligence and deal with rent/revenue issue when they took over.
The answer seems to be 'yeah we should have done. We fucked that bit up' which is actually what we all think.
I am not too sure they have.
They say plan A is a new stadium. We are 45 million in debt.
The new stadium will at a very conservative estimate is 25 million.
So with plan A we end up owing 70 million plus.
How will their investors ever get that money back?
The only answer so far is promotion.
We currently pay 1.8 million in interest.
Promotion will be unlikely but if we get it will still not lead to the investors getting their money back
No one be it CWR, CET it fans groups have ever had this explained yet we have a stadium group meeting to discuss the new stadium?
So they have definitely not been scrutinised we need answers to how our club will survive 75 million plus in debt.
Yes, and I read that yesterday, and again now, but cannot see any inaccuracies. In fact, the whole article is very clear and concise, very understandable as to who is suing who, and why.
Yes it is clear once you get half way into the article. But the headline and sub-headline imply a slightly different context. And as I have already tried to explain, a lot of people will go no further than the headline and sub-headline before deciding their opinion. This is my point. You go an have a look on Twitter and see how many people were saying it was disgraceful a hedge fund suing a charity... that tells you what I mean.
Yes it is clear once you get half way into the article. But the headline and sub-headline imply a slightly different context. And as I have already tried to explain, a lot of people will go no further than the headline and sub-headline before deciding their opinion. This is my point. You go an have a look on Twitter and see how many people were saying it was disgraceful a hedge fund suing a charity... that tells you what I mean.
Yes it is clear once you get half way into the article. But the headline and sub-headline imply a slightly different context. And as I have already tried to explain, a lot of people will go no further than the headline and sub-headline before deciding their opinion. This is my point. You go an have a look on Twitter and see how many people were saying it was disgraceful a hedge fund suing a charity... that tells you what I mean.
I am not too sure they have.
They say plan A is a new stadium. We are 45 million in debt.
The new stadium will at a very conservative estimate is 25 million.
So with plan A we end up owing 70 million plus.
How will their investors ever get that money back?
The only answer so far is promotion.
We currently pay 1.8 million in interest.
Promotion will be unlikely but if we get it will still not lead to the investors getting their money back
No one be it CWR, CET it fans groups have ever had this explained yet we have a stadium group meeting to discuss the new stadium?
So they have definitely not been scrutinised we need answers to how our club will survive 75 million plus in debt.
Erm, they did sue a charity - that was the point of the counterclaim. They weren't obliged to make a counterclaim, they could just have defended the original claim.
So, for those of us not interested in twitter, how many people were saying this? can you give me an idea?
I can't give you an exact number, but probably at least 50. Now in the grand scheme of things that's not a lot, but we are talking about active Twitter users that post on CCFC. I have no idea how that transposes on other social media and then more generally.
How about this one?
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...-chunk-6930683
That epically huge poll of how many.... 397 people?
Yet the headline suggested that they went and actively pursued Higgs. Which is not true. Would SISU have launched a claim against Higgs in the first instance? Doubt it.
Yep, I'd agree with you there - I doubt SISU sue Higgs directly if there's no claim first, although given SISU's prediliction for legal threats I wouldn't put anything past them.
As to the article, I must confess I hadn't noticed anything one sided in the CET coverage, but I haven't analysed it in the same way you have.
I suspect a lot of people were irked about the counterclaim regardless of the CET article. I certainly was, fwiw. As stated elsewhere it wasn't necessary and it's not beyond reason to see it as a way of upping the stakes to dissuade the charity from taking the matter further.
Michael
I did see your thread and your questions but I am not able to answer them. If I could I would happily do so.
As for your other questions, you have highlighted perfectly my some of my frustrations. I am just a normal fan. I have a season ticket. I don't travel generally to away games as I have a young family and due to my job. I am not affiliated to any organisation, protest group or any other siginificant part of this dispute. I'm not even a member of SBT. But the assumption that I must be some kind of plant, employee or some kind of important person fishing for info, implies that any regular fan is only afforded the luxury of certain information.
Everything I know I have found for myself. I have taken the time to read, investigate and find out as many facts as possible. There is still more I want to know, but simply I was not satisfied with the information presented by just the CET, or other 'impartial' parties involved. Now if I can do it, there are plenty of others that can too. Why are the people involved with fans group or campaign not actively encouraging ALL fans to find out as much as they can...? to make a considered opinion.
Fans on this forum generally are far better informed than the general population of CCFC fans. That general population are too reliant on what CET tells them, and we all know that this does not give a full picture of the dispute.
As for being critical of people like Simon and PWKH, just because they come on here and say 'look i'm so and so - don't you know I'm important in this dispute' does that mean they are beyond criticism? If you put yourself out in the media - expect to be criticised and scrutinised. It's the nature of the beast.
I have been critical of Simon Gilbert... I'm not going to apologise for that. I don't think he gives the fans the true picture of what is going on. Les tried to.. and he's disappeared off the planet.
I want to find out everything I can. If I find out more information I intend on sharing it. It would be brilliant if we could get more people to do the same.
How about this one?
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/fans-poll-shows-huge-chunk-6930683
That epically huge poll of how many.... 397 people?
My personal favourite is the one from the beginning of the season where he publicly humiliates 2 twitter users for saying they would go to Sixfields. Putting their Twitter handles on and everything. You can imagine the dogs abuse they will have got as a result. (sadly I can't find the link)
It was about the same response as the Club were able to get from their Database Torch ,not all encompassing but equal to .Ha! Yes. "Huge Chunk" was quite amusing. And misleading.
And no we don't know about SISU investors at all or their financial arrangements. But we do know they paid Pressley and the players last week, and the week before, and will do next week.
Then why ask me who I am? As far as you or anyone needs to know I am a poster on a forum about CCFC. You suggested because I was 'very knowledgeable' I must be someone involved in the dispute.
And let's be honest - The KCIC campaign hasn't always just been pro team has it?
Also when mentioning Simon did I bring Les into discussion - so you have made that connection on your own.
And no we don't know about SISU investors at all or their financial arrangements. But we do know they paid Pressley and the players last week, and the week before, and will do next week.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say....
Tell me, these unknown investors that "paid" the wages last week. Did they do this as a charitable donation never to be paid back or did they loan the club the money to enable them to pay the wages?
"Also when mentioning Simon did I bring Les into discussion" could have sworn you posted the following a bit earlier! - "I have been critical of Simon Gilbert... I'm not going to apologise for that. I don't think he gives the fans the true picture of what is going on. Les tried to.."
According to the SCMP (league 1 version of FFP) any shortfall can be made up by investors but only as a grant... Not a debt for future. So if this is implemented correctly it would be the first I guess.
I agree with you on this. Perhaps the reason why we can't get an answer on this is because we are talking a lot of future events, which they can almost deflect by saying we will let you know when we have a site confirmed etc - which is total bollocks on their part, and not exactly helping them repair their relationship with their fan base. It is definitely something that needs to be answered and clarified clearly.
In my opinion, the only way for SISU to make a return on their investment is for us to get to the PL. But to do that they are going to have to dig a lot deeper to get us there.
The problem is we should be able to get an answer and it should be really easy.
They are spending money on this new stadium idea.
You have to have a business case in place for that to happen.
How will the 75 million of investors money eventually be paid back to them should be the easiest question in the would.
As it would have been the lead question for the business case that justifies a new stadium.
So what is the considered outcomes of that business and why are we not getting it rammed down our throats to get us inside with it
Because they believe if they win the case then they will ha e sufficient damages financially and to the council that they will be back at the Ricoh.
The comment was about Simon and if it suggested that I was comparing him to Les it was not intentional. My apologies there as it wasn't clear. I was not trying to compare the two.
Because they believe if they win the case then they will ha e sufficient damages financially and to the council that they will be back at the Ricoh.
Then why ask me who I am? As far as you or anyone needs to know I am a poster on a forum about CCFC. You suggested because I was 'very knowledgeable' I must be someone involved in the dispute.
And let's be honest - The KCIC campaign hasn't always just been pro team has it?
Also when mentioning Simon did I bring Les into discussion - so you have made that connection on your own.
And no we don't know about SISU investors at all or their financial arrangements. But we do know they paid Pressley and the players last week, and the week before, and will do next week.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say....
You recently suggested you heard some of the stuff that came out In the recent case yet ran a thread that you thought they would lose .Why did you think that?
Do you remember the first post you did on here about a week ago? I was one of the first to reply to you. I said that with the way you were questioning CCC and CCC only you sounded just like SISU. And I said that I wouldn't be surprised if you had spoken to Joy just like Les and Nikki had. A couple of days ago you admitted this, although you also said you had spoken to Higgs and all sides on the matter when you hadn't. You say you have known Les for 20 years. You keep misquoting what was said in court. Not far from being spin.
Then you wonder why people are asking you who you are.
We all know that we have more to learn that will come out at the JR. I am not going to attack anyone on hearsay. You are digging against CCC. You might find that you would find much more digging against SISU if it is new items you are looking for. They have constantly lied to us.
So you wonder why CCC have gone quiet before the JR. IMHO I would put it down to the way SISU have done things. We should find out for sure soon. Or are you saying you trust Joy and her puppets? Just as Deering tried to make out that the stopping of payments was nothing to do with Joy. It was done by CCFC. But Joy told us she was going to be hands on. Yet she didn't know about the rent strike?
So what did you talk about with her? I am starting to come to the conclusion that she tells anyone that our club will fold if she don't get the Ricoh when she meets them. And that is why they attack CCC so much. If I am wrong can you tell us what was said? Why do people go from knowing what SISU have done to helping them so much straight away?
You have clearly confused me with someone else. I first posted here a couple of days ago (well since over a year ago) and began this thread. I think you are referring to someone else?
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?