Discussion in 'Coventry City General Chat' started by Saddlebrains, Sep 18, 2019.
Only if CCC are found to be in the wrong.
Is a law being breached not doing something wrong now then?
But like when the council did their “fishing” exercise around the Butts that wasn’t an exercise in pedantry?
That's why I said I'd judge it season on season to see the situation then....
Nice try to make things up though, your speciality.
CW to his mates
Up to you Nick - if you're happy being a c**t about it for just the sake of being a c**t, that's up to you. I think I joined the Warwick University CCFC Internet Mailing list in 1989 or so and several of the users of that service are still on it and are still on here. I had a good chat in that car with my son, my father and my nephew when I picked them up from the station on Tuesday night. They went, I watched on ifollow. Their opinions of the game I respect and want to discuss. I've no intention of doing that on here, frankly becuase there isn't anyone on here I want to discuss the football with.
So. Are we back for the Tranmere game or not?
It blows my mind that the local government had such an issue with the owners that they would see the football club slowly die to get one over on SISU.
Of course it is. How have you spun my words to make them mean that?
This will be the same club that Joy said she liquidate if she didn't get her own way, yeah?
PS. The council made some shit decisions, but I don't believe it was ever their intention to kill the club. We were going to get a new ground weren't we, just outside the City boundaries.
I couldn't really give a shit what mailing list you were on in 1989. I would have been 5 so don't see the relevance.
No intention or wish to talk football but you will happily interact and be beggy with social media accounts from people at the council. OK then.
You were probably getting excited when you impressed the staff fake accounts on the CET site too.
Stick around, you might make it onto a Weber Shandwick Spreadsheet like a couple of others.
Because it was you who took issue to me saying it would only get to court if the council had done something wrong. If they have breached a law, they have done something wrong.
Nice try though.
It blows my mind that a section of our fans wanted the club to go bust to get at Sisu. It blows my mind that the council bleated about moving clubs and then sold the stadium built for ccfc And propped up by ccfc to a London rugby club.
They didn’t want to kill the club, just use it to prop up ACL.
Do you mean like when ACL were touting Haskell as the new owner because they had requested Administration with the Trust balls deep in it and it backfired?
Beggy? Give your head a wobble. If people choose to interact with me or ignore me, that's up to them. If you've found a single tweet where I'm 'beggy' please let me know. Tell me, which accounts are 'from the Council'? I see Fletcher pop up occasionally, but I don't follow him and he doesn't follow me. Anyone else, or are you just making up that they're associated with the Council, just like you have with me?
The Weber Shandwick thing is a nice touch Nick. You're still of the impression that there are people out there being instructed by them to tweet about CCFC? That's very funny.
How many times have we been through this and you still try to ignore the facts.
I'm not making up anything and I have never said you work for the council or anything like that. Did you ever ask why somebody wasn't allowed on the Trust Board?
I purposely said people who you interact with, stop trying to spin things to make yourself look less silly.
Do you think there aren't any people instructed to tweet and comment about CCFC then?
Wow! Some shit decisions, they completely screwed the club over, talk about missing the point.
That's not what I said Nick - here's what I said.
As I've also stated, not all judgements are made in a court. If the Council have done wrong and the EU commission find against them and issue a fine, the process could end there with no appearance in court for anyone. If any judgement (for or against) is appealed, it will go before a court.
Yeah, nice try.
[QUOTE="shmmeee, post: 1832095, member: 2535
It’s just responding to a pedantic twat in kind.[/QUOTE]
Well at least you admit to responding like a pedantic twat.
Is it going to go to court or any further if the EU at their first stage see nothing wrong? Yes or No.
My point is, it won't go further in this case unless the council are found to have done something wrong. Whether it's decided in a courtroom, an office or a strip club.
No matter how you try to word it.
She would flush all that investment down the bog to before selling, yeah? It's a transparent tactic, we all know it. Her major downfall was thinking Lucas was playing the same game.
Just like the bluster about a ground, always has been, always will be. The council know it, of course they do, but they were happy to rubber stamp any deal that put the case to bed, no matter if we were caught in the blast.
Nobody is defending Joy, Fisher, SISU, they are all shits of the highest order. They are a money driven hedge fund, with no affinity to anything that bears the name "Coventry". But lets not pretend the council gave a flying fig about the team that has carried the name for 136 years when they intended to bring in Wasps before the rent eventually crippled us, or when they sold the place to them. IF they actually cared about the supporters of CCFC, they would have put their dick swinging asside and offered the club to match or top those terms.
Which part is factually incorrect? Lets list the points individually to make it easy for you to show how it is bollocks.
1) The EC complaint will only lead to an investigation if the EC decides it is warranted. Or do you believe SISU have some sort of hold over the EC and can force them to do as they wish?
2) It is being stated that the EC is legally obliged to conduct an investigation. I have seen nothing to suggest that the EC has to proceed to investigation if they don't deem in necessary.
3) The EC complaint is not the reason for talks between Wasps and CCFC collapsing. Both sides have confirmed it isn't yet it is being disputed.
4) If it were not for the EC complaint we would definitely be playing at the Ricoh. Have seen nothing from either side to suggest this would be the case.
If that's what you think its your own paranoia as people aren't saying that. What they are saying is it is completely unreasonable of Wasps to demand indemnification of themselves and the council from the football club when they insist nether party has done anything wrong.
Theoretically what legal action is left available to SISU if the EC decide not to proceed to investigation?
I was on that mailing list and now I feel ancient!
That's just wrong Nick. Did you read the information I posted, or are you deliberately playing dumb? Do you need me to post the text from the EU website again in a bigger font?
Scenario 1. EU finds against CCC. Fine issued. CCC pay fine. End of case, no court appearance
Scenario 2. EU finds against CCC. Fine issued. CCC appeal - ends up in court.
Scenario 3. EU finds no case to answer. SISU appeal - ends up in court.
So yes, it can go further and given SISU's previous, it almost certainly will.
EC process. No guilt, no court, no fees. Easy.
Fair enough Dave - IIRC correctly, the (1), (2) and (3) were to denote "related parties" rather than the party being sued though.
Likewise Dave - I actually played for the Internet SBA team back in the day. Went up a few times to a tournament called Worldnet in Leeds and used to play the local side before away games. Forest, Charlton and Watford were good days out I (sort of) remember. Managed to leave my kit in a Watford pub the day Steve Walsh played for us I think we were 4-0 down at half-time. Shit game, but great day out.
I think it was a pre condition of negotiations.
However, they had already raised the EC complaint though that is against CCC so technically they've complied with the conditions laid out.
This might be your use of terminology, but that sentence seems to be completely contradictory to me. It seems to read the EC don't have to investigate, but are legally obliged to.
Did you mean the EC don't have to proceed to court/legal proceedings?
See what you mean. Haven't worded it very well, I'll go back and edit it. It is being claimed the EC have to proceed to investigation, I don't believe that to be the base. As far as I'm aware they only have to proceed if they find there is something to investigate.
Does that mean they are carrying out an investigation to determine if an investigation is required??????????????
You don't want to chat about football, but come on here and are happy to drop the 'c' word on people. Not really sure why you'd bother.- and whilst I respect people's right to an opinion, you tend to lose the moral high ground when you join in throwing abuse about. Not just you by the way, that includes Nick and me.
I've had many an abusive comment thrown at me on here (including the C word). I've reported them, but nothing gets done.
Separate names with a comma.