Non AMP
Sky Blues Talk
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Council Accused Of 'Absurd' Ricoh Secrecy (2 Viewers)

  • Thread starter torchomatic
  • Start date Mar 4, 2015
Forums New posts
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Next
First Prev 3 of 4 Next Last

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #71
torchomatic said:
No. Just stating the hypocrisy on here. Taxpayers money was the major concern when people were begging the council not to let the club have the ground. It was the major concern when ACL were being distressed. Now, despite services being cut to the bone, it matters not.

Dave Nellist was spot on.
Click to expand...

But what you fail to mention is that the value was reduced because of the SISU plan just like Fisher said. And then he said they were not interested because of the outstanding loan.

Now I await the normal Fisher lies/truth comments.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #72
Raggs said:
So 2 years ago it was from reserves, 2 months ago, it was still reserves, but as the report stated, after the initial years (2 years for instance), it would switch to borrowing...

So, why can't it be simply that the initial years are up, and it was switched to borrowing in Feb?[/COLOR][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

It could be that the initial years are up but would it not make sense for the council to say that when Reid followed up on the comments Lucas made? This really isn't a difficult question for the council to answer, either the money is from council reserves and Lucas was incorrect or the money is from borrowing and Lucas is correct. There is no reason for the council to hide behind confidentiality, I can see only one reason for refusing to answer the question and that is that Lucas has been found to be making statements that aren't factually accurate again.

I struggle to see when anyone would not want this to be known when we are talking about the leader of the council, irrespective of any link it may or may not have to the club or Ricoh. If the leader of the council is repeatedly making inaccurate statements then it seems to me either she is not up to the job or there is a deliberate campaign to mislead. In either scenario something that should be under the spotlight.
 
R

rupert_bear

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #73
torchomatic said:
.

Dave Nellist was spot on.
Click to expand...
Do you know Dave Nellist then ? Because I do and have had dealings with him, i'll say no more other than a chancer who picks his bandwagons !
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #74
chiefdave said:
It could be that the initial years are up but would it not make sense for the council to say that when Reid followed up on the comments Lucas made? This really isn't a difficult question for the council to answer, either the money is from council reserves and Lucas was incorrect or the money is from borrowing and Lucas is correct. There is no reason for the council to hide behind confidentiality, I can see only one reason for refusing to answer the question and that is that Lucas has been found to be making statements that aren't factually accurate again.

I struggle to see when anyone would not want this to be known when we are talking about the leader of the council, irrespective of any link it may or may not have to the club or Ricoh. If the leader of the council is repeatedly making inaccurate statements then it seems to me either she is not up to the job or there is a deliberate campaign to mislead. In either scenario something that should be under the spotlight.
Click to expand...

The only reason I would be happy with is if the CCC legal team had told them not to say anything whilst this stupid ongoing litigation continues. And all parties voted this route taken and were not split like Les Reid said.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #75
Yeah, but what about the new ground?

chiefdave said:
It could be that the initial years are up but would it not make sense for the council to say that when Reid followed up on the comments Lucas made? This really isn't a difficult question for the council to answer, either the money is from council reserves and Lucas was incorrect or the money is from borrowing and Lucas is correct. There is no reason for the council to hide behind confidentiality, I can see only one reason for refusing to answer the question and that is that Lucas has been found to be making statements that aren't factually accurate again.

I struggle to see when anyone would not want this to be known when we are talking about the leader of the council, irrespective of any link it may or may not have to the club or Ricoh. If the leader of the council is repeatedly making inaccurate statements then it seems to me either she is not up to the job or there is a deliberate campaign to mislead. In either scenario something that should be under the spotlight.
Click to expand...
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #76
True, but weren't they urged/encouraged to vote "yes"?

Astute said:
And all parties voted this route taken and were not split like Les Reid said.
Click to expand...
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #77
torchomatic said:
True, but weren't they urged/encouraged to vote "yes"?
Click to expand...

So Labour urged the Tories to join them and they accepted? If it was that easy this country wouldn't be in such a mess.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #78
torchomatic said:
Yeah, but what about the new ground?
Click to expand...

So this question is more important than anything about a new ground? No wonder Reid has never asked about it
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #79
chiefdave said:
It could be that the initial years are up but would it not make sense for the council to say that when Reid followed up on the comments Lucas made? This really isn't a difficult question for the council to answer, either the money is from council reserves and Lucas was incorrect or the money is from borrowing and Lucas is correct. There is no reason for the council to hide behind confidentiality, I can see only one reason for refusing to answer the question and that is that Lucas has been found to be making statements that aren't factually accurate again.

I struggle to see when anyone would not want this to be known when we are talking about the leader of the council, irrespective of any link it may or may not have to the club or Ricoh. If the leader of the council is repeatedly making inaccurate statements then it seems to me either she is not up to the job or there is a deliberate campaign to mislead. In either scenario something that should be under the spotlight.
Click to expand...


Couldn't LR settle the "where did the money come from" question with a simple FOI? Strange that he hasn't :thinking about:
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #80
skybluetony176 said:
Couldn't LR settle the "where did the money come from" question with a simple FOI? Strange that he hasn't :thinking about:
Click to expand...

Because he doesn't need to. They keep answering the questions publicly but changing their answer. Why would an FOI request be any different?
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #81
This is how the CT reported it:

It is understood council officers will advise councillors to vote in favour of the Wasps deal and that Ann Lucas, leader of the controlling Labour group, is also in favour of the deal. But she is likely to face double-digit opposition from some of her councillors.


Astute said:
So Labour urged the Tories to join them and they accepted? If it was that easy this country wouldn't be in such a mess.
Click to expand...
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #82
fernandopartridge said:
Because he doesn't need to. They keep answering the questions publicly but changing their answer. Why would an FOI request be any different?
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it illegal to deliberately give a wrong answer on an FOI meaning that the answer from an FOI will be the definitive answer regardless of what that answer might be. Seems to me that there's a good chance that the doubt might be more important than the answer to some people.
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #83
torchomatic said:
Yeah, but what about the new ground?
Click to expand...

Ask about both and actually do some digging about both earn your crust and the respect of both readers and fans.
Stop asking the same question over and over in various ways
 
R

rupert_bear

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #84
Astute said:
So Labour urged the Tories to join them and they accepted? If it was that easy this country wouldn't be in such a mess.
Click to expand...
As far as I can remember all council meetings, dealings and votes re. Ricoh, ACL, SISU etc, etc have been unanimous, in fact John Blundell the tory leader at the council has spoken many times on local radio and been quoted in the Telegraph on this issue and consistently been in full support.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #85
torchomatic said:
This is how the CT reported it:

It is understood council officers will advise councillors to vote in favour of the Wasps deal and that Ann Lucas, leader of the controlling Labour group, is also in favour of the deal. But she is likely to face double-digit opposition from some of her councillors.
Click to expand...

Would be very interesting to know what happened behind the scenes. After this report if I recall correctly there was a meeting of the council, which was not minuted, and I believe at which Wasps had representation. After which it suddenly changed to a unanimous vote! When I've asked councillors what was discussed at that meeting the only response is 'confidential'.
 

Covstu

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #86
i wish someone would bring this to a head and be the end of it. If it proves that we were stitched up then thats different but it isnt going to solve anything now is it?
 

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #87
Astute said:
No it wasn't. CCC put 10m towards build costs. The 21m was the remainder of the build cost. CCC put 10m in and our football club put 800k in. And CCC never got or tried to take the 10m back. It is all down on the build cost of which I put on here a fair few times......mainly when people tried to say that CCFC paid for the land, decontamination of it or even both.
Click to expand...

So the Council have got the stadium for £10million then? Which they still own?

Good work that I'd say.
 
S

SimonGilbert

Telegraph Tea Boy
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #88
torchomatic said:
This is how the CT reported it:

It is understood council officers will advise councillors to vote in favour of the Wasps deal and that Ann Lucas, leader of the controlling Labour group, is also in favour of the deal. But she is likely to face double-digit opposition from some of her councillors.
Click to expand...

That was a reference to private Labour party negotiations rather than the expected outcome of the vote by the time it went to full council. That was always going to see councillors toeing party lines.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #89
Covstu said:
i wish someone would bring this to a head and be the end of it.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, if there's nothing to hide get someone independent in to go over the whole thing and report back on how the deal was done and any area's of concern either from a legal, regulatory or moral standpoint.

Covstu said:
If it proves that we were stitched up then thats different but it isnt going to solve anything now is it?
Click to expand...

I suppose the dream scenario for SISU and / or the club would be the result of any investigation is that the loan gets called in and ACL struggle to refinance. At that point you would assume the lease would revert back to CCC and be available for sale to other interested parties. It may well at this point have dropped in value due to the failure of ACL to meet its commitments.
 

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #90
dongonzalos said:
Stop asking the same question over and over in various ways
Click to expand...

What will you do all day if you can't post on here?
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #91
Exactly, toeing party lines. Not the "yeah but all the councillors were totally happy" claptrap that Astute is trying to peddle.

SimonGilbert said:
That was a reference to private Labour party negotiations rather than the expected outcome of the vote by the time it went to full council. That was always going to see councillors toeing party lines.
Click to expand...
 
S

SimonGilbert

Telegraph Tea Boy
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #92
torchomatic said:
Exactly, toeing party lines. Not the "yeah but all the councillors were totally happy" claptrap that Astute is trying to peddle.
Click to expand...

There are almost always disagreements privately but, by the time issues get to a public vote, parties generally stand together. That's politics.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #93
Yep, they stand together but rarely all agree.

SimonGilbert said:
There are almost always disagreements privately but, by the time issues get to a public vote, parties generally stand together. That's politics.
Click to expand...
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #94
In my opinion when we're talking about something like selling ACL to Wasps it should be a free vote. The political system is this country is a shambles, if anyone watched Inside the Commons you were left wondering how the hell anything ever gets done. The majority of the time people don't even know what they're voting for!
 
N

Noggin

New Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #95
torchomatic said:
Yep, they stand together but rarely all agree.
Click to expand...

The fact the conservatives sided with labour though when politically it would almost certainly have been best to do the opposite really strongly suggests that there was nothing untoward and that the council really did feel they were doing what was best for the city.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #96
True, "Feeling" and "doing" are totally different though. I think long-term it can only do damage, particularly if the football club does end up miles outside the City.

Noggin said:
The fact the conservatives sided with labour though when politically it would almost certainly have been best to do the opposite really strongly suggests that there was nothing untoward and that the council really did feel they were doing what was best for the city.
Click to expand...
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #97
Yes, I saw that series. Fascinating and scary at the same time.

chiefdave said:
In my opinion when we're talking about something like selling ACL to Wasps it should be a free vote. The political system is this country is a shambles, if anyone watched Inside the Commons you were left wondering how the hell anything ever gets done. The majority of the time people don't even know what they're voting for!
Click to expand...
 
N

Noggin

New Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #98
chiefdave said:
In my opinion when we're talking about something like selling ACL to Wasps it should be a free vote. The political system is this country is a shambles, if anyone watched Inside the Commons you were left wondering how the hell anything ever gets done. The majority of the time people don't even know what they're voting for!
Click to expand...

yes politics is an utter disgrace though at least we aren't America where it's an order of magnitude worse. However the childish need to get one up on each other at every opportunity really shows that actually in this case they were doing what they thought was best otherwise we'd have seen all the conservatives on their soap boxes and they would have all voted against.
 

tisza

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #99
I suppose the dream scenario for SISU and / or the club would be the result of any investigation is that the loan gets called in and ACL struggle to refinance. At that point you would assume the lease would revert back to CCC and be available for sale to other interested parties. It may well at this point have dropped in value due to the failure of ACL to meet its commitments.[/QUOTE]1. an inquiry isn't going to have the power to have the loan called in.
2. does anyone see a scenario where the football club owns ACL rather than a SISU subsidiary?
3. with a 250 year lease, improved income streams particularly new TV revenues a commercial loan probably wouldn't be so hard to arrange. weren't Yorkshire bank were prepared to revisit the loan terms - just weren't prepared to write off some of the loan?
 
N

Noggin

New Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #100
torchomatic said:
True, "Feeling" and "doing" are totally different though. I think long-term it can only do damage, particularly if the football club does end up miles outside the City.
Click to expand...

Yes they are and I'm certainly not saying what the council have done was right, I don't know and as a Coventry City fan I was extremely disappointed by it, however that really isn't what the discussion is about, if they all did what they thought was best with the information they had (and the conservatives voting for very strongly suggests thats the case) then they haven't done anything wrong at all.
 
T

Thenose

New Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #101
chiefdave said:
I suppose the dream scenario for SISU and / or the club would be the result of any investigation is that the loan gets called in and ACL struggle to refinance. At that point you would assume the lease would revert back to CCC and be available for sale to other interested parties. It may well at this point have dropped in value due to the failure of ACL to meet its commitments.
Click to expand...

It is a dream. Nothing is going to change the deal, WASPs are not going to be forced to hand it back.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #102
Thenose said:
It is a dream. Nothing is going to change the deal, WASPs are not going to be forced to hand it back.
Click to expand...

It would be a very unusual loan agreement if there was no mechanism for CCC calling in the loan if required.
 
T

Thenose

New Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #103
chiefdave said:
It would be a very unusual loan agreement if there was no mechanism for CCC calling in the loan if required.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but no amount of JR, or PI are going to force that to occur
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #104
torchomatic said:
This is how the CT reported it:

It is understood council officers will advise councillors to vote in favour of the Wasps deal and that Ann Lucas, leader of the controlling Labour group, is also in favour of the deal. But she is likely to face double-digit opposition from some of her councillors.
Click to expand...

An unbiased piece there. Was it done by Les Reid?
 
I

Intheknow

New Member
  • Mar 5, 2015
  • #105
chiefdave said:
It would be a very unusual loan agreement if there was no mechanism for CCC calling in the loan if required.
Click to expand...

There must be two different angles to this.

Sisu's JR claim is that the loan is state aid and have asked for a ruling that it be repaid as a matter of public law.

The loan itself would presumably be on commercial terms which would mean CCC could only call it in if ACL breached the terms?

But then what do I know.
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Next
First Prev 3 of 4 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Share:
Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
  • Default Style
  • Contact us
  • Terms and rules
  • Privacy policy
  • Help
  • Home
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2021 XenForo Ltd.
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Home
  • Forums
    • New posts
    • Search forums
  • What's new
    • New posts
    • Latest activity
  • Members
    • Current visitors
  • Donate to the Season Ticket Fund
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?