The fan's FB page has had a bit of a meltdown over this supposed corruption. I've tried to read this article, but to be honest, my eyes glazed over long before I reached halfway. Which part has got so many people convinced that it shows corruption? I'm not saying that there is no evidence of possible corruption, it's just that I didn't understand most of what I read.corrupt council. said it from day one
You're in luck. Agree that it should be pursued. The council can't hide behind confidentiality for every query related to the Ricoh.I hope they take this to the Information Commissioner. The reason for blocking isn't necessarily about third party confidentiality, surely it's about commercial confidentiality which is a weak argument.
The Coventry Observer is now challenging the non-disclosure with the council, and will consider a referral to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
That's a first then. The mouth frothers going against the council instead of 'Shitsu'. Hopefully the worm will turn and pressure will be put onto the councils and their bedfellows a bit now.The fan's FB page has had a bit of a meltdown over this supposed corruption. I've tried to read this article, but to be honest, my eyes glazed over long before I reached halfway. Which part has got so many people convinced that it shows corruption? I'm not saying that there is no evidence of possible corruption, it's just that I didn't understand most of what I read.
Just had a look on there for the first time in a couple of months. You're right, last time I was on there not a word could be said against the council, everything was completely SISU's fault. Very different now, the council and wasps are getting hammered.That's a first then. The mouth frothers going against the council instead of 'Shitsu'. Hopefully the worm will turn and pressure will be put onto the councils and their bedfellows a bit now.
Its funny really, people like the trust have banged on about here being the minority. If you look at Twitter or looks as if the majority are shouting at everybody as well.Just had a look on there for the first time in a couple of months. You're right, last time I was on there not a word could be said against the council, everything was completely SISU's fault. Very different now, the council and wasps are getting hammered.
I was a bit surprised that there was none of the usual "it's all Sisu's fault". Perhaps they are beginning to see the bigger picture.That's a first then. The mouth frothers going against the council instead of 'Shitsu'. Hopefully the worm will turn and pressure will be put onto the councils and their bedfellows a bit now.
The worm is turning. The only people not turning are the Jimmy Hill (soon to be Nicky Eastwood) Way and the other two in that echo chamber.Just had a look on there for the first time in a couple of months. You're right, last time I was on there not a word could be said against the council, everything was completely SISU's fault. Very different now, the council and wasps are getting hammered.
The worm is turning. The only people not turning are the Jimmy Hill (soon to be Nicky Eastwood) Way and the other two in that echo chamber.
Looking at the whole thing pragmatically, the refusal of Wasps to even talk is starting to be seen for what it is, pathetic.
Fairly straightforward I’d say. It appears that Lucas & Co said back then that a condition of the sale to Wasps was that CCFC and CRFC should not be adversely affected. Now it suits them to deny that they said that, and so they claim that the adverse affect had a 4 year expiry. Observer is asking under FOI for any evidence that they added that rider at the time. They didn’t, so rather than admit that they have just made this 4 year thing up they are trying to hide behind a totally spurious FOI exemption to avoid being caught out. If they had said 4 years back then they would be plastering the proof all over the city.
corrupt council. said it from day one
CC4L right again!corrupt council. said it from day one
Fairly straightforward I’d say. It appears that Lucas & Co said back then that a condition of the sale to Wasps was that CCFC and CRFC should not be adversely affected. Now it suits them to deny that they said that, and so they claim that the adverse affect had a 4 year expiry. Observer is asking under FOI for any evidence that they added that rider at the time. They didn’t, so rather than admit that they have just made this 4 year thing up they are trying to hide behind a totally spurious FOI exemption to avoid being caught out. If they had said 4 years back then they would be plastering the proof all over the city.
Sounds like the Observer asked the council to evidence the recent claims that the statements Lucas made only applied to the deal the club had with ACL at the time. The council haven't provided the requested evidence and have hidden behind confidentiality.
That's entirely consistent with the response I've had when asking my councillors anything about the Ricoh, always gets batted back with the confidentially excuse.
It’s deposition by another name while there’s legals ongoing, of course they aren’t going to put them out now. If you want your curiosity satiated you’ll need to get Sisu to stop the legals ironically.
How ridiculous of people to expect the council to be answerable to the electorate. What are they thinking?It’s deposition by another name while there’s legals ongoing, of course they aren’t going to put them out now. If you want your curiosity satiated you’ll need to get Sisu to stop the legals ironically.
So they will suddenly reveal all if the legals are dropped? I am sure they are totally transparent when it comes to everything else.
How ridiculous of people to expect the council to be answerable to the electorate. What are they thinking?
Can you point out which part of the court case is covering if the promise CCC made was for 4 years or not?
What public comments have CCC made about anything surrounding the legals?
What advice do you think they’ve received from their lawyers about this?
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?