Council FOIs (8 Viewers)

Nick · Mar 1, 2019

EXCLUSIVE: Council blocks release of documents over pledge to protect Coventry City’s future after our FoI request – as private report revealed

A bit over my head to be honest, looks like trying to dig out some info on the deal but some of it blocked because they say it has details of ACL in so they can't give it out?

mark_ccfc · Mar 1, 2019

I read that the same way. The Coventry Observer have requested some documents under the freedom of information act but the council have refused to release them under the grounds of third part confidentiality. The Coventry Observer were trying to shed light on the claim by Cllr. Duggins and Ridley that the commitment to CCFCs future was only 4 years from 2014.

chiefdave · Mar 1, 2019

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.

Esoterica · Mar 1, 2019

Has bought Duggins enough time to feed the documents to his cat.

chiefdave · Mar 1, 2019

Expecting a statement from the Trust any minute now condemning the councils response. After all they were never slow to get a statement out when the CT were firing FOI requests in concerning things Fisher had said.

Captain Dart · Mar 1, 2019

Fishing for JR3?

skybluetony176 · Mar 1, 2019

I’m glad Les has done the FOI’s but fuck me does he labour to the point. I haven’t got time to read the article now so I’ll consider it later. Either way, well done Les for the FOI’s.

covcity4life · Mar 1, 2019

corrupt council. said it from day one

fernandopartridge · Mar 1, 2019

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.

skyblueinBaku · Mar 1, 2019

covcity4life said:
corrupt council. said it from day one

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.

chiefdave · Mar 1, 2019

fernandopartridge said:
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.

You're in luck. Agree that it should be pursued. The council can't hide behind confidentiality for every query related to the Ricoh.

The Coventry Observer is now challenging the non-disclosure with the council, and will consider a referral to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

eastwoodsdustman · Mar 1, 2019

skyblueindorset said:
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.

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.

Liquid Gold · Mar 1, 2019

chiefdave · Mar 1, 2019

eastwoodsdustman said:
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.

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.

Nick · Mar 1, 2019

chiefdave said:
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.

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.

skyblueinBaku · Mar 1, 2019

eastwoodsdustman said:
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.

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.

Nick · Mar 1, 2019

Interesting that as soon as that comes out about the FOIs

The telegraph dig up an article from September about Joy not responding back to them and the Trust people and others are straight on it.

fernandopartridge · Mar 1, 2019

chiefdave said:
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.

Nick · Mar 1, 2019

fernandopartridge said:
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.

The closer it gets the more and more are seeing it.

The "SISU Sympathiser" line doesn't work any more, the same people are trying their hardest to defend the council and Wasps. To the point where it looks very desperate.

The majority are saying all sides should sort it out. Hopefully there will be a bit of pressure applied in every direction with or without the fans group that claims to represent us.

Hobo · Mar 1, 2019

Before people enthusiastically grab hold of one leg of an Ox; FOI's apply to public authority's. Not Joy Seppala or Tim Fisher. Also Public Authorities can refuse information if a third party is involved.

joemercersaces · Mar 1, 2019

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.

Mucca Mad Boys · Mar 1, 2019

joemercersaces said:
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.

What a sad state of affairs if the 'future' of Coventry City and Coventry RFC, two clubs founded in 1883 and 1874, is valued by the local council at 'four years'. A lot of the early debate into this SISU and Council debacle a lot of people assumed the Council genuinely had the club's best interests at heart, this cannot be seen as a credible viewpoint.

There's a lot of bad to be said about SISU, but the way the council have been let off the hook by our fanbase is really bad.

sw88 · Mar 2, 2019

covcity4life said:
corrupt council. said it from day one

You were around when the council formed?

Nick · Mar 2, 2019

Just get this on repeat, on a massive lorry full of bass outside the council house.

CanadianCCFC · Mar 2, 2019

covcity4life said:
corrupt council. said it from day one

CC4L right again!

JimmyHillsbeard · Mar 2, 2019

joemercersaces said:
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.

That’s my reading too. Even if it was true, it’s utterly shameful to claim there’s only a 4 year safeguard in a 250 year deal.

joemercersaces · Mar 2, 2019

It makes no sense at all. Lucas did say that CCFC and CRFC would be protected. She said that to reassure everyone so that the Wasps deal could get through without creating too much uproar. That wouldn’t have worked if at the time she’d limited the assurance to 4 years, there would have been uproar, as everyone would have pointed out that 4 years wasn’t much use.

shmmeee · Mar 2, 2019

chiefdave said:
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.

Nick · Mar 2, 2019

shmmeee said:
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.

paulcalf · Mar 2, 2019

The document the Council sent to Les proves they have just invented this 'only for 4 years' business.

Page 18

Section 2.5.11. The City Council remains committed to try to ensure that CCFC is able to continue to play its home matches at the Ricoh Arena. It will include a requirement in agreements underpinning the sale that this option must exist for CCFC subject to it reaching a commercial agreement with ACL. The terms of this transaction do not impact in any way on the terms of the August 2014 licence agreement with CCFC which will be fully honoured.

Wasps have scheduled all of their home matches on Sunday’s during this season to ensure there is no fixture clash.

chiefdave · Mar 2, 2019

shmmeee said:
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?

Can you point out which part of the court case is covering if the promise CCC made was for 4 years or not?

shmmeee · Mar 2, 2019

Nick said:
So they will suddenly reveal all if the legals are dropped? I am sure they are totally transparent when it comes to everything else.

I didn’t say that, I just said they certainly won’t now. It was a pointless request they knew would be rejected just so they could make that headline.

shmmeee · Mar 2, 2019

chiefdave said:
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?

Nick · Mar 2, 2019

shmmeee said:
What public comments have CCC made about anything surrounding the legals?

What advice do you think they’ve received from their lawyers about this?

What statement have they about about bus lanes or the dodgy parking in town they keep getting found out about?

Council FOIs (8 Viewers)

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Chief Commentator!

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency