Council Hearing Match Thread (1 Viewer)

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
If you read it not knowing his role you would think he was the council's defence lawyer!

Ah so because he found so categorically in favour of the council when he came to explain why he just sounded like a defence if the council. I suppose he would if that's what he found.
I will google him in a minute but am I right that he doesn't work for the council?
 

Nick

Administrator
Given the gripe I would say no. From what I read it was pure character assassination. There didn't seem to be any argument of they did this and it breaks the councils ethics code because of X, Y & Z. It was a gripe for the sake of griping, not a structured argument from what I read. Admittedly I haven't read everything but only because the tone seem to be set early doors and I turned off. There was no structure to it. Yes it was like turkeys voting for Xmas but still if you're going to do it seriously at least have a structured argument. The outcome was assured by the approach of the complaint as much as anything else.

Yep I think it was probably more for PR, to get some more documents out to make out the council aren't as innocent in it all.

That's the only real reason I can see, you would think that any sensible lawyer would know there was absolutely no chance in anything happening.
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
The bloke was head legal advisor for Cheshire local Government for years.
He is a lawyer who understands how councils work.
The private company he now works for have no footprint in Coventry.
Can't see why he would need to be biased towards Coventry.
He got to interview everyone and give his report from a lawyers perspective.
If he is intentionally finding against SISU when all the evidence points the opposite way. He is either corrupt or incompetent.
Judging by his career is one lucky man if he is incompetent.
I don't think he will be short of work and I can't see CCC paying him off in some dodgy corruption deal.
So I think an independent expect interviewed everyone looked at the evidence and thought there is nothing in this.
 

Skyblueweeman

Well-Known Member
What was termed 'matchday revenues' so you would get parking, pie money (I would assume ACLs cut after Compass as anything else wouldn't be theirs to offer), hospitality. That kind of thing. And of course that was over the original term of the lease so 40 something years.

ACL own the hotel as well so you'd get revenues from that as well.
 

martcov

Well-Known Member
Very true, he could take a leaf out of the Telegraph's book and suppress the news though ay ;)

I might be wrong, but wasn't Reid quite anti sisu at the start?

Yes, then he had a meeting with Joy and changed completely. He has not yet disclosed what made him change his mind....
 

Nick

Administrator
Yes, then he had a meeting with Joy and changed completely. He has not yet disclosed what made him change his mind....

Maybe he saw evidence the council aren't as rosy as first thought, who knows?

What are your thoughts on the CET suppressing news by the way?
 

Skyblueweeman

Well-Known Member
The sooner they move on the more we can get on with the football.

Totally agree.

It's just a shame that the council sold the Ricoh to a franchised rugby club leaving us with little assets worth purchasing. If anything, the sale to Wasps has probably prolonged SISUs involvement with CCFC.

Way to go...
 

martcov

Well-Known Member
Maybe he saw evidence the council aren't as rosy as first thought, who knows?

What are your thoughts on the CET suppressing news by the way?

Doesn't surprise me. CET need a good line to the council to get stories and therefore the council can bully them a bit. Cuts both ways. Some football clubs have banned critical journalists before. Not in favour of either version, but you cannot stop people trying to manipulate the media. Human nature I am afraid. Look what happened to Les when he opened his mouth.

I had a taste of that myself once when the mayor at the time fed the council bullshit about me and my colleagues. We did get a right of reply though. First reaction of the CET was to believe the mayor though. I went into the mayor's office and challenged him myself - just got waffle and more bullshit. Opened my eyes to the way things work. He wanted to profile himself - wasn't too bothered about doing a fact check first.
 

eastwoodsdustman

Well-Known Member
Yes, then he had a meeting with Joy and changed completely. He has not yet disclosed what made him change his mind....

I think it was a mixture of him meeting JS with an open mind and pressure from his them employers about what he could and couldn't do or say about the whole ccc/acl vs ccfc saga. He has since won an industrial tribunal against said employers which vindicates his stance I'd say. No coincidence that the man who replaced him stopped posting on here after the tribunal after previously posting a lot on here.
 

martcov

Well-Known Member
When Robins left didn't he say something along the lines of the council need to do more?

If you want to get things done, you have to have a good working relationship. How was the working relationship between SISU and the council at the time?

Didn't he also mention that he wanted assurances from SISU that weren't forthcoming?
 

Nick

Administrator
I think it was a mixture of him meeting JS with an open mind and pressure from his them employers about what he could and couldn't do or say about the whole ccc/acl vs ccfc saga. He has since won an industrial tribunal against said employers which vindicates his stance I'd say

That's the thing isn't it.

The editor who was said to have "been on board" with PR then suddenly left the CET the same day Les Reid came back, then Reid got a payout from them...
 

martcov

Well-Known Member
That's the thing isn't it.

The editor who was said to have "been on board" with PR then suddenly left the CET the same day Les Reid came back, then Reid got a payout from them...

I don't think anyone begrudges Les getting his payout. He was proved to be in the right.
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
What did Robins know? He clearly thought the club was being hard done by.

In an interview with Tim Fisher he was asked what assurances did Mark Robins not recieve.
He said that MR had asked what the salary cap would be the following season.
However TF didn't feel that was the biggest factor behind him leaving
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Surely if you are professional and accountable you just do your job.

Sounds more like sour grapes to me.
Ok so if you got you wish and all SISU emails and business was looked into by an "independent panel" of hedge fund managers you wouldn't mind if the verdict was "move along nothing to see here"? You, tony, CD, Martcov et al would do yer nuts.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Maybe he saw evidence the council aren't as rosy as first thought, who knows?

What are your thoughts on the CET suppressing news by the way?

I have to ask why this surprises anyone? It's always happened and always will. Whether that's papers being asked not to report that Prince Harry is serving in Afghanistan and at the other end of the scale to printing untruth's about what happened at Hillsborough the papers have always have and always will work with the establishment whether that be central government, local government the police etc. you'd have to say that any information that's been held back puts this nearer the prince harry suppressed stories than telling outright lies as happened with Hillsborough.

I think people are either acting at being shocked by this. Either that or they're extremely stupid.
 

martcov

Well-Known Member
Ok so if you got you wish and all SISU emails and business was looked into by an "independent panel" of hedge fund managers you wouldn't mind if the verdict was "move along nothing to see here"? You, tony, CD, Martcov et al would do yer nuts.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

TF has already described SISUs actions as standard business practice, so it would be "nothing to see here". And yes, their actions did annoy me. I think things are better now, but a lot of damage has been done - an inquiry would be nice, but - as with this one- it wouldn't get us anywhere.
 

Skyblueweeman

Well-Known Member
Actually if you look at Wasps previous moves the move to the Ricoh is following a very familiar path. And as we know both their previous moves saw them later walk away for a perceived better option.

Hopefully they'll head to Villa Park in the next few years then...
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
If you read it not knowing his role you would think he was the council's defence lawyer!

Perhaps he's just a lawyer with experience in this field so unlike you he's not jumping to conclusions on what he assumes is the interpretation of the law/ethics guidelines put 2 & 2 together and come up with a gazillion. Maybe he just has the relevant skills and experience to determine what should have actually happened and that there was no basis for complaint which means he could only ever come to one conclusion but because the only possible conclusion doesn't fit in with your assumed logic it's easy for you to say he could have been the councils defense lawyer?

No silly me. You're clearly more qualified to make that call. In fact I bet SISU are on to Nick already for your contact details. You're clearly the missing link in their legal team.
 

SkyBlueZack

Well-Known Member
He came across as biased. Leaning towards the council. That's chief daves opinion. Why are you such an obnoxious nob when people offer their thoughts to the discussion?
 

eastwoodsdustman

Well-Known Member
I was also told by someone that this had something to do with the council and ccc jumping into bed with eachother....


http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2012/news/regional-daily-to-move-offices-after-55-years/


Some of 'I'll scratch your back if you sell the building for student accomodation at a decent price' I think the saying goes.

Not sure if many people are aware, but a lot of the redevelopment in the city centre is funded by the university. The council are and will bend over backwards to keep the uni on side. The sale of the Telegraph building would have been part of it. The whole mess of the Ricoh is tangled in everything the council do.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
He came across as biased. Leaning towards the council. That's chief daves opinion. Why are you such an obnoxious nob when people offer their thoughts to the discussion?

An opinion based on what? It's the blokes field of work, it's what he's not only qualified to do but vastly experienced in. Like I said if it reads biased it's more likely that it's because he actually understands what he's doing and the complaint has no merit. He can hardly "lean" towards a complaint that has no merit can he? That's not because he's biased or secretly the councils defense lawyer. It's because the whole thing is bollocks. But let's not let truths get in the way of conspiracy theories hey.

I guarantee that if the JR appeal fails we'll have plenty of "experts" on here tell us where the judges got it wrong just as we have at the other stages. Some people clearly have trouble excepting that renowned, highly paid, highly qualified, highly experienced and highly respected individuals can't make the right decision unless it goes against the council. That's the height of obnoxiousness if you ask me.

Personally I'm willing to accept that people who have the necessary skill set and experience know better than me. Regardless of the outcome.
 
Last edited:

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
An opinion based on what? It's the blokes field of work, it's what he's not only qualified to do but vastly experienced in.

Actually I didn't say he was biased I said the quotes attributed to him in the CT make him sound like a council defence lawyer. Go and read them yourself and see. You may disagree of course but that doesn't mean your viewpoint is the only valid one. IMO it reads very much like he is defending the council and not responding as someone who is independent.

But let's not let truths get in the way of conspiracy theories hey.

Seem to recall similar comments when it was suggested everything wasn't quite right at the CT. Those who dared to doubt their neutrality were called tin foil hat wearers. Of course then it came out that the CT were surpressing stories to the detriment of CCFC and to the benefit of CCC and Wasps.
 

Nick

Administrator
Seem to recall similar comments when it was suggested everything wasn't quite right at the CT. Those who dared to doubt their neutrality were called tin foil hat wearers. Of course then it came out that the CT were surpressing stories to the detriment of CCFC and to the benefit of CCC and Wasps.

But that is just normal, it is fine.

Imagine if Les Reid had found out about the Northampton move a month before but agreed to keep it hush hush until it was all confirmed and announced and set in stone. ;)
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
Seem to recall similar comments when it was suggested everything wasn't quite right at the CT. Those who dared to doubt their neutrality were called tin foil hat wearers. Of course then it came out that the CT were surpressing stories to the detriment of CCFC and to the benefit of CCC and Wasps.

CCFC/Sisu knew exactly what was going on.
They would have known Wasps were homing in during the Summer.

In fact I would say it gave them the chance of getting into the Ricoh under ACL before Wasps had a say on it.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Lets look at the complaints then.

Whether Coun Mutton’s conduct was unacceptable

We find there’s insufficient evidence to show Coun Mutton’s behaviour was unacceptable.
Whether the councillors had made inappropriate or defamatory comments.
We do not consider that the comments made by either councillor amounted to a breach of the code of conduct.

He admits to the comments attributed to him and chanting SISU Out at the Ricoh! How much more open and shut could it be?

Whether the relevant interests had been declared by Coun Mutton.
We have concluded that Coun Mutton did not fail to disclose his interests”.

This is an easy one. Even Goacher had a problem with this "in other authorities it wouldn’t have had to have been registered, but under Coventry’s code it should have been".
So the independent expert states that under the council's code of conduct Mutton failed to disclose an interest yet the committee say he did not.

Failure by councillors to make a decision objectively and in without bias.
We find there was no failure to make decisions in an objective and unbiased way.”

Another easy one for me. I really don't see much of an argument against there being a council bias against SISU. Sure SISU's actions might have pushed them down that path but as a council they need to rise above that, hence why they have a code of conduct in place. Can anyone really keep a straight face and say CCC were not biased against SISU?

Whether there was a public smear campaign against the football club’s owners
We have concluded there is no evidence that councillors instigated a public smear campaign against the complainants.”

A key point here is that Goacher states that ACL and CCC have to be viewed as separate entities despite CCC owning 50% of ACL and CCC having representation on the ACL board. This is of course at odds with his insistence in the first hearing that it was impossible to view CCFC and SISU as two separate entities. This despite emails from council officers stating CCC was “going on the offensive with Sisu”. Cllr Andrews questioned why this wasn't gone into in more depth. The response from Goacher was that discussions might have taken place in non-minuted meetings with no records, he didn't even bother to check!

There are emails from Weber Chadwick discussing a “PR strategy”, along with emails suggesting Seppala's home address is made known and the suggestion that she be doorstepped by the local media. Cllr Andrews, the only non Labour person on the committee, said he found the emails “disturbing”.

The defence for Mutton and Lucas appears to be solely that, as leaders of CCC, they had absolutely no idea what was going on and therefore can't take any responsibility.

I'm really struggling to see how the council are in the clear on any of these points let alone all of them. If you read the councils code of conduct there's numerous cases of the code being breached during this whole affair that come to mind.

Of course that isn't to say SISU's behaviour was any better but unfortunately as a private company they can do what they like as long as they stay on the right side of the law. CCC however should adhere to their code of conduct.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
CCFC/Sisu knew exactly what was going on.
They would have known Wasps were homing in during the Summer.

In fact I would say it gave them the chance of getting into the Ricoh under ACL before Wasps had a say on it.

Ignoring the fact that your comment has very little to do with the CT suppressing stories at the request of the council on what evidence are you basing your claims that SISU knew full details of what was happening (i.e.: Wasps were being sold ACL at a low price with a huge lease extension)?
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Ignoring the fact that your comment has very little to do with the CT suppressing stories at the request of the council on what evidence are you basing your claims that SISU knew full details of what was happening (i.e.: Wasps were being sold ACL at a low price with a huge lease extension)?
I don't know why you bother. The character you're speaking to is a buffoon
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
An opinion based on what? It's the blokes field of work, it's what he's not only qualified to do but vastly experienced in. Like I said if it reads biased it's more likely that it's because he actually understands what he's doing and the complaint has no merit. He can hardly "lean" towards a complaint that has no merit can he? That's not because he's biased or secretly the councils defense lawyer. It's because the whole thing is bollocks. But let's not let truths get in the way of conspiracy theories hey.

I guarantee that if the JR appeal fails we'll have plenty of "experts" on here tell us where the judges got it wrong just as we have at the other stages. Some people clearly have trouble excepting that renowned, highly paid, highly qualified, highly experienced and highly respected individuals can't make the right decision unless it goes against the council. That's the height of obnoxiousness if you ask me.

Personally I'm willing to accept that people who have the necessary skill set and experience know better than me. Regardless of the outcome.

So why then Tony did the one thing this independent observer find Mutton guilty of did the ethics committee ignore?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top