Duggins

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2008
23,720
7,234
263
Warwick
It's because they genuinely think they can just say "it was all sisu" and thats that.
To be fair, it's worked a treat so far.
 

Nick

Administrator
Feb 25, 2008
111,445
34,739
1,063
Coventry
and if they'd stuck to that and kept it vague they would have been fine. its all fallen apart as soon as Duggins started getting specific, made it easy for SISU to fire back with evidence showing that he's wrong.
Yeah he tried to get too clever and quote things but started slipping up. That's when their statements started.
 

duffer

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2010
3,679
2,574
163
Well if he can’t get the most basic facts, like Chris West’s name, right then surely we should ignore everything else he comes out with.

Not sure why people are upset at their identities being linked to their social media. Personally think it would be a lot better if everyone had to use their real name and was identifiable.
Couldn't agree less, I'm afraid. Doxxing is a hideous practice, which chills free speech. I'm entitled to hold my opinions and express them (within the bounds of the law) without worrying if a potential future employer or client might tie them to me at some point in the future.

For example, my last employer did occasional work for the council. They clearly wouldn't want me expressing my opinion with my name attached, whether it was honestly held or not.

I've no problem with people being anonymous, as long as they're staying within the bounds of legality. Does not knowing who someone is somehow invalidate their opinion?

Challenge the facts of things that you're not happy with rather than worrying about the identity of the poster is the way that I'd see it.
 

hill83

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2008
14,776
16,112
363
Coventry
Couldn't agree less, I'm afraid. Doxxing is a hideous practice, which chills free speech. I'm entitled to hold my opinions and express them (within the bounds of the law) without worrying if a potential future employer or client might tie them to me at some point in the future.

For example, my last employer did occasional work for the council. They clearly wouldn't want me expressing my opinion with my name attached, whether it was honestly held or not.

I've no problem with people being anonymous, as long as they're staying within the bounds of legality. Does not knowing who someone is somehow invalidate their opinion?

Challenge the facts of things that you're not happy with rather than worrying about the identity of the poster is the way that I'd see it.
I absolutely express my opinion and have absolutely no issue who knows about it because I’m not a c**t.

Not saying you are by the way.
 

Fergusons_Beard

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2011
1,187
1,272
163
Couldn't agree less, I'm afraid. Doxxing is a hideous practice, which chills free speech. I'm entitled to hold my opinions and express them (within the bounds of the law) without worrying if a potential future employer or client might tie them to me at some point in the future.

For example, my last employer did occasional work for the council. They clearly wouldn't want me expressing my opinion with my name attached, whether it was honestly held or not.

I've no problem with people being anonymous, as long as they're staying within the bounds of legality. Does not knowing who someone is somehow invalidate their opinion?

Challenge the facts of things that you're not happy with rather than worrying about the identity of the poster is the way that I'd see it.
Interesting.

If you are indeed a public servant then it doesn’t matter whether you post under a pseudonym or not.

If your social media posts bring your employer into disrepute or its action that is unbecoming a public servant, then it’s against your Terms and Conditions of service and is a sackable/disciplinary offence.

A rule of thumb is that whether you think you’re posting anonymously or not, only post stuff that wouldn’t get you sacked.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
  • Like
Reactions: Somerset Sky Blue

luwalla

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2010
1,279
689
113
this guy is a totally liability to the council... and a real voice of balance for those of that thought it was all SISUs fault up until recently! LOL
 

Skyblue_CP

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2017
164
93
28
Just shows how much mindless bullshit is thrown around between all parties. One minute the EU complaint wasnt the stumbling block and Wasps werent bothered by it. Next, Duggins whole statement is revolved around how the EU complaint stopped all proceedings. Give me a break.
 
  • Like
Reactions: djr8369

HuckerbyDublinWhelan

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2016
2,336
1,962
113
Nice to see Gilbert questioning something from the council, can he now investigate the terms that they want SISU to sign up for? Or should I not hold my breath on that one
 
  • Like
Reactions: Limey

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2008
25,572
13,913
363
Coventry
Still makes no sense given Wasps statement said “we did not halt discussions even when it emerged that the owners had filed a complaint to the European Commission”.

Nothing to do with clarification, they've been caught out and they're trying to fudge it without admitting they're full of shit.

The Coventry Conservatives have removed some of their tweets as well as you can see replies on twitter but not their original tweet.

Still, nice bit of overtime for the PR team trying to fix Duggins latest balls up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: duffer

marcusp

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2011
2,162
1,359
163
Dare i say it but are Sisu looking like the good guys at the moment. Backing Robins and the council and wasps being shown up for what they are
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2008
25,572
13,913
363
Coventry
Dare i say it but are Sisu looking like the good guys at the moment. Backing Robins and the council and wasps being shown up for what they are
Good guys might be a stretch! There's certainly only a small number of people left who can't see that other parties involved share the blame.

On the bright side in the last couple of days the council have stated they want the club in the city and that they randomly build stadiums irrespective of if they have anyone to play in them or not. An announcement that they're building us a new stadium surely can't be far off!
 

Nick

Administrator
Feb 25, 2008
111,445
34,739
1,063
Coventry
"It comes after I scrutinised...".

No, it came after Tynan did, as per the timeline on Twitter. Why would he try to claim credit for something like that?

Spoiler: I already know the answer.
If he actually scrutinised then the council probably wouldn't be putting such nonsense out every time.


He still says senior sources told him wasps stopped talks, wasps and ccfc both say talks didn't stop. The council also keep contradicting wasps too, who are his senior sources?
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2008
25,572
13,913
363
Coventry
He still says senior sources told him wasps stopped talks, wasps and ccfc both say talks didn't stop. The council also keep contradicting wasps too, who are his senior sources?
Is that the first time he's admitted he was given the information in private by Wasps? Should probably have a think about why they would leak that sort of information through him and how they stood to benefit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: duffer

Nick

Administrator
Feb 25, 2008
111,445
34,739
1,063
Coventry
Is that the first time he's admitted he was given the information in private by Wasps? Should probably have a think about why they would leak that sort of information through him and how they stood to benefit.
Exactly, he's admitting they have misled him off the record.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2008
25,572
13,913
363
Coventry
Exactly, he's admitting they have misled him off the record.
Tried having a sensible conversation with him as he claims Wasps issued a statement saying they stopped talks. Pointed out I could only find one that said ball is in SISUs court and he said that's the one!
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Apr 16, 2010
9,127
5,900
263
Coventry
Interesting but missing a lot of key information that isn't public, i.e. what was happening within ACL post the proposal in Gidney's email in March. It can't be written off that it was a message to nothing.
It cant be assumed it got any further at that time either. The only certainty is they were in contact. Was that the only club they were in contact with for instance? Why were they in contact with anyone else at all? etc etc etc

The purpose of the post was to provide a more detailed timeline based on court evidence of what happened, that was not based on cherry picked items from either CCC or SISU. To try to cut through the PR from both sides. Which is why i included almost no opinion or assumption, nor have i targeted it at either side

We are not going to see the documents that were not included in the court cases, I am sure there are others that might shed light on what really went on. So far what we know has been largely based on the documents from CCC, ACL & Charity. I would assume if there was something more that was really damning of CCC and ACL it would have surfaced by now. Why would they hold it back?

What of course would also be very interesting would be seeing the external and internal documents created by SISU and their advisors in respect of the stadium and investment in CCFC relating to that period. Not going to happen but that would provide a more balanced understanding
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2008
25,572
13,913
363
Coventry
The article on the Telegraph site regarding this is poor to say the least.
"Top councillors say there was a deal "on the table" for Coventry City to remain at the Ricoh Arena next season.

The football club will instead be groundsharing with Birmingham City at the St Andrew's stadium after talks broke down with Ricoh owners' Wasps.

Cllr George Duggins - leader of Coventry City Council - and Cllr Gary Ridley - leader of the Conservative opposition - said in a statement today that the only reason the football club is leaving the city for the second time in six years is because of owner Sisu's complaint to the European Commission over the sale of the stadium in 2014."
No mention that it has been shown to be incorrect. Assumed the article had been quickly thrown up when the statement came out and not updated but the editor is saying that is the updated article!

Duggins having to change his statement is swept under the carpet as "updated by the council to clarify timings".
 
  • Like
Reactions: duffer

Nick

Administrator
Feb 25, 2008
111,445
34,739
1,063
Coventry
The article on the Telegraph site regarding this is poor to say the least.

No mention that it has been shown to be incorrect. Assumed the article had been quickly thrown up when the statement came out and not updated but the editor is saying that is the updated article!

Duggins having to change his statement is swept under the carpet as "updated by the council to clarify timings".
Did they ever mention the bit about the CET Editor being briefed / media war?
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2008
25,572
13,913
363
Coventry
Did they ever mention the bit about the CET Editor being briefed / media war?
Oddly that seems to have been missed. I don't think they have ever addressed that since it first came out in one of the court cases. If it was the correct course of action and justifiable why not give an explanation.
 

HuckerbyDublinWhelan

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2016
2,336
1,962
113
The article on the Telegraph site regarding this is poor to say the least.

No mention that it has been shown to be incorrect. Assumed the article had been quickly thrown up when the statement came out and not updated but the editor is saying that is the updated article!

Duggins having to change his statement is swept under the carpet as "updated by the council to clarify timings".
Should come out publically and say what the terms are then. If it’s a good as they’re making out then the public will surely be on their side
 

Nick

Administrator
Feb 25, 2008
111,445
34,739
1,063
Coventry
Should come out publically and say what the terms are then. If it’s a good as they’re making out then the public will surely be on their side
Duggins thinks the public are all behind him because of what "The Jimmy Hill Way" tells him.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2011
20,490
14,651
263
It cant be assumed it got any further at that time either. The only certainty is they were in contact. Was that the only club they were in contact with for instance? Why were they in contact with anyone else at all? etc etc etc

The purpose of the post was to provide a more detailed timeline based on court evidence of what happened, that was not based on cherry picked items from either CCC or SISU. To try to cut through the PR from both sides. Which is why i included almost no opinion or assumption, nor have i targeted it at either side

We are not going to see the documents that were not included in the court cases, I am sure there are others that might shed light on what really went on. So far what we know has been largely based on the documents from CCC, ACL & Charity. I would assume if there was something more that was really damning of CCC and ACL it would have surfaced by now. Why would they hold it back?

What of course would also be very interesting would be seeing the external and internal documents created by SISU and their advisors in respect of the stadium and investment in CCFC relating to that period. Not going to happen but that would provide a more balanced understanding
I thought one of the quotes from Lucas you sighted gave some hints, the one about moving on