Discussion in 'Ricoh Row / Politics / SISU Section' started by tim07, Oct 20, 2016.
Is anyone who is having a pop at Les Reid going to actually point out any factual inaccuracies?
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SGP611 using Tapatalk
Well, it's not all about inaccuracies chief is it? I mean...
eg It is a matter of public record that they colluded with the council in covering up a £14.4million council loan to part-council-owned Ricoh firm Arena Coventry Limited (ACL), still contested today, although SISU have already lost battles in court where judges have stated the loan was not unlawful use of taxpayers money. SISU defaulted on a debt to ACL, and moved the team to Northampton, that ultimately led to the stadium’s sale to London Wasps.
If Simon had written this, you would have been all over it, as I'm sure you prefer Les' version..
So strip it back to the facts. The CT had an agreement with CCC to suppress a story, clearly of public interest, for the benefit of the council and ultimately Wasps. Its not about if the loan was lawful or not, its about the fact the local media suppressed the story. That is factually correct. Nothing else you've mentioned there was supressed or unknown.
And then there is this..
Many? How many?
he has to have a dig at Simon's book as expected, but who are these "key players" he refers to that say Simon makes serious inaccurate single-sourced claims? Shall we all make a guess?
The Pandora's box eh Les? Well open the damn thing then and tell us the truth. Where are all the revelations from his time with the telegraph? He labels it an opinion piece, but in fact it's a PR campaign against everyone except SISU.
It really does read like it's been written by Tim Fisher
You must have missed this bit...
OK, so the OP here started off with the usual juvenile pun about the author's name, and then signally failed to identify where any of the article was factually wrong. He's so one eyed that he's completely missed Reid's criticism of SISU.
It's an utter waste of time arguing with people like this, because they don't offer anything to debate beyond shouting "SISU apologist" and an unfunny pun. It is quite literally a waste of effort reading or repsonding to these kind of posts. Fundamentally they're admitting that the article was too long and complex for them to read, let alone consider.
Bluntly, if you can't be arsed to actually point out specifically where you think Reid is wrong, then your opinion on his article is worthless. It's just a(nother) lazy rant to make yourself feel better - I hope it helped.
It is a matter of public record, that's how LR won his employment tribunal.
Did you read it then Nick?
Just curious if you did and found anything in it you didn't agree with or whether you just don't agree with Les in general. The reason I ask is because if there was anything you found that you didn't like or agreed with, would you be all over it in the same way you were with the piece from the CT which came out on the same day?
I love these "I'm so superior to others fans because they're so fucking stupid" posts. Fans are fans, not all as eloquent as you obviously are but they are fans of CCFC too and if they've had their fill, why can't they rant?
It actually seems more balanced than a lot of them, with shots fired at SISU as well with things like dropping the legal action in return for a fair deal.
It says we were screwed as ccfc by the sale to Wasps, which is true.
A couple of interesting bits about things like the telegraph editors saying the council were their biggest stakeholders, keep an eye on that bit to see if it stays or gets removed....
The overall consensus seems that CCFC are screwed, and there is more than 1 side to every story.
If you can point out anything in there that is completely made up like the telegraph articles I'd happily be wrong, as some of the statements are a bit harder to dissect than 30 seconds on Twitter than it took me yesterday, or the 10 seconds today.
I don't see the need for the Trump stuff though.
I just want to see truths and facts, if they have a bit of spin I ignore that and stick to bits that are backed up. If that article is completely fabricated and untruthful though (the bits away from opinion) like the one I pointed out yesterday then I'm happy to be wrong.
Do you think tim07 has been to many games?
Do you not think his pieces are re-hashes of what he's already said with just a few new snippets. I think we all know what's happened along the way and most sensible people on here know that all sides have played a part in where we are now.
I think his pieces always contain a certain slant. The last paragraph is telling for me. After talking about no academy and stadium in the piece (amongst other things) which are massively important to club, he asks 'Time to show us the plan'. Why could he not include Sisu in that along with anti-Sisu campaigning politicians, newspaper editors and fan group leaders? You see, if this piece was just about recent events to do with boycotts and takeovers, we didn't need to read everything that has gone on before, because when he includes everything it becomes everything that is important to the club and that is that Sisu need to be asked what the hell their plan is for academies and stadiums and not just a tired parting shot that Sisu need to be more open.
This season or ever? Wouldn't know, do you?
Yes, a lot we already knew as it is fact.
Some of it we didn't, ie the stakeholder at the telegraph stuff (I didnt anyway, but happy to be pointed it out).
It is aimed at all sides, I also said fair play to simon when he asked the council leader a hard question too (as in all sides).
Are there any bits that are completely made up though, like my thread about the telegraph yesterday? If the telegraph were writing factual articles with digs at all sides but a couple less to the council than SISU but still some council ones in there I wouldn't be making threads saying they had made things up would I?
The last bit also says "I’ve said many times that Sisu and CCFC need to be much more open with communication.", which nobody at all can disagree with can they?
So yes, lots of what we already know and a few snippets. But do we really need to re-read everything that he has already said numerous times just to get a few new bits?
And yes it does mention all sides but why could he not just include Sisu in with the other people when he talks about plans? Like I said and you mentioned, just saying Sisu need to be more open is lip service because we know that but if he wants to write a balanced piece that is totally balanced then include Sisu in with everyone when he talks about showing plans, not just saying something in another sentence that the world already knows.
Yes, we all know and agree that Sisu need to be more open, but do you think that he should lump Sisu in with other parties when he talks about seeing plans for CCFC's future?
I read that as following on about the boycotts and protests etc hence the people protesting and then the next line lumping CCFC and SISU in with them, then the last bit confirming it is all sides.
Thanks for actually pointing bits out though rather than just shouting, I also agree that it would be nice to see their plans.
My point about it is that it does actually say all sides, it does have shots at all of them ( I havent counted each, but id bet more at CT and politicians).
The telegraph story yesterday was completely made up to promote a boycott, that's the difference.
No need to thank me Nick! Listen, I'll shout and ball at times because that is what supporting this club does to us all. But I can also engage a debate/discussion too.
And thank you for answering my questions with answers.........and then asking questions
That's a debate though Back and forth!
Things will always have hints and slants, my issue yesterday was completely made up things.
Well on twitter he blocks anyone who expresses an opinion that disagrees with him, so he would have little idea of if other viewpoints were strongly held .
Not a fan of his style at all. Always seems to be making sly digs here and there (telegraph too though), however I can't find much wrong with it.
Only issue I have is blaming the trust for where we are now? Come on they may not have done everything brilliantly but let's not completely make stuff up. It's all down to the council, wasps and sisu.
Reading it just makes me want to leave the Ricoh more - It's not ours and it might just put wasps in the shit.
Don't agree with blocking people who don't agree, abuse then maybe, but not just for disagreeing.
I'm sure I've read on here about Simon blocking people.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
He went through a blokes Twitter to find bad stuff about them from years ago to report it to his employer
I don't think I disputed that ?
Are you asking me or telling me? I must've misread your post then. You need to be clearer next time.
They can rant - they're more than welcome to. I like a good rant myself. However I think it's fair enough to point out the level of actual information therein and to defend an article that makes a lot of sense to me.
The OP might be smarter than Einstein for all I know, he's just not showing it here.
He does. Never was rude or personal, just questioned the motives of his employer.
My memory of Less exposing the Cayman accounts amounted to something appearing in here from OSB doing some digging. BSB posting it.
Then Les coming out with the same stuff saying he had been working on it for months. ( not saying he got it from here, just it didn't seem to merit months of work)
Then he asks Tim Fisher about it who says "it's standard practice"
Les leaves it at that. Hardly investigative journalism at its best.
He says he exposed the BPA story when SISU were desperate to keep it quite. It was exposed just before CA went into his negotiations with Wasps over a long term rental deal. Call me cynical but is the timing a coincidence? Maybe, maybe he did upset SISU exposing it as oppose to SISU wanting it out there to give CA a stronger hand in the negotiations.
Anyone else got a similar recollection or have I got that wrong?
Also when he said what's the plan, I thought thank god the bloke has finally grown a pair when it comes to SISU and he is telling them that we the fans need to not only know what the long term plan is but also can we see some proof that steps are actually been taken towards that plan.
No instead he is having a pop at the fans group who are upset that coventry city football club are in the lowest third of division 3. With an expiring stadium and academy deal. Who are wanting new owners as they feel these ones are not running the club properly.
Great way to go Les don't stop digging you are doing a great job keep telling yourself that.
Out of interest is it normal for a journalist to have a caveat at the end of every article (which is bigger than the article) saying what they personally have done?
He is gradually beginning to realise he backed the wrong horse and they'll be seen off, eventually.
Are you posting in every thread apart from the one about the game?
Are you sitting in your control centre looking for opportunities to snipe at people who don't agree with you?
Separate names with a comma.