Nick
Administrator
Yep, it was deleted. Unless you have proof about the statement then you are welcome to the legal fees from the libel
It obviously was deleted, that is why it isn't there now
Private Eye (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
Yep, it was deleted. Unless you have proof about the statement then you are welcome to the legal fees from the libel
It obviously was deleted, that is why it isn't there now
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
Either you've never read it, or you'll realise that they're biased against wherever they feel there is mileage against. It's not an ideologically fixed right or left wing publication like The Sun or The Mirror. I assume that the article is in Rotten Boroughs, which is the section where they attack local government.
Sold it to developers, it was Valued at £20m but the price hasn't been divulged.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...up-ahead-of-Olympic-Stadium-move-in-2016.html
Doesn't sound Too plausible ,IIRC we received £10M for HR back In the 90's.I'd imagine whoever develops that place Is looking close to half a billion on Completion ,so possibly between £50M-£100M for the land .
Think I saw something from WHU suggesting £75M ish.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
Yep, it was deleted. Unless you have proof about the statement then you are welcome to the legal fees from the libel
It obviously was deleted, that is why it isn't there now
Fuck me, has the twat been threatening you with legal action? The deleted post was an opinion and no more libelous than literally hundreds of posts on here every week. But then you are massively biased, so what should I expect? This place has turned into GMK MK II. No need for the superior, patronising, down your nose, tone to your reply, either, but it's what you do, isn't it?
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Fuck me, has the twat been threatening you with legal action? The deleted post was an opinion and no more libelous than literally hundreds of posts on here every week. But then you are massively biased, so what should I expect? This place has turned into GMK MK II. No need for the superior, patronising, down your nose, tone to your reply, either, but it's what you do, isn't it?
Or he's just trying to do his job as a moderator. You need to chill the fuck out.
Nick
Administrator
Fuck me, has the twat been threatening you with legal action? The deleted post was an opinion and no more libelous than literally hundreds of posts on here every week. But then you are massively biased, so what should I expect? This place has turned into GMK MK II. No need for the superior, patronising, down your nose, tone to your reply, either, but it's what you do, isn't it?
Well it was libelous wasn't it, so if people make those comments they need to back them up with. It wasn't an opinion it was a statement
If people have problems with other posts then they are dealt will also when reported.
But yeah, you go off on one about the whole conspiracy bias crap.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
A little context too...
Sudbury never got great gates as far as I'm aware. In fact, historically, Coventry RFC are far far *far* better supported than Wasps.
professionalism came in, a wealthy backer moved them to Loftus Road, money was forthcoming for a housing estate for Sudbury in the name of progress, the club goes to Wycombe...
The club doesn't necessarily have all its fans with an attachment to space and place and, rather than this being a reason why they should thus come to Coventry, it shows instead the folly of moving a club around the country... as such fans will define fickle, and won't be around when the club dips in form (as all clubs do, inevitably, at some stage).
Wasps pay the price for moving round the country already, if any fans are not as fussed, as they're there for leisure rather than passion... and that's not the sport's problem, that's the club's problem for selling out its identity.
So... the long term route to success would have been for Richardson to have bought out Coventry RFC, as it probably has a stronger supporter base for foundations. But, of course, they don't have the ready made top flight place and TV exposure...
So then you have to ask, if the Ricoh is bought for sporting or social reasons and, well, the answer is... doubtful.
So you then have to ask why it's then sold by CCC, as their justification for not selling to SISU has been the doubts that any sale would be for sporting reasons...
Last edited:
Hobo
Well-Known Member
no it was a post game Bt programme reversing the previous weeks poll so most Wasps fans were in their living rooms like me. Also it wasn't ab Wasps only poll.
I am not saying I agree with either just saying what is out there.
duffer
Well-Known Member
Y'see as someone who lived in West London, and Slough(!) - I wouldn't really differentiate geographically between Sudbury and QPR (or QPR and Brentford for that matter). And hacking out to Wycombe wouldn't be great either - but at least it's the right side of town and not the worst place to get to. And the owner of the club himself said that West London is the natural home of the club, and that's where he wanted to be. Instead, he's moved a lot further away.
Even if you accepted the argument that Wasps is already a franchise (and I've had one councillor say that to me), it still doesn't make it right. Franchises should be discouraged, if there are any morals left in sport, surely. You don't reward an existing franchise by enabling it to move even further away from it's core support, surely.
I'm not sure about Coventry RFC having a bigger support these days in truth, but it's far more honorable to watch them in Coventry than Wasps, imho.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Fuck me, has the twat been threatening you with legal action? The deleted post was an opinion and no more libelous than literally hundreds of posts on here every week. But then you are massively biased, so what should I expect? This place has turned into GMK MK II. No need for the superior, patronising, down your nose, tone to your reply, either, but it's what you do, isn't it?
It was expressed as a fact - it was an absurd comment from someone who clearly has an irrational vendetta and had to be deleted
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
You certainly don't...
In fact, the argument should be to get them to return as, indeed, you quite rightly mention has been their stated aim.
The problem always is, when things get down to numbers. If only a thousand went to see Wasps in Sudbury, then so what? Those thousand count, don't they? If there's a market for 20,000 pent up Rugby fans in Telford, say, then a local Telford club can benefit, the fans of the 'smaller' club carry on as you were, and it's a win-win all round.
And what's wrong with that?
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Also worth pointing out although Saracens' recent move ain't perfect (ask Barnet FC for one!) they have at least pushed to get them back into roughly the right kind of area.
So if they could do it...
So if they could do it...
spider_ricoh
New Member
Pathetic article - anyone thinking otherwise should sit down and read the judicial review.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
List the elements that are untrue then - or are you struggling and the truth hurts council boy?
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Post #33 lists a few.
Nick
Administrator
What has the jr got to do with wasps?
What is Priceless is that a consortium/ hedgefund whatever, has come into SISU's area, done due diligence, built up a relationship with the council and Higg's and bought a 250 lease at a decent price ( according to Touch ) for the Ricoh. Our tossers have had over 7 years to work that out and have failed abysmally.
Court cases, spin, crap directors, bad negotiating, screwed up their " relationship " with higgs, CCC, the fans and about everyone in Cov, spin from "head of spin" Labovitch, smoking guns, watch this space and so on and so on....
CCFC Ltd in Liquidation, the club relegated, top players sold and now languishing in the bottom half of League 1....
As I say ... priceless. It gets better though. You, Torch and Nick revelling in a badly written and extremely biased article in a grubby magazine.
What about our club? No. You are worried about the poor Wasps fans ( about 50% ) who are not happy with the move. I am worried about CCfC and where on earth we are heading ( literally unfortunately ).
Nick
Administrator
Can you point out where I have revelled in anything?
Probably the same thread you talked about football I guess
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
Had to laugh at the name change
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Has Ann promised you a reduction in your community charge for your loyalty ? I hope for your sake its in writing and has been minuted.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Why are you getting one when they get the money for the NEC? Nar nar na nar nar
Some utter crap on here now all just trying to score points.
So you now have a reason to really slag off Coventry.
This deal is not going to change we need to move on...
Football football football fuck the politics
Grendel
Well-Known Member
But it might change....
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
I can't see who is taking over the fight, me and my comrades have got tired with it all so have retired need the young ones to take over....
Never thought that day would come
Mind you we have just enough steam left if we are needed in the future, for one last soiree.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
If said 'grubby magazine' had written an article slamming SISU you'd be all over it like it was last month's Razzle....
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
It did have an article slamming Sisu a few months ago.
People were all over it like it was last months Razzle strangely enough..
L
limoncello
Guest
When the sale goes through will the council a) stop using Weber Shandwick or b) continue to engage them and disclose how much they are paying?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Wasn't it ACL who employed Webber Sandwich not CCC?
Thought I'd put the sandwich pun in just for you
Yes, if it was well written and unbiased....
I can assure you that last month's Razzle was extremely well written and entirely unbiased.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I can assure you that last month's Razzle was extremely well written and entirely unbiased.
Bullshit. Martha from Stoke was never a 34DD in a million years.
Moff
Well-Known Member
Missed this thread yesterday so apologise if I am duplicating anything already written.
I foind the ironyometer exploded when it became clear that all those who lauded Private Eye for writing two damning articles about SISU last year, and praised its investigative journalism, are now accusing it of biased and unfactual journalism, after it has written an equally unflattering piece on Ann Lucas and the Council.
Laughable really
I foind the ironyometer exploded when it became clear that all those who lauded Private Eye for writing two damning articles about SISU last year, and praised its investigative journalism, are now accusing it of biased and unfactual journalism, after it has written an equally unflattering piece on Ann Lucas and the Council.
Laughable really
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
It's quite simple I guess. If you read 2 articles, and one is mostly factual and the other is not, then you would be right to take a different view on each wouldn't you?
In this case? who knows, I haven't looked back at the SISU stuff that was printed. Have you?
Moff
Well-Known Member
As its quite simple as you stated, I will point out the following,
1) Private Eye tend to check quite heavily that the items they write are factual and correct, as the content in it is often quite damning...and more often about more hard hitting things than badly owned football clubs and badly run councils.
2) Yes I have looked back at the previous articles, they are all quite damning. I am a subscriber so have the back copies. I take it you haven't?
3) If you haven't looked back at them, how would be able to know that in your opinion one is correct and one isn't?
They are all quite damning, and all contain facts, its just some people choose to take a different view whilst quickly sidestepping the content.
Last edited:
Moff
Well-Known Member
oh please, they weren't praised for its investigative journalism and there is absolutely nothing ironic about criticising this article. They were praised because they were putting the information we all knew out more into the public domain, there was no investigative journalism and they were praised because they were reiterating what we all knew.
They are being criticised for this article because it's biased, misleading and factually inaccurate. if you say they have high standards of fact checking they clearly have not used it here.
