"TF was concerned that the Trust’s continued use of Freedom of Information enquiries indicated that they did not understand the use of an FOI versus the privacy of commercial-in-confidence discussions." I didn't really understand this. TF seems to be implying that there have been discussions with RBC, but because they were 'commercial in confidence' they didn't have to be mentioned in the answer to the FOI request. I find this very strange, because there was no request to reveal the contents of any discussions, just asking if there had been any. Someone, it seems is not being truthful.
Exactly. if its a statement then it can not be (privacy of commercial-in-confidence )Be interesting to know what that CBRE statement said
my understanding is that if there are commercial reasons for not giving the information then the authority has to say that - they do not have to give reasons or any confirmation of any meetings or not - but they can not simply ignore any part of the request
Perhaps it is TF who doesnt understand FOI's then?
In this case RBC has not refused to answer, indeed they have been quite clear in their answer. Perhaps it is TF who doesnt understand FOI's then?
Still hiding behind commercial confidentiality.
Our Les has done a story about it. Someone might like to post the link. I would do it, but it upsets some people.
Did I read that right?
The SCG will go to the next fans forum and meet the fans they claim to represent!
I would expect that to be a very interesting night.
"TF was concerned that the Trust’s continued use of Freedom of Information enquiries indicated that they did not understand the use of an FOI versus the privacy of commercial-in-confidence discussions."
This line keeps being used to explain the FOI responses, but let's be clear:
An organisation can refuse to answer questions in an FOI request on the basis of commercial confidentiality - but they have to be clear that they are refusing to answer on that basis. They cannot deliberately mislead, if they do there could be legal repercussions.
None of the organisations contacted by The Telegraph, or the Trust, have refused to answer on the basis of commercial confidentiality. They have all explicitly denied having discussions, meetings or correspondence with anyone over a large sports stadium.
That's very different from not answering or partly answering.
Hopefully everyone now understands.
"TF was concerned that the Trust’s continued use of Freedom of Information enquiries indicated that they did not understand the use of an FOI versus the privacy of commercial-in-confidence discussions."
This line keeps being used to explain the FOI responses, but let's be clear:
An organisation can refuse to answer questions in an FOI request on the basis of commercial confidentiality - but they have to be clear that they are refusing to answer on that basis. They cannot deliberately mislead, if they do there could be legal repercussions.
None of the organisations contacted by The Telegraph, or the Trust, have refused to answer on the basis of commercial confidentiality. They have all explicitly denied having discussions, meetings or correspondence with anyone over a large sports stadium.
That's very different from not answering or partly answering.
Hopefully everyone now understands.
To be fair, you only have to read posts on here and Twitter of people from the Trust to see how Anti SISU, along with the loaded questionnaires. I don't really see the point in that article though.
Does that make them anti CCFC though Nick? The bare essentials of this is supporting the team on the pitch isn't it and as far as I can see the Trust , its Board and its members have always been 100% behind that
Everyone but Mr Fisher understands this it seems.
Any chance of a comment from RBC on this?
To be fair, you only have to read posts on here and Twitter of people from the Trust to see how Anti SISU, along with the loaded questionnaires. I don't really see the point in that article though.
Nope not anti CCFC and I have said many times that some of the main trust people still go home and away every week and you could never question their status as a city fan or say anything else.
The only issue with the amount of hatred of being anti sisu is being able to deal with the club putting that hatred to the site and although you may think they are massive wankers, just keep it to yourself rather than go and speak to them and then come away calling them wankers as much as possible and moaning that they won't deal with you. (if that makes sense?)
that isn't saying I think the trust should "cosy" up to anybody and be "yes men".
this is taken from the government website regarding FOI's
https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-information-request/the-freedom-of-information-act
4. If your request is turned down
Some sensitive information isn’t available to members of the public. If this applies, an organisation must tell you why they can’t give you some or all of the information you requested.They might ask you to be more specific so they can provide just the information you need.
An organisation can also refuse your Freedom of Information (FOI) request if it will cost more than £450 (£600 for central government) to find and extract the information.
Reviews and complaints
If an organisation doesn’t provide you with the information you requested, you should first ask them to review their decision.
You can then complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office if you’re still not satisfied.
In this case RBC has not refused to answer, indeed they have been quite clear in their answer. Perhaps it is TF who doesnt understand FOI's then?
A comment from RFC would be entertaining.
Interesting choice of words, "hatred".
Is it not possible to distrust SISU and believe they have been bad for the club without "hating" them?
"Hatred" suggests (to me at least, I've not checked the OED) something emotional rather than intellectual.
Also having (briefly, once) met Jan, I don't think he's the type of person who would call anyone a "wanker".
If you arn't anti sisu you arn't informed or you arn't reasonable.
I don't understand the assertion that the questionairre was loaded, it was a perfectly reasonable question with a neither option available.
This is a leading question.
having nearly destroyed the club should Sisu
a) sell up
b) sack the board
This is not a loaded or leading question
Should the trust
a) call on sisu to sell up
b) sack the board
c) neither.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?