Sky Blues Trust Guardian link (1 Viewer)

[asb]

In fairness some of the statements made in the article would have to be tested in a court of law to prove or disprove them. A little like the issue over beneficial ownership of the Golden share.

As much as some journalists will claim 100% understanding and balance in the reporting of any given issue, they can at times be wrong. This does apply to all journalists including Mr Reid, although Mr Reid's twitter followers will disagree aggressively.

I am happy that some journalists will always attempt to uncover the hidden story, and feel that strong arm tactics to silence criticism and fair comment is beyond what should be allowed in a free society. It is however where we are likely to head with tighter press regulation.

As long as I was not paying the legal fees I would welcome that all points be challenged in a court of law. I would then feel comfortable in the truth of the matter.

 

---

[martcov]

I have written to squeaky bottom and asked that his clients use their right of reply with the Guardian and that they inform the general public of what is inaccurate or misleading in the article. That would be the right way of going about things.

 

[James Smith]

They have no intention of suing them as I'm sure you are aware.

You'll have noticed the word "if" at the start of that post? I have no way of knowing what CCFC or SISU intend to do. Do you?

 

[lordsummerisle]

People try to put the scares on people, just ask the person on here who was sending me correspondence that their solicitor had notified them about statements made about said person on here, when I asked if they could link me to the threads I magically never heard anything again. Just by using the word solicitor it makes it a bit scarier, doesn't it? I still keep asking if I can help and if they can use the report functionality and we can deal with it but the last was that their solicitor was looking into it to see what action they can take.

I could say is it OK for fellow city fans to threaten me because somebody has said something they disagree with on a football forum and even after me asking for the "post" so it could be dealt with they still talk about solicitor's action?

Wouldn't be somebody who has trouble working out how to use the "quote" button would it??

 

[TurkeyTrot]

I would also like to know the bits they didn't agree with but as the trust were re-publishing it that surely by the eyes of the law SISU would have a case? Morally, I think it is wrong.

It would be interesting to see whether it was SISU disagreeing or factually incorrect though?

Again, certain defenders of SISU choose to ignore the real question...
The threat of legal action against the trust is for "publishing a link" to the article. Nothing more, nothing less. How many websites/ have gone further and published the article, how many websites/ individuals have published a link to the article?
Why single out the trust?

 

[Grendel]

Again, certain defenders of SISU choose to ignore the real question...
The threat of legal action against the trust is for "publishing a link" to the article. Nothing more, nothing less. How many websites/ have gone further and published the article, how many websites/ individuals have published a link to the article?
Why single out the trust?

You should be flattered.

At least someone takes the trust seriously.

 

[Jack Griffin]

This site has the link in many places.

 

[skybluetony176]

You should be flattered.

At least someone takes the trust seriously.

And that's at least one more person than takes you seriously

 

[simple_simon]

You should be flattered.

At least someone takes the trust seriously.

That's more than can be said about you Grendel.

 

[TurkeyTrot]

You should be flattered.

At least someone takes the trust seriously.

You should have a word with Tim, you must be heartbroken.

 

[ajsccfc]

That's more than can be said about you Grendel.

And that's at least one more person than takes you seriously

Weeeeeeeeeeey! Great min- wait.

 

[Sky Blue Harry H]

Can't be bothered to scroll through whole thread, but not sure if I'm more appalled at the letter or the fact that there is a lawyer out there with the name of Speechley Bircham ointlaugh:

 

[mark82]

Threatening to sue for publishing a link to an article is ridiculous. How to win friends and influence people. Lets face it, they couldn't give less of a shit about us fans if they really tried.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Twat. CCFC threaten trust leaders with taking there houses away and all they own and still you defend them. That comment proves my point.

You should be flattered.

At least someone takes the trust seriously.

 

[Nick]

No, An actual letter from a solicitor is a million miles away from the random forum post that says "if you don't do what I want I'll set my solicitor on you" especially when the first comes from people whose MO is sueing those that in their mind wrong them, and the later is a random person on the internet, where alot of BS is said.

No, I am talking about publishing content. If there was a thread on here that was factually wrong and potentially libellous then I would / have in the past received these sorts of things.

 

[Nick]

Again, certain defenders of SISU choose to ignore the real question...
The threat of legal action against the trust is for "publishing a link" to the article. Nothing more, nothing less. How many websites/ have gone further and published the article, how many websites/ individuals have published a link to the article?
Why single out the trust?

They didn't just post a link though, they re-published it by sending the body of the article out to all of their members? That is republishing.

 

[Nick]

Wouldn't be somebody who has trouble working out how to use the "quote" button would it??

No, surprisingly it was somebody who is very outraged at all of this

 

[Nick]

Now on CET: http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/row-over-coventry-city-legal-6393208

Sort of makes sense, still heavyhanded though.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Now on CET: http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/row-over-coventry-city-legal-6393208

Sort of makes sense, still heavyhanded though.

Some people, have been asking why they took this apporach with SBT well.. "Friction between the club and trust’s board was heard at a recent fans’ consultation group meeting, when club chief executive Tim Fisher claimed the trust’s members were “lions led by donkeys”.The trust criticised the Football League for handing its “golden share” to Otium on August 2 amid administration.
The trust has been seeking to facilitate a Ricoh return.
A recent statement criticised the club over its successful judicial review application against the council’s £14million “bailout” of ACL."

I said to a friend of mine on Saturday that I think that Tim Fisher hasn't held the Trust in high regard for a while now, the protest at the Ricoh where they made that mock statue, then the following criticism's mentioned above, the Trust should have remained more neutral, the reasons they didn't are well valid and understandable, but it all builds up to make it look as if Fisher is against the Trust..

 

[Nick]

Exactly, in the past the Trust has burnt it's bridges with the club with some of their actions but hopefully now things have changed they can be built again. The trust were effectively in with ACL / Haskell when he was here.

People also keep saying "it was just a link", it wasn't just a link the article was totally republished.

Yes, I think the lawyers letter was a bit OTT but it isn't as bad or threatening as some make out, especially compared to the threats some fans have given Fisher. (This is not me sticking up for anybody)

Hopefully now it is a new set of people at the trust (or changed) things will be sorted.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Exactly, in the past the Trust has burnt it's bridges with the club with some of their actions but hopefully now things have changed they can be built again. The trust were effectively in with ACL / Haskell when he was here.

People also keep saying "it was just a link", it wasn't just a link the article was totally republished.

Yes, I think the lawyers letter was a bit OTT but it isn't as bad or threatening as some make out, especially compared to the threats some fans have given Fisher. (This is not me sticking up for anybody)

Hopefully now it is a new set of people at the trust (or changed) things will be sorted.

With respect to the letter it had to be sent and looking at it I don't think it could have been worded really to any better effect.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Robbo, Nick, I dont think I could disagree with you more to be honest.

Why exactly should the trust have stayed neutral? Their job is to do what is right for the club, and if one side decides to up sticks and move the club 35 miles away then they should be criticised.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Robbo, Nick, I dont think I could disagree with you more to be honest.

Why exactly should the trust have stayed neutral? Their job is to do what is right for the club, and if one side decides to up sticks and move the club 35 miles away then they should be criticised.

Agreed on the surface that would be the exact response I'd expect but even the Trust have said previously that they don't know all the facts regarding this mess, yet they have still taken an opinion against the club at times.

 

[mark82]

Exactly, in the past the Trust has burnt it's bridges with the club with some of their actions but hopefully now things have changed they can be built again. The trust were effectively in with ACL / Haskell when he was here.

People also keep saying "it was just a link", it wasn't just a link the article was totally republished.

Yes, I think the lawyers letter was a bit OTT but it isn't as bad or threatening as some make out, especially compared to the threats some fans have given Fisher. (This is not me sticking up for anybody)

Hopefully now it is a new set of people at the trust (or changed) things will be sorted.

New people on the trust board? Must have missed that.

 

[Nick]

New people on the trust board? Must have missed that.

Yep, I think there has been a juggle. Steve is now Chairman.

 

[skybluetony176]

Exactly, in the past the Trust has burnt it's bridges with the club with some of their actions but hopefully now things have changed they can be built again. The trust were effectively in with ACL / Haskell when he was here.

People also keep saying "it was just a link", it wasn't just a link the article was totally republished.

Yes, I think the lawyers letter was a bit OTT but it isn't as bad or threatening as some make out, especially compared to the threats some fans have given Fisher. (This is not me sticking up for anybody)

Hopefully now it is a new set of people at the trust (or changed) things will be sorted.

Nick what bridges are Sisu planning to build, to rebuild its trust with the fans?

You dont think it was a threat. then why would sisu have to take legal action against the trust as well. even Les conceeded in my exclusive with him that it would be their choice. in other words there is not a law in the land that would make them take the legal action, it would be something they would decide to do themselves. sounds like a threat to me.

i cant believe your priority from this is a change off personel at the trust, why not the owners?

 

[Nick]

Nick what bridges are Sisu planning to build, to rebuild its trust with the fans?

You dont think it was a threat. then why would sisu have to take legal action against the trust as well. even Les conceeded in my exclusive with him that it would be their choice. in other words there is not a law in the land that would make them take the legal action, it would be something they would decide to do themselves. sounds like a threat to me.

i cant believe your priority from this is a change off personel at the trust, why not the owners?

What are you talking about? I said the Trust in the past burnt bridges with the club and hopefully now things have changed at the Trust there can at least be some sort of communication rather than just sucking up to ACL / Haskell.

At the end of the day if the Trust have republished incorrect information then they are in the wrong, aren't they? The same as I / the user would be if it was copied and pasted on here by a user. I have said that the legal letter was over the top and more than likely a scare tactic rather than anything that would actually ever happen.

 

[skybluetony176]

What are you talking about? I said the Trust in the past burnt bridges with the club and hopefully now things have changed at the Trust there can at least be some sort of communication rather than just sucking up to ACL / Haskell.

At the end of the day if the Trust have republished incorrect information then they are in the wrong, aren't they? The same as I / the user would be if it was copied and pasted on here by a user. I have said that the legal letter was over the top and more than likely a scare tactic rather than anything that would actually ever happen.

either way sisu have bridges to build, it would be nice if you could acknowledge that too at some point.

IF!

Scare tactic? then why send it? especially when a phone call would have had the same effect and sisu wouldn't have blown up yet another bridge in the process.

 

[Nick]

Yes, of course SISU need to build bridges with the fans and communicate a lot better as their PR in the past has been awful.

Why send a scare tactic? Obviously to scare them. Maybe I see it different as I have been on the end of phone calls and emails from legal entities in the past because other people can't think before they post.

 

[Grendel]

either way sisu have bridges to build, it would be nice if you could acknowledge that too at some point.

IF!

Scare tactic? then why send it? especially when a phone call would have had the same effect and sisu wouldn't have blown up yet another bridge in the process.

It's one letter - the guy on GMK who runs it said he had encountered a strongly would e-mail not from sisu or otium regarding some innacuracy posted there. Both sides are at it.

The solicitor letter really means nothing and does nothing.

Just yet another storm in a tea cup. If someone had e-mailed or phoned the trust you would be whining saying they can't even do it formally.

 

[mark82]

Yep, I think there has been a juggle. Steve is now Chairman.

I may just retain my membership if that is the case.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

It's one letter - the guy on GMK who runs it said he had encountered a strongly would e-mail not from sisu or otium regarding some innacuracy posted there. Both sides are at it.

The solicitor letter really means nothing and does nothing.

Just yet another storm in a tea cup. If someone had e-mailed or phoned the trust you would be whining saying they can't even do it formally.

Absolutely agree G-Man.

 

[Nick]

It's one letter - the guy on GMK who runs it said he had encountered a strongly would e-mail not from sisu or otium regarding some innacuracy posted there. Both sides are at it.

The solicitor letter really means nothing and does nothing.

Just yet another storm in a tea cup. If someone had e-mailed or phoned the trust you would be whining saying they can't even do it formally.

It happens with businesses, if you post up / publish things that aren't true and look bad then you will be asked to remove / alter them.

 

[Grendel]

It happens with businesses, if you post up / publish things that aren't true and look bad then you will be asked to remove / alter them.

I know - however explaining business policy to the increasingly hysterical mob on here is a non-starter. Your classed as sisu lover, rent boy blah blah.

 

[mark82]

My issue with it is that they are sending the letter to a fans body knowing the fans are already upset. It doesn't help the situation.

Not sure there are too many inaccuracies in the article but it is very one sided (I did only skim read when tired). If the article had criticised ACL and drawn a letter from their lawyers it probably wouldn't even have been mentioned.