robbiethemole
Well-Known Member
Maybe we should copy and paste this to Andrew Pomfrett @thefootballleagueenquiries and keep bombarding them, asking how much more crap the FL will let them get away with.
http://www.supporters-direct.org/news-article/coventry-city-legal-threats-to-supporters-trust-issued
COVENTRY CITY – LEGAL THREATS TO SUPPORTERS’ TRUST ISSUED
Legal letters are being used as a new tactic in SISU Capital’s battle to secure ownership of the Ricoh Arena.
It can only be assumed that they have issued some form of communication to the Guardian already over Sports Journalist of the Year David Conn’s excellent summation of SISU’s disastrous seven-year reign, as today the supporters’ trust were warned by lawyers acting for Hedge Fund SISU Capital that they could end up being sued….after posting a link to the story!
Given the wide distribution of said link across the internet – through Facebook, Twitter, on individual blogs and sites, we presume that the letter has been received by all those who have ‘published’ the story. Indeed, this week Two Hundred Percent and Stand for Football have both put up articles, linking to Conn’s original piece.
However the story is we understand entirely factually correct, including most certainly the non-payment of rent by SISU that led to SISU filing for the administration of Coventry City FC (a fact repeated over and over during and since the months that SISU were not, er, paying rent). We’re not quite sure where the now infamous – and unsuccessful – hedge fund have a case, and we’d be interested to hear of anyone who thinks they have. Especially given David Conn’s incredible track record in exposing football’s failures and poor practice.
Joy Seppala, Tim Fisher and the returning Mark Labovitch – an ex-investment banker and former financial advisor to ex-PM Tony Blair – are the three who appear to be making all the decisions, though this one should probably be filed with the rather large pile marked ‘misguided’.
- See more at: http://www.supporters-direct.org/ne...-supporters-trust-issued#sthash.pjE5woXu.dpuf
Maybe we should copy and paste this to Andrew Pomfrett @thefootballleagueenquiries and keep bombarding them, asking how much more crap the FL will let them get away with.
Many months ago I put a reply beneath CET article on the telegraph web site. It was very critical of SISU's management of the club, it had about 30 likes in about 15 minutes. No abuse, no derogatory remarks, in fact most of it was based on information SISU had made public themselves.
Lots of other replies were abusive and emotional. They soon got blocked and to my surprise so did mine. It soon became apparent the CET had received some sort of threat of legal action. I couldn't work out how they had grounds to object to my post. After about 5 days my post was unblocked and there to see unlike some of the others.
The trouble was the news had now moved on and people wouldn't read the post now anyway. One of many ways to control the media against you I guess.
Following on from this, can the trust come up with an effective protest.
I think you may have many on your side at this point !
Many months ago I put a reply beneath CET article on the telegraph web site. It was very critical of SISU's management of the club, it had about 30 likes in about 15 minutes. No abuse, no derogatory remarks, in fact most of it was based on information SISU had made public themselves.
Lots of other replies were abusive and emotional. They soon got blocked and to my surprise so did mine. It soon became apparent the CET had received some sort of threat of legal action. I couldn't work out how they had grounds to object to my post. After about 5 days my post was unblocked and there to see unlike some of the others.
The trouble was the news had now moved on and people wouldn't read the post now anyway. One of many ways to control the media against you I guess.
Don't forget the FA.
The most effective protest I can see is for the fans to cut all ties with SISU by going independent with an AFC Coventry. I know a some people don't think that acceptable, but I don't think it is acceptable to give in to SISU's demand... I'd rather take them out of the equation. In my opinion this time next year, they'll still be litigation, the club will still be at Sixfields & there will be no application from Otium for planing permission for a new stadium anywhere in the Coventry Area.
This!
The most effective protest I can see is for the fans to cut all ties with SISU by going independent with an AFC Coventry. I know a some people don't think that acceptable, but I don't think it is acceptable to give in to SISU's demand... I'd rather take them out of the equation. In my opinion this time next year, they'll still be litigation, the club will still be at Sixfields & there will be no application from Otium for planing permission for a new stadium anywhere in the Coventry Area.
Seems Supporters direct are emphasisiing the Rent we did'nt pay last year ,Is this the area they are challenging because if It Is ,they've lost .
They drained the Escrow and followed up with £10k. per match for matchday costs .
I guess this Is why Labovitch majored on It insisting that the new offer was not matchday fees but rent . Unfortunately he's contradicted on that point by his partner colleague who several times last season openly explained that the club were paying matchday costs of £10K.
To be honest Wingy, I don't even know why we were paying rent. We only used it on matchdays, a hire agreement would have been better.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Wonder if this will be mentioned on Cwr after the match:thinking about:
So Mr Linnell its a threat of a threat:thinking about:and I suggest you dont be so patronising in your comments you sound like RFC. Niggled you hasn't it Mr Linnell?
Surely news of them suing the fans is more damaging for their reputation than anything that article could have done. Is Paul McCarthy still advising them?
I notice lordsummerisle and co have gone quiet...
Gold Star Super Fan
What did he say?
We are here to talk about football etc etc no we havent been threatened its the way he answered it :facepalm:
They've got no chance of bullying the Guardian, they take on everybody, US Government, Uk Government, over Wikileaks, NSA, Snowden etc.
They even had one of their journalists assassinated a few years back for trying to expose the CIA and their Operation Treadstone.
Can't see what on Earth there is to sue anybody for in the original article, and even less by posting a link from it.
Trust should have told them to fuck off.
Even worse than McGinnity a few years back.
i was just thinking about what he said and it was something along the lines of they never threatened to sue the trust but if they did sue david conn they would have to sue the trust as well.
why would they have to sue the trust as well? other than because they instructed their lawyers too, i cant see why they would have to go hand in hand? anybody got any bright idea's on that one?
They should post the letter up so we can see the wording
As I understand it (and I am not a lawyer) if the trust repeated the piece on their website and it was found to be defamatory then yes they would be liable for repeating the defamation. However as they only provided a link and as the piece, and as far as I can see is factual with nothing we didn't already know except the rent offer then they shouldn't be repeating anything defamatory. However the law may have changed since my last refresher and I don't know if this is still the case.i was just thinking about what he said and it was something along the lines of they never threatened to sue the trust but if they did sue david conn they would have to sue the trust as well.
why would they have to sue the trust as well? other than because they instructed their lawyers too, i cant see why they would have to go hand in hand? anybody got any bright idea's on that one?
We are seeking legal clarification to see if we can print the whole letter, just the covering letter etc. As soon as we know where we stand we will act appropriately.They should post the letter up so we can see the wording
As I understand it (and I am not a lawyer) if the trust repeated the piece on their website and it was found to be defamatory then yes they would be liable for repeating the defamation. However as they only provided a link and as the piece, and as far as I can see is factual with nothing we didn't already know except the rent offer then they shouldn't be repeating anything defamatory. However the law may have changed since my last refresher and I don't know if this is still the case.
even though the article is in the public domain?
if someone asked you for directions to the bank and that person then went and robbed that bank are you an accomplice?
Yes if you repeat publication of the piece then you're liable, the grey area for me is the link. They've successfully shut down websites linking to copyright material in the past, they weren't hosting it just providing a link to material that was infringing. I would assume either DCMA or copyright laws were used in those cases and would guess the same sort of tactic would be used here.
They've got no chance of bullying the Guardian, they take on everybody, US Government, Uk Government, over Wikileaks, NSA, Snowden etc.
They even had one of their journalists assassinated a few years back for trying to expose the CIA and their Operation Treadstone.
Can't see what on Earth there is to sue anybody for in the original article, and even less by posting a link from it.
Trust should have told them to fuck off.
Even worse than McGinnity a few years back.
Fight the cancer of bent and twisted journalism with the simple sword of truth.
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?