It's a bond for 1 millionWhat’s the 1 million bond?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's a bond for 1 million
The EFL want it as a guarantee that the club will fulfill it's fixturesWhat’s the 1 million bond?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The EFL want it as a guarantee that the club will fulfill it's fixtures
Interesting comments. I wonder if the Cov Tel will report this...
They should do as it’s their sister paper. On the other hand...,,,Interesting comments. I wonder if the Cov Tel will report this...
Sent from my G8441 using Tapatalk
In the Times this morning, it states that the bond is to ensure that Coventry City return to Coventry to fulfill fixtures for the season after this one.The EFL want it as a guarantee that the club will fulfill it's fixtures
I don't think it specifies that it will be next season. Just that they will not undertake to make a permanent home outside the Coventry area.In the Times this morning, it states that the bond is to ensure that Coventry City return to Coventry to fulfill fixtures for the season after this one.
Both him and Gilbert have completely ignored the fact sisu signed something in April. Neither of them will answer when asked.Meanwhile the Conn artist in the Guardian continues to spout his biased shite (and retweeted by Giblet)
What balance?Incidentally, does anyone else feel that him retweeting (and therefore endorsing) this post calls into question Simon Gilbert's balance as an employee of the BBC, and should it be challenged?
I don't know if you are stating the obvious, but just in case it's a genuine question, BBC employees are required to express balance when reporting on news items, not take sides. While Gilbert has been keen to stress that he isn't expressing "an opinion" in recent arguments with you and me, this retweet is clearly condoning what Conn-man says, which is factually inaccurate.What balance?
The Times quote is ‘Coventry will have to lodge a £1 million bond with the EFL as a guarantee that they will return to the Coventry area the season after next’. Of course, the Times could be wrong... If that is, however, the guarantee, then it’s very interesting.I don't think it specifies that it will be next season. Just that they will not undertake to make a permanent home outside the Coventry area.
I can't find the quote just now ...The Times quote is ‘Coventry will have to lodge a £1 million bond with the EFL as a guarantee that they will return to the Coventry area the season after next’. Of course, the Times could be wrong... If that is, however, the guarantee, then it’s very interesting.
He keeps saying he can't have an opinion but yesterday when asked he said something was just his "analysis". It's no shock him and conn were both trying to push the same thing.I don't know if you are stating the obvious, but just in case it's a genuine question, BBC employees are required to express balance when reporting on news items, not take sides. While Gilbert has been keen to stress that he isn't expressing "an opinion" in recent arguments with you and me, this retweet is clearly condoning what Conn-man says, which is factually inaccurate.
No doubt he will try to hide behind some disclaimer that retweets don't reflect his views, or that it's a personal Twitter account not an official BBC one, but his profile clearly promotes himself as a BBC employee. He should ask Billy Vunipola if retweets and likes of other people's posts on social media are regarded as your own opinion!!!
Be nice if that real journalist was fresh not connected and totally impartial on the whole sorry affair!There is something bad smelling in this pile of poo - lets hope a real journalist spends the time to find the truth
It's beyond a joke. There's no way he isn't aware what he is doing, every time he posts his one sided rubbish he is met with replies point out his factual errors and failure to look at all sides. Yet he keeps pumping out the same line.Meanwhile the Conn artist in the Guardian continues to spout his biased shite (and retweeted by Giblet)
It us where sympathy for the owners can't be anything but, well... zero.“In the meantime the owners of the club are now faced with trying to build our own stadium.”
Ah yes, forced to do what they annouced they were going to do in May 2013.
Last time the club chose to leave , this time they have no option too stay...It us where sympathy for the owners can't be anything but, well... zero.
I keep seeing it's different to last time - I find it remarkably similar!
You could argue they had no option last time as to stay would have bankrupted the club - which is the argument this time.Last time the club chose to leave , this time they have no option too stay...
Yes they might need to put up or shut up in regards to building their own stadium, but in the meantime we should be given the right to play at the Ricoh.
Last time the club chose to leave , this time they have no option too stay...
Yes they might need to put up or shut up in regards to building their own stadium, but in the meantime we should be given the right to play at the Ricoh.
Had 6 years to find a site and build. Haven’t even done the former and very little evidence to show they have been doing the work to do so.
I thought they did find a site and after months of Duggins saying they hadn't he slipped up and let the cat out of the bag?
It’s that the case, Sisu should be all over that, getting fans on side
Exactly, but all that has to happen is someone says 'but SISU' and all pressure is off the council again and they are left to do whatever they want no matter how much is screws over the club.It’s that the case, Sisu should be all over that, getting fans on side
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?