You lose all impact when you use the word sheep, try to think of something original for once.
Repeatedly stating "IT woz ACL wot did it" is not offering another view, it's noise. Every argument I've seen, from the rent being too high (not any more it isn't) to revenue streams (on offer, and no evidence that they'll be better at new stadium) has been argued against rationally.
Where you see the froth and foam is the idea that Sisu should be given the Ricoh at a cut price, either through capitulation to their demands or through ACL going bust, and often not just ACL but requests for the freehold to go through. That is a moral argument in a large part (giving away publically owned assets) hence the lack of sense and large amount of bluster.
I think the really telling word in your post is "sheep", the viewpoint I see from a lot of anti-ACL posters, and it's no coincidence the hive of this is GMK, is that of a kind of "edgy" "hipster" who has to prove how clever he is by constantly playing devils advocate and whatever the mainstream view is. There are one or two who offer genuine debate (and funnily enough those are the ones who when prodded admit to not wanting Sisu here either) but there are many more who either have been Trolls pre-Sisu (Grendel) or who have always taken against the "mainstream" view (GMK). They deserve all the shortness they get.
Trolls pre sisu? Have they only been here since September 2011 my it seems so much longer. So you call people trolls, hip, trendy and you claim that those who rightly see the council faults are not worthy of debating.
My impression of you is that you are someone who gets taken in easily - you believe the spin and manipulation ACL and the council chuck out.
I have asked you many times to find and identify one pro sisu post I have made and you of course cannot find one
Strangely Schmee some of us can see both sides are at fault and can actually also see what the stakes are. NOPM will not work and sisu will stick this out.
Calling me a troll is funny really. My overriding wish is for the club to return to the Ricoh. What's yours Schmee to protect your precious Ricoh for future generations? It may have escaped your notice but this is a football forum not property regeneration world.
Repeatedly stating "IT woz ACL wot did it" is not offering another view, it's noise. Every argument I've seen, from the rent being too high (not any more it isn't) to revenue streams (on offer, and no evidence that they'll be better at new stadium) has been argued against rationally.
Where you see the froth and foam is the idea that Sisu should be given the Ricoh at a cut price, either through capitulation to their demands or through ACL going bust, and often not just ACL but requests for the freehold to go through. That is a moral argument in a large part (giving away publically owned assets) hence the lack of sense and large amount of bluster.
I think the really telling word in your post is "sheep", the viewpoint I see from a lot of anti-ACL posters, and it's no coincidence the hive of this is GMK, is that of a kind of "edgy" "hipster" who has to prove how clever he is by constantly playing devils advocate and whatever the mainstream view is. There are one or two who offer genuine debate (and funnily enough those are the ones who when prodded admit to not wanting Sisu here either) but there are many more who either have been Trolls pre-Sisu (Grendel) or who have always taken against the "mainstream" view (GMK). They deserve all the shortness they get.
I may be completely wrong about this and if I am I apologise. My understanding of NOPM is that it is a move started to starve SISU of funds to presurise them into realising the depth of fans' frustration and opposiiton to the move to Sixfields with a few of returning our club to Coventry. If in that case 'the club' receives revenue from the BBC for covering matches, shouldn't the BBC and all it's programes be boycotted by supporters of NOPM? My wife would kill me as it would mean no Eastenders....Oh the joy... Get it? Joy? I assume some of the posters who are actually listening to Stuart Linnell are actually supporters of NOPM, so why are they listening to him and going against a code of practice they have chosen to follow? BTW I have chosen not to go to Sixfields and attend cup games and have purchased my Crawley, Carlisle (City were brilliant yesterday) and Shrewsbury tickets direct from those clubs.
One of the sad parts about the infighting here is that most of the people involved agree about far more than they'd realise.
Take your point willie, however its the choice of the bbc to pay for the contract, not ours (unless, as you say, you dont pay your tv licence). You dont have as much choice as, say, you shop at M&S because you dont support Primarks exploiting cheap pakistain labour.
As I see it NOPM is very simple. Fans do not give any money to the club until
1) the team plays home games in Coventry
Some fans add a second aim
2) SISU sell up and leave.
Now, as with any campaign there will be a range of approaches from literalist/ fundamentalists who go to great lengths to ensure nothing goes to the club.
Others will be more liberal.
For me personally, and I think a huge number of other fans, it means no tickets for Sixfields, no replica shirts, no merchandise and buy away tickets from away club.
I make no judgements about others but think the above stance would be very effective if we stick together. It may not "work" in forcing SISU to return to Coventry or, better still, leave. It is still the right thing to do even if it fails to achieve either, for 2 reasons
A) To go to Sixfields means you accept watching your club play outside Coventry. It is not acceptable. SISU could, in future years, move us again, and again. How could we fight that when we have shown we would meekly follow now?
B) The move to Sixfields is unnecessary. We have access to a fine stadium if our owners show good sense and make a deal.
Keep the faith.
Stand firm
NOPM
PUSB
Repeatedly stating "IT woz ACL wot did it" is not offering another view, it's noise. Every argument I've seen, from the rent being too high (not any more it isn't) to revenue streams (on offer, and no evidence that they'll be better at new stadium) has been argued against rationally.
Where you see the froth and foam is the idea that Sisu should be given the Ricoh at a cut price, either through capitulation to their demands or through ACL going bust, and often not just ACL but requests for the freehold to go through. That is a moral argument in a large part (giving away publically owned assets) hence the lack of sense and large amount of bluster.
I think the really telling word in your post is "sheep", the viewpoint I see from a lot of anti-ACL posters, and it's no coincidence the hive of this is GMK, is that of a kind of "edgy" "hipster" who has to prove how clever he is by constantly playing devils advocate and whatever the mainstream view is. There are one or two who offer genuine debate (and funnily enough those are the ones who when prodded admit to not wanting Sisu here either) but there are many more who either have been Trolls pre-Sisu (Grendel) or who have always taken against the "mainstream" view (GMK). They deserve all the shortness they get.
Please don't make me dig up your years of pro-Sisu posts on GMK(when being pro-Sisu was of course "mainstream".
On Friday night's phone in I did notice Clive Eakin continually refer to the move to Sixfields being 'short term' a phrase he repeatedly used, not quite sure how 3-5 years equates to short term. I think part of the problem is the is they portray a pretty typical BBC mindset, arrogance that the BBC can never be wrong. The BBC exerts a pretty powerful influence, I believe it controls more than 60% of total news output, and is funded by a compulsory tax, thus not really subjected to the normal commercial pressures.
If you don't like the Mail/Guardian/Times you don't have to buy them, however if you want to watch TV, legally you have to buy a licence. Recent 'events' at the BBC have shown that it doesn't handle criticism very well, always seeming slow and reluctant to admit errors.
I didn't realise Richard Littlejohn posted on here.
It is a short term move in the context that most clubs stay at one ground for 70 years or more. I am not sure why you're disputing the terms used.
I'm not sure most Coventry City fans would consider the club being away from Coventry for probably at least 5 years as short term. I would wager that most fans consider the exile far too long already. Not sure why you would bring Littlejohn into this ,I was actually thinking of the Jimmy Saville episode, not some cheap political point scoring.
These people only care about their jobs.They are not brought up city fans, only sing the sky blues cause for their wage check. Whether city play in coventry , northampton or mars, it makes no difference to them. They have their radio job. But once this is threatened watch them become the biggest campaigners for Cov in coventry
who they support doesn't influence the line taken.
I think that's a bit naive fp. To suggest a journalist cannot influence people towards his own (or the BBC's) agenda is laughable. I'm not suggesting Linnel does try to do that, more of a general comment.
FWIW, he is a professional broadcaster therefore is very comfortable when discussing the issues on the radio, and the majority of callers I expect are not as well versed, and usually fail to put forward their argument well once challenged. Whether that is because their argument is just weak, or their debating skills are, or they are just nervous on the radio differs from caller to caller. I think Linnel tries to be "neutral" but sometimes his bias does show.
I was on about the team rather than any particular individual or group, i.e. that Clive Eakin's support of Tranmere doesn't affect his commentary on CCFC.
If linnell were neutral as he claims, then he would treat both sidesof the argument equally - yet he consistently hasn't. Every time anyone from sisu are spouting the virtues of them he has treated them with kid gloves yet when acl or anyone with a valid point against he thinks he is rumpole of the bailey!
He constantly spouts on about being self employed (thus impartial) yet seems to forget to mention that he has for years presented the city awards ceremonies! So unless he did these for free, he has been paid for work by sisu, socan hardly call himself impartial! It's one thing to be partial when representing the city, it is a totally differnet one when you are in effect abusing the privileged positon you have presenting for the bbc!
Time to do one Linnell you are a disgrace to the bbc
Poor guy he can't seem to grasp either that if he is paid by SISU - HE WORKS FOR SISU lol
"No but I'm freelance"
TWAT Time to go Linnell your not wanted you muppet yor going the same way as fisher GET GONE !!!
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?