Non AMP
Sky Blues Talk
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The name game (1 Viewer)

  • Thread starter Grendel
  • Start date May 23, 2014
Forums New posts
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Next
First Prev 2 of 4 Next Last

Danceswithhorses

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #36
Grendel said:
I have made a statement tonight that RFC is in my opinion a council plant. Now I would not normally single out a poster but I have to conclude the agenda is to create hysteria and unity against his apparent beliefs. It's a common strategy I've deployed on several occasions. The tipping point was the absurd statement regarding the Ricoh and non attendance. By apparently supporting sisu he creates pro council unity even amongst the sceptics and undecided.

My view also is;

There is one obvious sisu plant here

Another council plant who deploys the alternate strategy

One who is PWKH with an alternate identity - Or a follower

One who is clearly associated with Higgs

Just my opinion of course.
Click to expand...
Poster with rabidly one-sided, anti-council views, accuses other poster with similar, rabidly one-sided, anti-council views, of being a council plant ?
This is comedy gold.
Did someone have too much JD last night ?
 
Last edited: May 24, 2014

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #37
Nick said:
Westwood has gone to Sunderland and we have left the the Ricoh!


Yes, it was too late!




And yes I have found a funny gif site!
Click to expand...

Ha! I edited, now you are the fool!
 

Norman Binns

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #38
Danceswithhorses said:
Poster with rabidly one-sided, anti-council views, accuses other poster with similar, rabidly one-sided, anti-council views, to be a council plant ?
This is comedy gold.
Did someone have too much JD last night ?
Click to expand...

Not only that, he's also admitted using the strategy himself on several occasions. He must have been intoxicated on JD to post that. A totally absurd, paradoxical statement and questions have to be asked about his state of mind.
 
S

shy_tall_knight

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #39
I think RFC = Pete from Cheylesmore on the skyblue phone in, confused right wing politics with a deep hate of CCC to justify anything SISU do and genuinely surprised why so many fans boycotted Sixfields
 
6

6 Generations

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #40
Grendel said:
I have made a statement tonight that RFC is in my opinion a council plant. Now I would not normally single out a poster but I have to conclude the agenda is to create hysteria and unity against his apparent beliefs. It's a common strategy I've deployed on several occasions. The tipping point was the absurd statement regarding the Ricoh and non attendance. By apparently supporting sisu he creates pro council unity even amongst the sceptics and undecided.

My view also is;

There is one obvious sisu plant here

Another council plant who deploys the alternate strategy

One who is PWKH with an alternate identity - Or a follower

One who is clearly associated with Higgs

Just my opinion of course.
Click to expand...

RFC has views that are not shared by the majority. nor, at times can he justify some of his statements.

However, i do know the chap and although our opinions are at times poles apart, he really is good company and he has supported our club for about 60 years.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #41
Norman Binns said:
Not only that, he's also admitted using the strategy himself on several occasions. He must have been intoxicated on JD to post that. A totally absurd, paradoxical statement and questions have to be asked about his state of mind.
Click to expand...

It is hardly absurd or paradoxical in my case.

The council created the situation the club is in by providing the worst rental deal of every club in the country that is council owned.

I will always put the club first. I want the club to gain maximum advantage and I want the club to have the revenues and ownership it is due having already paid millions in overcharged rent.

The purpose of the thread (other than trying to get RFC to defend his position) is to see the irony in what people like you and Dancing with Horses post with predictable rancour.

Woul you and he put the club first - no you would blather on about fair market value - doing the right thing - conveniently ignoring the wrong thing was done in the first place.

On a football forum the accusation of being a troll or a plant ( something I am often accused of) is levied by people who put the club a distant second

It is ironic - the plants, the trolls are in reality those who whine about fair values, about ACL and about getting them a fair deal. They are people like you - take a look in the mirror - you will not like what you see.
 

skybluepm2

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #42
sw88 said:
I want to be a 'plant'. Or is it a tree? Yes, I think I want to be a tree.
Click to expand...

You'll never replace Clive Platt. There's only one Tree
 

skybluepm2

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #43
smouch1975 said:
Rather than a witch hunt, can't we just enjoy these people for the obvious clowns they are??

Schadenfreude anyone?
Click to expand...

Bring back Paul Marston..the biggest tosser ever to grace a forum
 
S

shy_tall_knight

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #44
6 Generations said:
RFC has views that are not shared by the majority. nor, at times can he justify some of his statements.

However, i do know the chap and although our opinions are at times poles apart, he really is good company and he has supported our club for about 60 years.
Click to expand...

More the reason that he should not be so anti ccc/acl and so pro sisu, there is fault on all sides and needs to show balance. Does he live in Cheylesmore and go by the name Pete
 
M

martcov

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #45
Grendel said:
It is hardly absurd or paradoxical in my case.

The council created the situation the club is in by providing the worst rental deal of every club in the country that is council owned.

I will always put the club first. I want the club to gain maximum advantage and I want the club to have the revenues and ownership it is due having already paid millions in overcharged rent.

The purpose of the thread (other than trying to get RFC to defend his position) is to see the irony in what people like you and Dancing with Horses post with predictable rancour.

Woul you and he put the club first - no you would blather on about fair market value - doing the right thing - conveniently ignoring the wrong thing was done in the first place.

On a football forum the accusation of being a troll or a plant ( something I am often accused of) is levied by people who put the club a distant second

It is ironic - the plants, the trolls are in reality those who whine about fair values, about ACL and about getting them a fair deal. They are people like you - take a look in the mirror - you will not like what you see.
Click to expand...

"The council created the situation the club is in by providing the worst rental deal of every club in the country that is council owned."

No. That is at best a factor. The debts are massive, the mistakes of recent owners are huge, the running of the club was "sloppy", the accounting "a mess". To blame everything on the landlord is not on and distracts from the other problems and lets other people off the hook.
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #46
Grendel said:
It is hardly absurd or paradoxical in my case.

The council created the situation the club is in by providing the worst rental deal of every club in the country that is council owned.

I will always put the club first. I want the club to gain maximum advantage and I want the club to have the revenues and ownership it is due having already paid millions in overcharged rent.

The purpose of the thread (other than trying to get RFC to defend his position) is to see the irony in what people like you and Dancing with Horses post with predictable rancour.

Woul you and he put the club first - no you would blather on about fair market value - doing the right thing - conveniently ignoring the wrong thing was done in the first place.

On a football forum the accusation of being a troll or a plant ( something I am often accused of) is levied by people who put the club a distant second

It is ironic - the plants, the trolls are in reality those who whine about fair values, about ACL and about getting them a fair deal. They are people like you - take a look in the mirror - you will not like what you see.
Click to expand...

So would you happily see the city authority bankrupted so long as its puts the club at an advantage?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #47
Astute said:
If by your reasoning RFC is a CCC plant I would like you to consider yourself. You are on the same kind of wind up whilst attacking the council all the time. But you are not as good at trying to look unbiased as RFC is. So if he is a CCC plant would that make you a CCC weed? :thinking about:
Click to expand...

The point of the OP (rfc aside)was really aimed at the people who made unfounded accusations at Rob S regarding being a sisu plant as a tactic to isolate individuals to support their own doctrine.

It was an attempt at parodying their behaviour similar to the principal characters in The Crucible.

It failed.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #48
bigfatronssba said:
So would you happily see the city authority bankrupted so long as its puts the club at an advantage?
Click to expand...

They would not be "bankrupted" would they? Hyperbole and absurdity are your best friends.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #49
Grendel said:
It is hardly absurd or paradoxical in my case.

The council created the situation the club is in by providing the worst rental deal of every club in the country that is council owned.

I will always put the club first. I want the club to gain maximum advantage and I want the club to have the revenues and ownership it is due having already paid millions in overcharged rent.

The purpose of the thread (other than trying to get RFC to defend his position) is to see the irony in what people like you and Dancing with Horses post with predictable rancour.

Woul you and he put the club first - no you would blather on about fair market value - doing the right thing - conveniently ignoring the wrong thing was done in the first place.

On a football forum the accusation of being a troll or a plant ( something I am often accused of) is levied by people who put the club a distant second

It is ironic - the plants, the trolls are in reality those who whine about fair values, about ACL and about getting them a fair deal. They are people like you - take a look in the mirror - you will not like what you see.
Click to expand...

Grendull, if sisu were here for the benefit of the club you'd be 100% right. They have failed or are unwilling to demonstrate this to be the case. The only organisation set to gain from what you want to happen with is a hedge fund that has offices in London and a bank in a tax haven. You have pinned your hopes off benefits to the club on little more than sound bites and empty promises.

I cannot and never will champion a tax dodging hedge fund to gain at further expence to the tax payer. That's a basic principle I will not let slip for a fingers crossed hope that it will benefit the football club I support and I would question the morality off anyone who would.

If the council and/or councilors are found to have done wrong in the JR I hope heads role but that's no reason for sisu to gain financially.

And before any one says that if sisu benefit the club will, I would answer. Show me the statements made by either the club or sisu that show how this will happen. I think you'll struggle. Yet for all the filibuster, and there's been lots, we have no idea what arrangements will be for the club despite the ease of this exercise and it could win over the sceptics and possibly a large section of anti sisu camp. Yet on the thing that is most important to the club and its fans, nothing, zilch, the silence is defining.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #50
skybluetony176 said:
Grendull, if sisu were here for the benefit of the club you'd be 100% right. They have failed or are unwilling to demonstrate this to be the case. The only organisation set to gain from what you want to happen with is a hedge fund that has offices in London and a bank in a tax haven. You have pinned your hopes off benefits to the club on little more than sound bites and empty promises.

I cannot and never will champion a tax dodging hedge fund to gain at further expence to the tax payer. That's a basic principle I will not let slip for a fingers crossed hope that it will benefit the football club I support and I would question the morality off anyone who would.

If the council and/or councilors are found to have done wrong in the JR I hope heads role but that's no reason for sisu to gain financially.

And before any one says that if sisu benefit the club will, I would answer. Show me the statements made by either the club or sisu that show how this will happen. I think you'll struggle. Yet for all the filibuster, and there's been lots, we have no idea what arrangements will be for the club despite the ease of this exercise and it could win over the sceptics and possibly a large section of anti sisu camp. Yet on the thing that is most important to the club and its fans, nothing, zilch, the silence is defining.
Click to expand...

The ultimate conclusion then is sisu stay in charge you would prefer the club to remain at Sixfields indefinitely rather than secure freehold of the ground.
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #51
Grendel said:
They would not be "bankrupted" would they? Hyperbole and absurdity are your best friends.
Click to expand...

I never said they would did I?

I was asking you a hypothetical question to see how far this "I put the club first" attitude goes.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #52
bigfatronssba said:
I never said they would did I?

I was asking you a hypothetical question to see how far this "I put the club first" attitude goes.
Click to expand...

In that case why not go the whole hog and say would you choose the club or worlld peace? It lacks proportionality.
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #53
Grendel said:
In that case why not go the whole hog and say would you choose the club or worlld peace? It lacks proportionality.
Click to expand...

But saying that a £1.3m rent caused £60m of debt in 7 years doesn't lack proportionality?
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #54
Grendel said:
The ultimate conclusion then is sisu stay in charge you would prefer the club to remain at Sixfields indefinitely rather than secure freehold of the ground.
Click to expand...

Yes. That would be the ultimate conclusion. There is no possible alternatives, oh wait, I've just had a brain storm.

I'm pretty sure that there is an all seater stadium just of junction 3 on the M6. I have it on good authority that although the offices are dingy it is available for rent over a football season. Now if only grown adults were mature enough to negotiate a deal that works for all parties involved. That sounds like an ultimate conclusion. Better than certain death in Northampton anyway.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #55
skybluetony176 said:
Yes. That would be the ultimate conclusion. There is no possible alternatives, oh wait, I've just had a brain storm.

I'm pretty sure that there is an all seater stadium just of junction 3 on the M6. I have it on good authority that although the offices are dingy it is available for rent over a football season. Now if only grown adults were mature enough to negotiate a deal that works for all parties involved. That sounds like an ultimate conclusion. Better than certain death in Northampton anyway.
Click to expand...

That will not happen. So that option is removed.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #56
bigfatronssba said:
But saying that a £1.3m rent caused £60m of debt in 7 years doesn't lack proportionality?
Click to expand...

It broke the last regime. Anyway why wouldn't you want a good deal for the club. Why wouldn't that be the overriding priority?
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #57
Grendel said:
It broke the last regime. Anyway why wouldn't you want a good deal for the club. Why wouldn't that be the overriding priority?
Click to expand...

Really? So everything was fine at HR was it?

I want what is best for the club and the city, and a incompetent hedge fund getting their hands on a local landmark on the cheap isn't good for the city.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #58
Grendel said:
That will not happen. So that option is removed.
Click to expand...

Says who?
 

Samo

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #59
Grendel said:
In that case why not go the whole hog and say would you choose the club or worlld peace? It lacks proportionality.
Click to expand...

Would you feel exactly as you do if say... the BNP owned the club?
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #60
Come on now. Don't be immature and resort to petty abuse.

bigfatronssba said:
I've always considered him to be the 50 year old full kit w*nker type.
Click to expand...
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #61
Samo said:
Would you feel exactly as you do if say... the BNP owned the club?
Click to expand...

No clearly not
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #62
Grendel said:
That will not happen. So that option is removed.
Click to expand...

Says who?
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #63
So, you're happy with a new stadium being built (obviously a big if) and the Ricoh left standing empty?

bigfatronssba said:
and a incompetent hedge fund getting their hands on a local landmark on the cheap isn't good for the city.
Click to expand...
 

RegTheDonk

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #64
Its like Cluedo for City Fans.
 

Samo

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #65
Grendel said:
No clearly not
Click to expand...

So clearly it does matter who owns us and 'The Club' does not necessarily come first.
 
S

Snozz_is_god

New Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #66
bigfatronssba said:
Why exactly would the council or even sisu for that matter need "plants" on here?

It's quite clear this whole issue isn't affecting the council, and Sisu couldn't give a toss about what the fans think anyway.

Do some really believe that Fisher and Lucas are sat in their bunkers recruiting activists to go on Internet forums to spread their propaganda?

Is it not more likely that the likes of RFC just have a screw loose?
Click to expand...

Agreed big fat Rons sky blue army.


I'm sure Nick could give me the official figures, but I'd take a guess that there are no more than 200 regular posters & probably a couple or three 100 lurkers.

Hardly worth SISU or CCC's time.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #67
torchomatic said:
So, you're happy with a new stadium being built (obviously a big if) and the Ricoh left standing empty?
Click to expand...

See, that's playing into the false dichotomy set up by Sisu. There are more than two possible outcomes here.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #68
Snozz_is_god said:
Agreed big fat Rons sky blue army.


I'm sure Nick could give me the official figures, but I'd take a guess that there are no more than 200 regular posters & probably a couple or three 100 lurkers.

Hardly worth SISU or CCC's time.
Click to expand...

That's over 30% of the current fanbase!
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
  • May 24, 2014
  • #69
There are more members of this site than the biggest Sixfields crowd..
 
G

Gaz71

Well-Known Member
  • May 24, 2014
  • #70
Oasis- Going Nowhere.......
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Next
First Prev 2 of 4 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Share:
Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Coventry City Football Club
  • Coventry City General Chat
  • Default Style
  • Contact us
  • Terms and rules
  • Privacy policy
  • Help
  • Home
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2021 XenForo Ltd.
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Home
  • Forums
    • New posts
    • Search forums
  • What's new
    • New posts
    • Latest activity
  • Members
    • Current visitors
  • Donate to the Season Ticket Fund
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?