'Chang - not funny' - Adver

[horlock07]

Council money. If anyone is that interested, bang in a freedom of information request.

I suspect the amount that can be revealed by FoI will be limited a little as it relates to a commercial agreement with a private non-council entity. However there is nothing to stop banging an FoI request in.

[Cookie]

Be very specific and detailed with questions on FOIs otherwise it's fairly easy to dodge. As said above though, commercial agreements won't be revealed due to commercial confidentiality clause.

The club are in a competitive market even regarding ground rental with egg chasers playing wherever they like so is fair enough.

[Frigby Daser]

FOI applies to any information the Council holds. The fact there is a private entity is involved is irrelevant.

Commercial confidentiality isn't applicable for FoI either (I.e. Merely marking an agreement as confidential won't do it) - standard  confidentiality clauses will have a carve out for things such as FoI disclosures. Confidentiality only applies in very limited circumstances, such as disclosing a third parties intellectual property. It is a very high threshold to meet.

The council would most likely disclose it, but redact the financials under the commercial interests exemption. They'd need to show the public interest in withholding that information is greater than the public interest in disclosure. Their argument would be that disclosing the numbers and profile of payments would inhibit their ability to negotiate terms with othrr tenants, to the public detriment.

[Oaksey Moonraker]

What would be interesting is what expenditure the council have made at the County Ground since the turn of the century or future planning SBC have made for the long term future of the site. Other than maybe resurfacing the car park, very little. As SBC issue the safety certificate, they determine a lot of the maintenance expenditure.

[Frigby Daser]

What would be interesting is what expenditure the council have made at the County Ground since the turn of the century or future planning SBC have made for the long term future of the site. Other than maybe resurfacing the car park, very little. As SBC issue the safety certificate, they determine a lot of the maintenance expenditure.

All of which would be entirely disclosable.

[horlock07]

What would be interesting is what expenditure the council have made at the County Ground since the turn of the century or future planning SBC have made for the long term future of the site. Other than maybe resurfacing the car park, very little. As SBC issue the safety certificate, they determine a lot of the maintenance expenditure.

I would suspect that as the Council are of the opinion that the lease is a full maintaining lease and it would appear that Power is the first to question this I would suspect there will not be much for the Council to disclose as their maintenance contribution is probably in the region of nothing.

[horlock07]

FOI applies to any information the Council holds. The fact there is a private entity is involved is irrelevant.

Commercial confidentiality isn't applicable for FoI either (I.e. Merely marking an agreement as confidential won't do it) - standard  confidentiality clauses will have a carve out for things such as FoI disclosures. Confidentiality only applies in very limited circumstances, such as disclosing a third parties intellectual property. It is a very high threshold to meet.

The council would most likely disclose it, but redact the financials under the commercial interests exemption. They'd need to show the public interest in withholding that information is greater than the public interest in disclosure. Their argument would be that disclosing the numbers and profile of payments would inhibit their ability to negotiate terms with othrr tenants, to the public detriment.

Interesting you say this as when I previously worked in a public sector role (not a council) our Information Officers could find any number of excuses not to provide information for legal reasons - sadly normally after I had spent hours digging stuff out and passing it to them!

[Frigby Daser]

Interesting you say this as when I previously worked in a public sector role (not a council) our Information Officers could find any number of excuses not to provide information for legal reasons - sadly normally after I had spent hours digging stuff out and passing it to them!

Whether or not they're valid reasons is entirely different.

If you want to withhold, if you haven't got valid or particularly robust grounds to, you'll likely throw as much at it and hope whoever wants it loses interest -  a common tactic with journalistic requests, for example, because the story often becomes old before the timescales elapse.

If you want the information, it's worth understanding how the exemptions actually apply (i.e. how the information commissioner would find at a tribunal) so you can navigate your way through intentional or unintentional bullshit from the public authority.

[@mwooly63]

Sam Morshead @SamMorshead_  ·  15m 15 minutes ago

Swindon Town were due to be at County Court again today. Only made aware of it in last hour so not present and no further details.

 
Dont know if to do with rent or something else

[lambourn red]

I would imagine it was to sign and seal the payment plan for the outstanding debt

The tweet he was replying to was

Any reason why I would have seen Lee Power and Sangita Shah leave magistrates' court approx 1:30pm today? All smiles too

[kerry red]

He'd just slipped her one in the bogs?

[@mwooly63]

Sam Morshead ‏@SamMorshead_  3m3 minutes ago Canterbury, England
The case involving Swindon Town at the County Court today is not an offshoot of the hearing regarding rent arrears.

Plot thickens

[kerry red]

Where's the Adver when we need 'em!

[Sir Pissalot]

Can't see anything obvious in today's listings.

[JayBox325]

Could be to do with this article? http://swindonlink.com/news/do-you-recognise-stfc-laptop-thief