Butts Groundshare Update (3 Viewers)

[rupert_bear]

Let's all answer this question honestly. Forget all previous discussions on this. If you were or had been taken to court and the case was still on going and at the moment JR1 and JR2 are would you get in meaningful talks looking to benifit your opponent to me there's but one answer, where that leaves our football club though, heaven knows.

 

---

[Nick]

Millerchip isn't being taken to court is he?

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Millerchip isn't being taken to court is he?

No and I think he wants it to remain that way

 

[Nick]

No and I think he wants it to remain that way

So anybody who takes somebody else to court, nobody should deal with them because of it?

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

So anybody who takes somebody else to court, nobody should deal with them because of it?

Lighten up ffs

 

[Nick]

Lighten up ffs

Just trying to see the logic of millerchip

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Just trying to see the logic of millerchip

Good luck there is no logic in any of this

 

[Hobo]

So anybody who takes somebody else to court, nobody should deal with them because of it?

It is part of SISU's strategy though and that goes back to before they got involved in Coventry City. They deliberately distress companies for their own gain. So other parties are entitled to approach with caution. Nobody is obliged to do business with SISU.

 

[stupot07]

*Millerchump* lol

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Millerchip isn't being taken to court is he?

Maybe he simply doesn't want to be associated with what must be the most litigious outfit ever to set foot in Coventry? It's his train set, and if he puts a pre-condition on talking to them that they stop taking everyone to court and have meaningful discussions, then it's his prerogative to do so. Why should be get caught up in the current mess?

If the club's owners won't change their stance, and he sees that as a stumbling block, then that's just it. No conspiracy theory - just a normal business decision to keep at arm's length from an ongoing dispute

 

[Otis]

No he doesn't own the land.

Well someone on the radio said it. They must have meant the lease.

 

[Hobo]

Well someone on the radio said it. They must have meant the lease.

I think it is a simple confusion as he is "owner of the land lease."

 

[Nick]

Maybe he simply doesn't want to be associated with what must be the most litigious outfit ever to set foot in Coventry? It's his train set, and if he puts a pre-condition on talking to them that they stop taking everyone to court and have meaningful discussions, then it's his prerogative to do so. Why should be get caught up in the current mess?

If the club's owners won't change their stance, and he sees that as a stumbling block, then that's just it. No conspiracy theory - just a normal business decision to keep at arm's length from an ongoing dispute

Dropping legal action against the council doesn't mean they can't or won't against him in the future?

Of course it's down to him, as it is with csf and wasps.

Much rather they said "piss off" than spin their way through it.

 

[chiefdave]

Let's all answer this question honestly. Forget all previous discussions on this. If you were or had been taken to court and the case was still on going and at the moment JR1 and JR2 are would you get in meaningful talks looking to benifit your opponent to me there's but one answer, where that leaves our football club though, heaven knows.

Happens in business all the time. Samsung still provide parts for iPhone for example yet they have multiple huge lawsuits going against each other.

 

[Captain Dart]

Dropping legal action against the council doesn't mean they can't or won't against him in the future?

Of course it's down to him, as it is with csf and wasps.

Much rather they said "piss off" than spin their way through it.

In your world SISU take legal action and anyone affected just accepts that and deals with them as is there is not a problem because CCFC must be treated especially kindly.

I can tell you now that is not the world we live in.

 

[Nick]

In your world SISU take legal action and anyone affected just accepts that and deals with them as is there is not a problem because CCFC must be treated especially kindly.

I can tell you now that is not the world we live in.

But how is millerchip affected?

Why weren't people saying not to deal with acl? Remember their legal action against Northampton?

I can understand they don't have to deal with them, it's just obvious the links..

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Dropping legal action against the council doesn't mean they can't or won't against him in the future?

Of course it's down to him, as it is with csf and wasps.

Much rather they said "piss off" than spin their way through it.

No, but he might see it as a signal is our owners intent to have meaningful discussions that are looking to find a genuine solution to the club's problems; rather than simply hit a litigation jackpot to sugar-coat their exit strategy.

And I'm sure they - like any number of parties - would be interested in working with the club, but don't like the way they handle themselves. To say 'we'd like to talk to you, but...' isn't spin. Surely it's just encouraging the other party to have a genuine dialogue and cease the stupidity; which seems to have the football club as its chief casualty at every turn

 

[NorthernWisdom]

And I'm sure they - like any number of parties - would be interested in working with the club, but don't like the way they handle themselves. To say 'we'd like to talk to you, but...' isn't spin. Surely it's just encouraging the other party to have a genuine dialogue and cease the stupidity; which seems to have the football club as its chief casualty at every turn

I get the point, about why should he get caught up in it all.

I don't, however, see (again) why stopping legal action against separate parties would be the precursor to talks. Sure, it might end up a condition of any deal (and maybe one a deal falters on) but I'd always talk to people first, with no conditions.

That's the way to build trust from both sides, surely? So if legal action then stops it's because it's mutually beneficial to do so, rather than it looking slightly like bullying.

To put boots on other feet and all that jizz... I wouldn't be dropping legal action with no guarantee of a deal if I did. What, after all, would be in it for me? It's an empty statement as far as I'm concerned. Effectively he's saying he doesn't want to get involved which, going back to the start, is entirely his right.

But far better to just say that, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Warwickhunt]

Maybe he simply doesn't want to be associated with what must be the most litigious outfit ever to set foot in Coventry? It's his train set, and if he puts a pre-condition on talking to them that they stop taking everyone to court and have meaningful discussions, then it's his prerogative to do so. Why should be get caught up in the current mess?

If the club's owners won't change their stance, and he sees that as a stumbling block, then that's just it. No conspiracy theory - just a normal business decision to keep at arm's length from an ongoing dispute

MMM So why does'not Millerchip say I don't want to deal with SISU because of their litigious nature instead of wanting to get CRFC CCC CSF talking to get the JR cancelled what benefit is it to Millerchip to get SISU to cancel the JR?

 

[chiefdave]

MMM So why does'not Millerchip say I don't want to deal with SISU because of their litigious nature instead of wanting to get CRFC CCC CSF talking to get the JR cancelled what benefit is it to Millerchip to get SISU to cancel the JR?

That's the question isn't it. Same with Wasps, they were happily talking to the club and then suddenly stopped. What's changed, is someone in the background pulling strings?

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

That's the question isn't it. Same with Wasps, they were happily talking to the club and then suddenly stopped. What's changed, is someone in the background pulling strings?

Unless they got wind of further legal a again just a thought

 

[chiefdave]

Unless they got wind of further legal a again just a thought

Not sure how you can get someone to drop legal action that hasn't even started yet!

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Not sure how you can get someone to drop legal action that hasn't even started yet!

Nor me

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I get the point, about why should he get caught up in it all.

I don't, however, see (again) why stopping legal action against separate parties would be the precursor to talks. Sure, it might end up a condition of any deal (and maybe one a deal falters on) but I'd always talk to people first, with no conditions.

That's the way to build trust from both sides, surely? So if legal action then stops it's because it's mutually beneficial to do so, rather than it looking slightly like bullying.

To put boots on other feet and all that jizz... I wouldn't be dropping legal action with no guarantee of a deal if I did. What, after all, would be in it for me? It's an empty statement as far as I'm concerned. Effectively he's saying he doesn't want to get involved which, going back to the start, is entirely his right.

But far better to just say that, as far as I'm concerned.

Not saying I know totally, just giving an example - not necessarily the right example, but a possibility.

Let me turn it; there's some on here who elude to a grand conspiracy. Mentioned after your response, but I'm just answering yours first and not ignoring others. But this grand conspiracy would be orchestrated by CCC, I presume? But why?

If the theory is that CCC are exerting pressure on CRFC to encourage SISU to cease legal action, why would they do that? Why risk exposing themselves as trying to coerce the rugby club. It's not like CCC are in any danger legally, are they?

Since JR1 and Les Reid promising the 'smoking gun' SISU have been beaten comprehensively in court at every turn. Their attempts are getting ever more desperate looking by the moment: and it's not like there's any new evidence forthcoming at any time now. SISU will continue, but we all know it's a farce. CCC's legal team would know exactly that.

So in that position and in that knowledge, why would they open themselves up to the accusation of being a draconian puppeteer and break the 'circle of trust' by involving CRFC when their position is so very and overwhelmingly strong?

 

[Nick]

The rugby club seem keen don't they? Sharp sounds like he was all for it.

 

[Warwickhunt]

Not saying I know totally, just giving an example - not necessarily the right example, but a possibility.

Let me turn it; there's some on here who elude to a grand conspiracy. Mentioned after your response, but I'm just answering yours first and not ignoring others. But this grand conspiracy would be orchestrated by CCC, I presume? But why?

If the theory is that CCC are exerting pressure on CRFC to encourage SISU to cease legal action, why would they do that? Why risk exposing themselves as trying to coerce the rugby club. It's not like CCC are in any danger legally, are they?

Since JR1 and Les Reid promising the 'smoking gun' SISU have been beaten comprehensively in court at every turn. Their attempts are getting ever more desperate looking by the moment: and it's not like there's any new evidence forthcoming at any time now. SISU will continue, but we all know it's a farce. CCC's legal team would know exactly that.

So in that position and in that knowledge, why would they open themselves up to the accusation of being a draconian puppeteer and break the 'circle of trust' by involving CRFC when their position is so very and overwhelmingly strong?

However if there is new evidence I think it's in admissible to be used as it was not in the original decision and the JR is only on what was said/shown at the time. However if the JR original judgement any way shape or form can be overturned on a technicality then the new evidence can be bought into play.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

However if there is new evidence I think it's in admissible to be used as it was not in the original decision and the JR is only on what was said/shown at the time. However if the JR original judgement any way shape or form can be overturned on a technicality then the new evidence can be bought into play.

But if we follow the grand thinking of the conspiracy theory; the fear that there might be evidence hitherto unseen in all these court cases would be sufficient for CCC to rope in an otherwise disassociated party in CRFC to apply indirect pressure to drop the JR. Really? I mean really?

 

[Captain Dart]

The rugby club seem keen don't they? Sharp sounds like he was all for it.

Keep grasping at those straws Nick. Won't change a thing, SISU are a busted flush, they're taking the club to a new level.

 

[Nick]

But if we follow the grand thinking of the conspiracy theory; the fear that there might be evidence hitherto unseen in all these court cases would be sufficient for CCC to rope in an otherwise disassociated party in CRFC to apply indirect pressure to drop the JR. Really? I mean really?

It isn't crfc is it? It's millerchip isn't it?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

It isn't crfc is it? It's millerchip isn't it?

I think drawing that differential is an exercise in semantics, Nick. Should I rephrase 'Millerchip in his role at CRFC' instead of 'CRFC'? Does that give the conspiracy theory, which in analysis looks ludicrous, any more credibility?

 

[Nick]

I think drawing that differential is an exercise in semantics, Nick. Should I rephrase 'Millerchip in his role at CRFC' instead of 'CRFC'? Does that give the conspiracy theory, which in analysis looks ludicrous, any more credibility?

Not really, as from the comments it was CRFC and Sharpe who seemed up for it.

Millerchip has more of a role with the City of Rugby and Engage now doesn't he?

 

[Warwickhunt]

But if we follow the grand thinking of the conspiracy theory; the fear that there might be evidence hitherto unseen in all these court cases would be sufficient for CCC to rope in an otherwise disassociated party in CRFC to apply indirect pressure to drop the JR. Really? I mean really?

I don't think there is a conspiracy theory by the way I just don't understand why these people just don't come out and say we don't want to do any business with you full stop! Or is it they don't want any negative PR

 

[Nick]

I don't think there is a conspiracy theory by the way I just don't understand why these people just don't come out and say we don't want to do any business with you full stop!

Because if they blame it on SISU, then they don't get the bad publicity (yes, I know they are well within their rights to as they own things etc) they would if they just said piss off.

If it was about not dealing with them because of being sued and not trusting them, why did Wasps enter negotiations knowing all about it? Then suddenly stop (around the same time as CSF stopped about the academy).

To say it is a conspiracy theory is a bit strong, but to think it is all co-incidence is a bit naive.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

I don't think there is a conspiracy theory by the way I just don't understand why these people just don't come out and say we don't want to do any business with you full stop! Or is it they don't want any negative PR

Yup, this is what troubles me.

Rational behaviour is to say thanks but no thanks to SISU.

Or alternatively to say that actually these court actions are with other parties, we'll judge on our own merits... and disregard them.

The pre-conditions are... odd.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I don't think there is a conspiracy theory by the way I just don't understand why these people just don't come out and say we don't want to do any business with you full stop! Or is it they don't want any negative PR

If you read what he's stated, he says he'll deal with them if they sort out their other issues. Maybe it's simply a case he's keen to chat, but his patience ran out when our owners launched yet another tranche of legal proceedings? Being candid, we were all deflated when they were beaten yet again last time and still pledged to fight on. Maybe he too, at that point, concluded they were without candour and were simply looking for a windfall in court, and weren't interested in genuine discussions? Given what we've seen, would that be an unreasonable conclusion for him to reach?