Not quite sure what that reply is trying to get across.
The agreement for Wasps to move here / 2 years on (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
Not quite sure what that reply is trying to get across.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
did they criticise or question the council in anyway? Even if done constructively there's no way they'll allow them.
Why wouldn't they?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
If by naming them all with sisu and others as to blame for where we are, then I suppose yes, I must have criticised them.
Dunno, but I said nothing libellous, inciteful, abusive, i blamed all parties, I submitted it, got the green waiting for it to be moderated and it never got published.
Did a similar post on both on Anderson's response article. Again not published.
Blatent PR.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Last edited:
The positives being?
Moff
Well-Known Member
The negatives being?
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
I am not sure they give them many exclusives and tend to announce any transfers just after the telegraph staff have gone home, but I do agree that they should ban their reporters from the club and talking to the players.
I'd say potentially nowhere to play and the Academy being binned off are good starting points.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Not quite sure how that relates to CET?
The club is struggling as it is with getting their message out - the last thing they need is the CET taking every sound bite out of context, spinning it in favour of their overlords.
It wasn't about the Telegraph.
What have they taken out of context?
You're trying to suggest people shouldn't be made aware of certain aspects?
It been mentioned on numerous occasions about the suppression of information by CT regarding especially CCC (which apparently Les Reid is going to do a big expose regarding, but that's still not surfaced), then when they do offer information they're still in the wrong!?
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
I think some facts reported fairly would be a start.
Ok, what hasn't been fairly reported?
There's more information come forward from CT than any other sources from what I can make out.
People are happy to slate the paper, but quick enough to quote them if it suits their position on a particular aspect.
Calista
Well-Known Member
Only just picked up on this thread, I don’t have time to read everything.
For what it’s worth, the various commitments Nick listed in the OP are exactly the reason I didn’t oppose the Wasps move in the first place – benefits for the city without damaging CCFC. I still don’t think the sale of the Ricoh in itself necessarily put CCFC in a worse position than before, given our inept failure to buy the stadium over a period of many years. But the events over the last few days regarding the Academy are a different matter, and I’m furious. Makes me a bit of a dope I guess.
Surely more is going on than meets the eye?
For what it’s worth, the various commitments Nick listed in the OP are exactly the reason I didn’t oppose the Wasps move in the first place – benefits for the city without damaging CCFC. I still don’t think the sale of the Ricoh in itself necessarily put CCFC in a worse position than before, given our inept failure to buy the stadium over a period of many years. But the events over the last few days regarding the Academy are a different matter, and I’m furious. Makes me a bit of a dope I guess.
Surely more is going on than meets the eye?
Nick
Administrator
I don't think it would make somebody a dope.
People pointed out at the time that yes selling to Wasps may be getting one up on SISU which is all well and good, but it is 250 years (effectively a lot longer than the Ricoh is going to last as a building) so it ruled out the chance of for example a Leicester type owner coming in to buy the club and then the stadium and putting the 2 together. Until then, it was still possible for somebody other than SISU to come in and buy the club and the stadium, selling to Wasps killed any chance of that dead.
I do think those "conditions" are very misleading, they were hammered all over the press and all of the promises it wouldn't effect or harm any of the city's clubs.
Obviously all just put there so that people wouldn't be against it....
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Must be brilliant for Wasps, CSF et al.
"Boss, I'm a little bit worried how the news of us buying the Academy site is going to go down"
"Ah, don't worry. We have Armybike and Italia on the case. They're going to put a big PR campaign in action."
"Boss, I'm a little bit worried how the news of us buying the Academy site is going to go down"
"Ah, don't worry. We have Armybike and Italia on the case. They're going to put a big PR campaign in action."
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Les Reid won his employment tribunal related to the CT suppressing information. There was obviously no merit in his story.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Are these two points you are making against Wasps?
eastwoodsdustman
Well-Known Member
You've done it again! Everything is turned into an anti Fisher/SISU/Seppala message. Let it go a bit. We know they're not the best. how many things that shouldn't have come to fruition have done behind peoples backs is a more pertinent question. And I'm referring to the underhand dealings of the council, Higgs,CSF and Wasps if you needed a bit of a clue.
So where's the book then offering all the details?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Tim Fisher made a bland statement in an interview. It wasn't a direct statement to the owners of the AHC. I want to move house from where I live currently and have made that known to my friends. It doesn't mean my house is up for sale.
Coventry City Council's 3 tests were the basis on which the deal with Wasps was made, something completely different and something that is open to absolute scrutiny, apart from with Mike Bray, the local sycophant for the Labour administration.
Doing business behind closed doors is standard practice. It's not underhand.
What we're the terms of CCFC returning to the Ricoh?
Nick
Administrator
That's the thing I don't get, it is like saying on facebook that one day you wanted to be a fireman or something and then going into work and getting your notice handed to you.
Saying something like that, is a whole world away from ACTUALLY handing notice in or confirming it. Using things like that for justification is absolute horse shit. If they had written confirmation from CCFC with notice of contract terminations then I would see their point.
The 5 Point Plan from CCFC in Jan 2015 saying the academy/first team would be moved into a single facility was a bland statement in an interview?
Fisher meeting with Rugby Council in March 2015 during which he clarified this was the intention was a bland statement in an interview?
How are the council's three tests open to scrutiny? They didn't have any parameters or checking/auditing requirements. They were at the point of the decision being made requirements only, as the wording makes clear.
Nick
Administrator
None of those were actually handing in notice were they? If Cov United put out a statement saying that they wanted their own stadium, does that mean the place where they play can just boot them out?
IF CCFC had sent in written notice to confirm they wanted to cancel, I can totally understand.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
I think there's some bug where you have to reply to something first
If Cov United such a statement, held meetings with councils and continued to moot their intentions to do that, then yes from a business perspective it would be deemed reasonable for their contract not to be renewed.
Nick
Administrator
Even though they hadn't actually handed in any formal notice confirming this?
As far as I know Cov United have held talks with the Butts, said their intention is a bigger ground. I don't see why Sphinx would kick them out for it unless they have given Sphinx actual written notice.
eastwoodsdustman
Well-Known Member
How are the council's three tests open to scrutiny? They didn't have any parameters or checking/auditing requirements. They were at the point of the decision being made requirements only, as the wording makes clear.
So if they are requirements why are they not being met? Were they agreed to and reneged on or was it a box ticking exercise to appease the unwashed?
So if they are requirements why are they not being met? Were they agreed to and reneged on or was it a box ticking exercise to appease the unwashed?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Yeah, bland statements, absolutely no detail about location, actions required or even a timeframe. They are the epitome of bland statements.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
You've answered your own question.
eastwoodsdustman
Well-Known Member
If I can see it and you can see it and you can see it and I can see it, can anyone else see it?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The test for the security and future of CCFC / CRFC is based on considering a long term impact, not just what was happening on the day the decision was made. As such, the ensure that test was being met, the council must have considered some parameters in which Wasps could operate.
Nick
Administrator
Some people can't, as they are too blinded by hate.
It was pretty much said just to stop people from being angry about Wasps, The council decided on behalf of CCFC and CRFC that everything would be fine but put that out to stop any anger.
There is also this statement from Cllr Mutton in 2012 when the sale of the Higgs share was being discussed:
"there would have to be a legal agreement so they that they couldn’t use the Ricoh as collateral to get a loan."
I take it the council didn't get this one sorted.
"there would have to be a legal agreement so they that they couldn’t use the Ricoh as collateral to get a loan."
I take it the council didn't get this one sorted.
