Chris Anderson (8 Viewers)

[dongonzalos]

like you dismissed the below soundbite from Chris Anderson? doesnt say what you want it to as it doesnt make wasps sound like heroes. I'd rather take into account ALL statements then either make a decision based on everything or reserve judgement as this seems to be a convenient distraction from our academy being shafted. Better to reserve judgement than take something as fact without knowing the truth...


Were you able to reach any provisional agreements / common ground on the 17 or so areas where you were looking for a better deal for the club?
"No. We had productive and friendly conversations about the various areas that an agreement should cover, like parking, rent, ticket office and retail shop, health and safety, even the colour of the seats and the Jimmy Hill statue or Memorial Garden - but we never got to that stage."

I am prepared to take CA on face value
I don't think he has pulled any flankers yet.
I have been defending him. Unlike you I am prepared to say exert pressure on both sides.
Cov to drop the legal action that most think is a waste of time. At the point of Wasps signing a deal over the long term suitable for all.
Your pure hatred towards Wasps clouds your rational judgement.
The legal battles are not advantageous to CCFC and if there is a chance stopping them will help CCFC then that's what would happen.
Here however is when you get to see if SISU will make a decision that is best for the club but not necessarily them.
Also you would get to see if Wasps are just out to force us out or if they do want a long term deal but only with the legal shenanigans over

 

---

[dongonzalos]

How are negotiations with the football club over the Ricoh Arena progressing?
“We actually enjoyed a couple of months of very constructive conversations about a long-term deal here at the Ricoh Arena.

“I have seen Chris make reference to his 17-point plan, and I didn’t realise there were 17 points until he said that - but there probably were.

“But it wasn’t done where they came with a list of 17 demands, if we were going to do a long deal - and we were talking about a 20- or 25-year deal, he had drawn up a list of issues he thought we needed to address.

“We went through those line by line and put together a plan that would address what Coventry City need from it and that would still be commercially viable for us.

“We were making very good progress, we were probably halfway to two thirds of the way through the list.


“We still had some points not agreed, but we agreed some of the key points for example how to make food and beverage work from their point of view, how hospitality would work, where to locate a club shop in the stadium - all those sort of things were agreed.


“What we found difficult was, as those conversations progressed, concluding on any arrangement of that sort while the various legal actions and judicial reviews were still going on.

“We decided that we wouldn’t conclude the conversation at that point in time. This was during the time when various appeals were going on at the Court of Appeal.

“I’m not a lawyer but you can’t ignore the volume of comment about it. We felt it was difficult to conclude on a long-term arrangement while all that was still going on. But we had made very good progress

"There were still a few to agree, though I can’t go into the details of what but it was a discussion conducted in a very conductive and cooperative manner over several meetings between Chris and I.”

You were saying something about him lying?

SBK don't bother it was just fishing
He and others know exactly what Wasps said.
I personally don't give a toss about Wasps. I have no interest in them because I have stated I understand why the council made the choices they made. The odd person and their frothing hate for Wasps and the council. See anything a bit balanced as a defence of Wasps.
If they actually thought a bit more out of the box. They would have saw I was defending Anderson. I am taking him on his word that he was trying to secure a long term deal.
So in my eyes he has done nothing wrong. It's common sense that this option is actually the best thing for CCFC. Anderson was trying to do that.
The pointless antagonising court action that gets us absolutely nowhere but ends up hurting us is nothing to do with him.
If Wasps are also telling the truth they also want the long term deal.
However they want the legal action dropped first.
The legal action is pointless. So why not call Wasps bluff. Suggest a continuation of the negotiations if terms can be agreed then at the point of signing, the legal action is dropped.
What fan who states they support the club and only want what's best for CCFC would not want that?
The legal action is SISU not CCFC and our future is saved.
The only ones who wouldn't want it would be be someone whose hate for Wasps is more important than their love for CCFC. (IMO)

 

[kmj5000]

I think he's making a subtle point that's clearly lost on you

Clearly. Please enlighten me.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Clearly. Please enlighten me.

It's more a reference back to comments made by that Paul Breed character I think.

 

[stupot07]

I am prepared to take CA on face value
I don't think he has pulled any flankers yet.
I have been defending him. Unlike you I am prepared to say exert pressure on both sides.
Cov to drop the legal action that most think is a waste of time. At the point of Wasps signing a deal over the long term suitable for all.
Your pure hatred towards Wasps clouds your rational judgement.
The legal battles are not advantageous to CCFC and if there is a chance stopping them will help CCFC then that's what would happen.
Here however is when you get to see if SISU will make a decision that is best for the club but not necessarily them.
Also you would get to see if Wasps are just out to force us out or if they do want a long term deal but only with the legal shenanigans over

Fuck off don, I've been saying on other threads we need to pressure all side including sisu

Yeah, I hate wasps so fucking what.

Wasps should get back round that table and negotiate a deal, if its acceptable to all sides, get it drawn up then, ask for thr legal action to be dropped before its signed.

The current legal action had fuck all to do with wasps. Yes we all want it dropped but wasps shouldn't be using it as blackmail to get around a table and have a discussion.

You're obviously not prepared to take CA at face value, given you believe that 2/3rds of a deal has already been agreed because wasps (didn't) say so, but dismiss CA saying that there was no agreement just some general discussions.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[armybike]

Both of them are saying the same thing.

The point that appears to be being missed is the specific question they were both asked -

Anderson was asked a direct question -

"Were you able to reach any provisional agreements / common ground on the 17 or so areas where you were looking for a better deal for the club?"

It's correct that the answer to this is no, agreements and common ground weren't reached on the 17 points.

Armstrong an open one -

"How are negotiations with the football club over the Ricoh Arena progressing?"

By saying they'd got ½ - ⅔ of the way through the list and agreed on some key points (not that they'd agreed on ½ or ⅔ of the points) also confirms agreements and common ground weren't reached on the 17 points.

 

[stupot07]

Both of them are saying the same thing.

The point that appears to be being missed is the specific question they were both asked -

Anderson was asked a direct question -

"Were you able to reach any provisional agreements / common ground on the 17 or so areas where you were looking for a better deal for the club?"

It's correct that the answer to this is no, agreements and common ground weren't reached on the 17 points.

Armstrong an open one -

"How are negotiations with the football club over the Ricoh Arena progressing?"

By saying they'd got ½ - ⅔ of the way through the list and agreed on some key points (not that they'd agreed on ½ or ⅔ of the points) also confirms agreements and common ground weren't reached on the 17 points.

Well DA lied then didn't he. Should have answered

""How are negotiations with the football club over the Ricoh Arena progressing?"

They are not, we have put them on hold and won't speak to the football cub until the legal action that has nothing to do with us is gone..

That is the correct answer, there are no negotiations at the minute, we certainly aren't in the position where "a lot of the 17 points have been agreed"

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Well DA lied then didn't he. Should have answered

""How are negotiations with the football club over the Ricoh Arena progressing?"

They are not, we have put them on hold and won't speak to the football cub until the legal action that has nothing to do with us is gone..

That is the correct answer, there are no negotiations at the minute, we certainly aren't in the position where "a lot of the 17 points have been agreed"

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Once again Stupot07..... "Splitting hairs"

 

[armybike]

Well DA lied then didn't he. Should have answered

""How are negotiations with the football club over the Ricoh Arena progressing?"

They are not, we have put them on hold and won't speak to the football cub until the legal action that has nothing to do with us is gone..

That is the correct answer, there are no negotiations at the minute, we certainly aren't in the position where "a lot of the 17 points have been agreed"

No, he's not lied.

The negotiations haven't been scrapped or abandoned, they've been put on hold.

A point was reached where they were put on hold, which he openly acknowledged.

 

[stupot07]

No, he's not lied.

The negotiations haven't been scrapped or abandoned, they've been put on hold.

A point was reached where they were put on hold, which he openly acknowledged.

All sementics, there are no negotiations, they have stopped. Hes embellishing the truth, making everything look hunky dory but then blaming the JR which has nothing to do with wasps, has no affect on wasps and is no longer causing a ripple of interest.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[armybike]

All sementics, there are no negotiations, they have stopped. Hes embellishing the truth, making everything look hunky dory but then blaming the JR which has nothing to do with wasps, has no affect on wasps and is no longer causing a ripple of interest.

I'm not so sure you understand what the term negotiations actually means.

They've not stopped, they've not come to an end. They've been put on hold.

You said he's lied. That in fact is a lie.

 

[stupot07]

I'm not so sure you understand what the term negotiations actually means.

They've not stopped, they've not come to an end. They've been put on hold.

You said he's lied. That in fact is a lie.

Don't patronise me, I know exactly what a negotiation is.

Sisu arent going to drop the JR appeal, the negoations have stopped. Wasps should get back around that table.

Keep on with your crusade of down ng wasps PR for them, you're doing a great job.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[armybike]

Don't patronise me, I know exactly what a negotiation is.

Sisu arent going to drop the JR appeal, the negoations have stopped. Wasps should get back around that table.

So you know categorically that the negoations won't continue at any point in the future?

 

[stupot07]

So you know categorically that the negoations won't continue at any point in the future?

no one knows that. But at the minute they have stopped.

Do you believe wasps are right to stop them?

Or like me and others so you think its a convenient excuse, and they should get round the table and negotiate and agree a deal, get it drawn up, then if they aren't happy to sign it until the legals are dropped say it then rather than we won't speak to you now?



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Grendel]

All sementics, there are no negotiations, they have stopped. Hes embellishing the truth, making everything look hunky dory but then blaming the JR which has nothing to do with wasps, has no affect on wasps and is no longer causing a ripple of interest.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Indeed. "Have wasps put any restrictions such as dropping legal action" Chris Anderson - "no"

 

[armybike]

no one knows that. But at the minute they have stopped.

Do you believe wasps are right to stop them?

Or like me and others so you think its a convenient excuse, and they should get round the table and negotiate and agree a deal, get it drawn up, then if they aren't happy to sign it until the legals are dropped say it then rather than we won't speak to you now?

Stopped for now - so come to an end?

But could be pick up and continue in the future - so, they're actually on hold.

I don't agree they should have put the negoations on hold for this reason, but equally I don't agree with SISU's decision to proceed with a further appeal process.

Both parties deem their actions are appropriate, but from what I've read nobody appears to believe either side are making the right choices.

This is an honest question, have you approached SISU with your suggestion regarding a contractual agreement being reached?

It seems like a more than reasonable suggestion and if SISU were to agree they could look towards approaching Wasps.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

In Football parlance, "At the end of the day" the talks have been put on hold. Wasps have said they can resume in the future if the JR's are dropped. You need to ask yourselves, "Do i trust, and believe, Wasps will do the right thing by CCFC" Whilst in the same breath you must ask yourself exactly the same thing of SISU.

 

[Grendel]

In Football parlance, "At the end of the day" the talks have been put on hold. Wasps have said they can resume in the future if the JR's are dropped. You need to ask yourselves, "Do i trust, and believe, Wasps will do the right thing by CCFC" Whilst in the same breath you must ask yourself exactly the same thing of SISU.

They haven't said that.

The reality is what they and want the club wants are a million miles from each other.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

They haven't said that.

The reality is what they and want the club wants are a million miles from each other.

Who says that? Armstrong, Anderson, or more likely.....YOU.

 

[Grendel]

Who says that? Armstrong, Anderson, or more likely.....YOU.

They've both said it - pretty much dismissed by Armstrong.

The truth is why would they agree to anything? Everyone assumes sisu are delaying but Wasps hold all the cards - there is an offer now - their offer - CCFC don't think that offer is good for this club.

 

[Grendel]

SBK don't bother it was just fishing
He and others know exactly what Wasps said.
I personally don't give a toss about Wasps. I have no interest in them because I have stated I understand why the council made the choices they made. The odd person and their frothing hate for Wasps and the council. See anything a bit balanced as a defence of Wasps.
If they actually thought a bit more out of the box. They would have saw I was defending Anderson. I am taking him on his word that he was trying to secure a long term deal.
So in my eyes he has done nothing wrong. It's common sense that this option is actually the best thing for CCFC. Anderson was trying to do that.
The pointless antagonising court action that gets us absolutely nowhere but ends up hurting us is nothing to do with him.
If Wasps are also telling the truth they also want the long term deal.
However they want the legal action dropped first.
The legal action is pointless. So why not call Wasps bluff. Suggest a continuation of the negotiations if terms can be agreed then at the point of signing, the legal action is dropped.
What fan who states they support the club and only want what's best for CCFC would not want that?
The legal action is SISU not CCFC and our future is saved.
The only ones who wouldn't want it would be be someone whose hate for Wasps is more important than their love for CCFC. (IMO)

Have a look at what Rob Smith says on this thread. He is a long standing wasps fan and has also in the past wrote a series of blogs on the theory that Richardson was long perusing the Ricoh while CCFC wee still paying the full rent.

He pretty much dismissed the legal reason as bullshit - which it is

http://m.rugbynetwork.net/boards/read/s96.htm?98,15666787,page=5

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

They've both said it - pretty much dismissed by Armstrong.

The truth is why would they agree to anything? Everyone assumes sisu are delaying but Wasps hold all the cards - there is an offer now - their offer - CCFC don't think that offer is good for this club.

I'm not saying that CCFC are delaying. Anderson has said on behalf of SISU(Told to say) There are no agreements(His/their perogative) and Armstrong has said Some agreements made though not all, and the talks put on hold for now by "Both sides" Armstrong saying because of "Background noise" from the JR's(His/Wasps perogative)

 

[dongonzalos]

Well DA lied then didn't he. Should have answered

""How are negotiations with the football club over the Ricoh Arena progressing?"

They are not, we have put them on hold and won't speak to the football cub until the legal action that has nothing to do with us is gone..

That is the correct answer, there are no negotiations at the minute, we certainly aren't in the position where "a lot of the 17 points have been agreed"

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

He should have just answered it as he sees it.
Which until I see any conclusive evidence to call him a liar I am going to believe he has.
The same with CA, it's quite obvious you can answer the way they both have regarding the same thing thing without been liars.
Both of them will be telling the truth in my opinion.
You are just spinning to suit your interpretation which is driven by your hate of Wasps.
If it is dropped on their toes about dropping the legals if a deal is signed and they are still not interested. Then yes he would then be a liar.
To offer that deal though for SISU would be putting the club first over their own agenda.
I hope the likes of Grendel are right when they say the decisions made by SISU ultimately will benefit the club.
If so they should have no problem dropping the legals in exchange for a deal.

 

[dongonzalos]

Have a look at what Rob Smith says on this thread. He is a long standing wasps fan and has also in the past wrote a series of blogs on the theory that Richardson was long perusing the Ricoh while CCFC wee still paying the full rent.

He pretty much dismissed the legal reason as bullshit - which it is

http://m.rugbynetwork.net/boards/read/s96.htm?98,15666787,page=5

Call them out then.
Offer to drop the legals if a long term agreement is reached

 

[stupot07]

He should have just answered it as he sees it.
Which until I see any conclusive evidence to call him a liar I am going to believe he has.
The same with CA, it's quite obvious you can answer the way they both have regarding the same thing thing without been liars.
Both of them will be telling the truth in my opinion.
You are just spinning to suit your interpretation which is driven by your hate of Wasps.
If it is dropped on their toes about dropping the legals if a deal is signed and they are still not interested. Then yes he would then be a liar.
To offer that deal though for SISU would be putting the club first over their own agenda.
I hope the likes of Grendel are right when they say the decisions made by SISU ultimately will benefit the club.
If so they should have no problem dropping the legals in exchange for a deal.

I don't let my hatred of wasps cloud anything.

So have they agreed on a lot of the 17 points or not?

The legals are a complete red herring and nothing to do with Wasps. Great PR though, we're all back looking at sisu and not then whilst they shaft our academy and club.

We should put pressure on wasps to get back around the table, get a deal agreed, drawn up, then put sisu under pressure to drop the legals if the deal is acceptable for both sides.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Have a look at what Rob Smith says on this thread. He is a long standing wasps fan and has also in the past wrote a series of blogs on the theory that Richardson was long perusing the Ricoh while CCFC wee still paying the full rent.

He pretty much dismissed the legal reason as bullshit - which it is

http://m.rugbynetwork.net/boards/read/s96.htm?98,15666787,page=5

Lmfao... You say we must take as gospel what a Wasps fan has to say Hahahahaha I'm crying here hahahaha

 

[stupot07]

Lmfao... You say we must take as gospel what a Wasps fan has to say Hahahahaha I'm crying here hahahaha

Why not, some take as gospel Wasps PR.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[dongonzalos]

I don't let my hatred of wasps cloud anything.

So have they agreed on a lot of the 17 points or not?

The legals are a complete red herring and nothing to do with Wasps. Great PR though, we're all back looking at sisu and not then whilst they shaft our academy and club.

We should put pressure on wasps to get back around the table, get a deal agreed, drawn up, then put sisu under pressure to drop the legals if the deal is acceptable for both sides.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Don't know about your first paragraph and in all honesty neither do you.
Totally agree with your last paragraph.
However the pressure needs to be in both sides.
SISU to offer up the legal action as an enticement. Removing any excuse for Wasps. If Wasps then don't come to the table, then we know what the score is.
No point pressurising just Wasps when they have already set their stall. (The legals).

 

[Grendel]

Call them out then.
Offer to drop the legals if a long term agreement is reached

Why? Wasps haven't cited legals as a reason for the deal not to be done. It's only you that has drawn that conclusion. They can't actually agree mutual terms.

I can assure you if CCFC agreed the proposal offered it would be accepted.

Wasps have laid out terms for staying. Why not out pressure on them to reveal those terms? Then you can see if there are any clauses. What would those clauses state by the way? What does dropping legals mean? Any legal action, some legal action, future legal action? Surely that in itself is actually not legal is it?

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Why not, some take as gospel Wasps PR.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Grenduffy is pushing "A fans point of view as gospel"..... Just for the record Stupot07, I don't fall for any of this shit from either side mate. I did what you, Nick, Torchy et al, do on here... Make a point(In Nick's famous words) "For Balance"

 

[stupot07]

Grenduffy is pushing "A fans point of view as gospel"..... Just for the record Stupot07, I don't fall for any of this shit from either side mate. I did what you, Nick, Torchy et al, do on here... Make a point(In Nick's famous words) "For Balance"

I wasnt particularly saying you did, it was a generalisation, as some, including on this thread have.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

I wasnt particularly saying you did, it was a generalisation, as some, including on this thread have.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

You "Wasn't particularly saying I did" just insinuating eh?

 

[stupot07]

You "Wasn't particularly saying I did" just insinuating eh?

I didn't mean it to come across like that, so I apologise.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

I didn't mean it to come across like that, so I apologise.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

accepted

 

[oldfiver]

Why? Wasps haven't cited legals as a reason for the deal not to be done. It's only you that has drawn that conclusion. They can't actually agree mutual terms.

I can assure you if CCFC agreed the proposal offered it would be accepted.

Wasps have laid out terms for staying. Why not out pressure on them to reveal those terms? Then you can see if there are any clauses. What would those clauses state by the way? What does dropping legals mean? Any legal action, some legal action, future legal action? Surely that in itself is actually not legal is it?

“What we found difficult was, as those conversations progressed, concluding on any arrangement of that sort while the various legal actions and judicial reviews were still going on.

“We decided that we wouldn’t conclude the conversation at that point in time. This was during the time when various appeals were going on at the Court of Appeal.

“I’m not a lawyer but you can’t ignore the volume of comment about it. We felt it was difficult to conclude on a long-term arrangement while all that was still going on. But we had made very good progress