Trust Statement (19 Viewers)

Forums New posts
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
smileycov said:
How would it? They want SISU to cover the indemnity as they are chasing the council. Nothing to do with new owners surely?
Click to expand...
They want the club to cover the idemnity not SISU. And a change of owners doesn't stop any potential EC investigation.
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Liquid Gold said:
PSB man would rather we have a go at sisu than do anything to attempt a return

Click to expand...

Such a daft argument. It’s absolutely right to say wasps warned Sisu to drop all legals but for whatever reason they made the Eu complaint and discussions continued and could continue allegedly (SO WHY AREN’T THEY!!!).

What was in the indemnity that meant we couldn’t signup to it and why didn’t wasps want to sign a good faith document.
Anyway how are conversations going with the various parties? Oh they’re not taking place. I wonder why
 
Last edited:
Liquid Gold

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Pete said:
Such a daft argument. It’s absolutely right in fact but we are now where we are what now?
Click to expand...
The thing is nobody is supporting Sisu's actions. We just want the club to return and to do that Wasps have to drop the indemnity. Some people think that is letting sisu off the hook so won't have it.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
They want the club to cover the idemnity not SISU. And a change of owners doesn't stop any potential EC investigation.
Click to expand...

Of course they will drop it
 
S

smileycov

Facebook User
chiefdave said:
They want the club to cover the idemnity not SISU. And a change of owners doesn't stop any potential EC investigation.
Click to expand...
If the club had new owners, they would have nothing to do with SISU, so how on earth would ccfc be liable to cover indemnity caused by a 3rd party??
 
MalcSB

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
The coventrian said:
Ownership change will always be shelved for people like you.
Click to expand...
I said shelved for the time being. Get back to Coventry plus some success on the pitch (hopefully one fit for football) and a change of ownership is more likely. Perhaps the only thing Sisu have said that I completely believe is that they won’t sell at the bottom of the cycle. That would crystallise any losses they have made on paper. There is an implication that they would sell at, or towards, the top of the cycle BUT the club needs to be attractive to potential buyers. Playing in Birmingham would be a big turn off. So, to get what you really , really want Wasps need to be targeted.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
MalcSB said:
They would be if a legal agreement committed the club to it.
Click to expand...

There wouldn’t be it would be removed it’s there purely to distress the club and create in effect a hostile takeover
 
Irish Sky Blue

Irish Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Pete said:
Can someone on twitter ask about the October November December and January minutes and whether they have had a reply to their questions to wasps yet? Have asked cj who thought they had been published. I would love the trust to apologise to Sisu for working behind their backs to support a change of ownership and recognise their mistake and over reach of their position as a group of supporters. Things like that make a difference. I think if I met with joy I would apologise for hating her for moving Ccfc to Northampton and risking the club my son and I hoped to enjoy for decades as I did with my dad. That’s how respect and communication works, if someone isn’t listening you don’t just repeat the same statement and shout louder and louder. At some point you change tack
Click to expand...
It is now okay that Sisu took the club to Northampton?
I think Fisher and Seppala have a lot of apologising to do for what they have done to this club.
 
eastwoodsdustman

eastwoodsdustman

Well-Known Member
Haven’t seen anyone ask why the trust would need security for their agm? Maybe they were worried it’s ‘members’ would turn up and vote the existing board out?
I wonder how many of the 7000 names were on the members list to be allowed in.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
eastwoodsdustman said:
Haven’t seen anyone ask why the trust would need security for their agm? Maybe they were worried it’s ‘members’ would turn up and vote the existing board out?
I wonder how many of the 7000 names were on the members list to be allowed in.
Click to expand...

Who were they paying for security?
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
eastwoodsdustman said:
Haven’t seen anyone ask why the trust would need security for their agm? Maybe they were worried it’s ‘members’ would turn up and vote the existing board out?
I wonder how many of the 7000 names were on the members list to be allowed in.
Click to expand...
There’s only 2600 or so members
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
smileycov said:
But we haven’t signed it, so new owners coming in how on earth can they justify keeping the indemnity when the EC complaint is done by previous?
Click to expand...
They can't, but then they can't justify it now as they are still trying to get one company, Otium, to provide indemnity on an EC complaint made by someone else, SISU, against a third party, CCC.

So logically if a change of ownership would mean the indemnity falls away there is no reason for it to be in place now and it is a smokescreen from Wasps.
 
Liquid Gold

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
If they continue to do absolutely nothing to reform it might be effective to swamp them with service access requests. They'd have to respond to each of them within a month, if you have a record of your membership and they don't it would be clear they're inflating membership figures, if they have your data you can ask for it to be deleted which again impacts their membership figures and if they fail to comply they'd be fined to the point they'd be shut down and a phoenix trust (irony alert) could come in and do an actual job. Considering they take a month to get a 3 line statement out I think even 100 requests could be enough to finish them off.
 
T

The coventrian

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
If we changed owners the issue of indemification would still exist which would rule out a return to Cov. Is getting new owners more important to you than getting back to Cov?
Click to expand...
No it isnt but even if/when we do go back to the ricoh with sisu the likes of you will still maintain the status quo.
 
MalcSB

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
There wouldn’t be it would be removed it’s there purely to distress the club and create in effect a hostile takeover
Click to expand...
I would like to believe that the indemnity clause would be dropped but wasps would still face the same risk(s) whoever owned the club.
 
MalcSB

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
smileycov said:
But we haven’t signed it, so new owners coming in how on earth can they justify keeping the indemnity when the EC complaint is done by previous?
Click to expand...
They don’t have to justify it, just demand it. And do you trust them not to?
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
MalcSB said:
I would like to believe that the indemnity clause would be dropped but wasps would still face the same risk(s) whoever owned the club.
Click to expand...

There is no risk
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
The coventrian said:
Apart from the crook who owned bury who?
After all sisu have done during their disastrous tenure is that the best you can offer? I swear some of you suffer from Stockholm syndrome.
Click to expand...
Blackpool
Birmingham
Bolton
Darlington
Derby
Chester
There are 18 league clubs in non league

anyone that failed to pay monthly salaries to players or staff ever or failed to pay tax each month. Sisu have never failed to do this

I swear you swallow the crap hook line and sinker
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
MalcSB said:
That’s great, do wasps know that and if so why ask for an indemnity in the first place?
Click to expand...

Because it would bankrupt the club which under Sisu is what they want - indemnity will never be paid by the club - it’s a game
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
The coventrian said:
Can you prove your bullshit theory nick or just more mud slinging? Naturally you talk shit and have no evidence for the bollocks you spout.
Click to expand...

Seeing as you have called the club "SISU Eleven", "SISU FC" and nonsense like that I just assumed you wouldn't go and support them regardless?
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Covstu said:
Depends on what they are designed for and it’s intended purpose, we are in a very potentially successful season and have probably heard from SBT about 3 times over this period (if that), just seems a strange time to pipe up with the same obvious statements
Click to expand...

I was being facetious, all statements, even fashion statements, are designed to catch attention. No one wants their statement to go unnoticed.

Regarding timing isn’t it because we’ve been pushing them to say something?
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
shmmeee said:
I was being facetious, all statements, even fashion statements, are designed to catch attention. No one wants their statement to go unnoticed.

Regarding timing isn’t it because we’ve been pushing them to say something?
Click to expand...

Is it in the Telegraph and nationals yet? You can tell when they want to catch attention.

This is trying to stop people asking questions by doing the minimum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 20 (members: 0, guests: 20)
Top