CBS issues (81 Viewers)

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
Then we'd have done all we reasonably could to solve the problem. Not suggesting we should have got a new pitch and then stopped paying rent, but to have tried negotiating a deal to that effect.
I just don't think the other side would have been receptive to anything other than us paying for a pitch and them getting full rent. They can't afford to miss any speck of income atm.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Even you know what you are saying is nonsense, this is one argument I won't even give you time for

The EFL has a contract with us not wasps. If we’ve decided to let them be responsible for the playing surface contractually the ultimate responsibility is ours. We have to make sure it is playable

We should have dealt with the problem and not think it’s clever to play the victim and along with Vaughan indulge in a public slanging match rather than solving the problem
 

Evo1883

Well-Known Member
The EFL has a contract with us not wasps. If we’ve decided to let them be responsible for the playing surface contractually the ultimate responsibility is ours. We have to make sure it is playable

We should have dealt with the problem and not think it’s clever to play the victim and along with Vaughan indulge in a public slanging match rather than solving the problem
giphy.gif
 

Evo1883

Well-Known Member
The idea we should of not signed players we been to pay for a pitch when the landlord should provide a playable surface be it new or just the old on that has been looked after is pure wow

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

One of the worst suggestions on this forum in some time
 

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
You're right, we shouldn't have to-but look at what's happening now because nobody did anything. Do it ourselves, take the cost out of the rent and get the pitch in a fit state.

Had we done that before the CWG we wouldn't have had to call off the first 3 competitive home games.


Imagine headlines "sisu with holding rent again to distress ACL"

No right of offset btw
 

Danceswithhorses

Well-Known Member
They and we have no money to do anything I’m afraid
We have to rely on their 2 groundsman , basic equipment and hope
A sad state of affairs for a Championship club...very amateurish.
As a club, our facilities/pitch are 3rd rate...at a push.
How are we supposed to compete, as a club, with such poor infrastructure, against a division mostly full of clubs with state of the art training centres, billiard table pitches and competent senior level staff ?
 

Balli001

Well-Known Member
The EFL has a contract with us not wasps. If we’ve decided to let them be responsible for the playing surface contractually the ultimate responsibility is ours. We have to make sure it is playable

We should have dealt with the problem and not think it’s clever to play the victim and along with Vaughan indulge in a public slanging match rather than solving the problem
Contractually wasps have to provide a playable surface and isnt. No other blame needs apportioning
 

Nick

Administrator
A sad state of affairs for a Championship club...very amateurish.
As a club, our facilities/pitch are 3rd rate...at a push.
How are we supposed to compete, as a club, with such poor infrastructure, against a division mostly full of clubs with state of the art training centres, billiard table pitches and competent senior level staff ?

Haven't we just spent shit loads on new training pitches at Ryton?
 

Dominic H

Well-Known Member
We could have relaid there out not signed say palmer - we have to answer to tbe EFL and not wasps it’s our problem

I agree, wasps don’t care about the pitch because they aren’t the ones that need to play on it currently, we should be the bigger party and relay the grass ourselves and just take the expense off our rent
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
The idea we should of not signed players we been to pay for a pitch when the landlord should provide a playable surface be it new or just the old on that has been looked after is pure wow

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
Absolute nonsense isn't it. It comes across as wasps apologist nonsense.

The idea we would just take it off the rent is bonkers. Wasps would take us to court for not paying rent.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
One of the worst suggestions on this forum in some time

Its not a suggestion it’s an wxample

It’s the reverse of what’s being suggested on here. Namely wasps should not have taken on the games without considering us and spending a £100 grand on a pitch

They wouldn’t would they? Yet many on here are saying they should do the reverse logic has to apply I’m afraid

Should they have improved the surface at the expense of their playing budget? Highly doubt their fans would be keen on that either

We as an organisation could have looked at various alternatives - rent negotiation, grants, loans, player budgets - the figure is believed to be about £100 grand

As someone else said - the owners seem to be enjoying this
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Absolute nonsense isn't it. It comes across as wasps apologist nonsense.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Wasps aren’t going to pay a penny on repairs.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
I just don't think the other side would have been receptive to anything other than us paying for a pitch and them getting full rent. They can't afford to miss any speck of income atm.

Well they're missing income right now from not having events on. It was worth making the effort to negotiate with them and if they still refused then fair enough, we did all we could.
 

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
Well they're missing income right now from not having events on. It was worth making the effort to negotiate with them and if they still refused then fair enough, we did all we could.
I just don't see how 'we can't afford to spend £100k on a pitch' turns into 'ok we'll lose out on £100k in rent and you do the pitch'
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
I just don't see how 'we can't afford to spend £100k on a pitch' turns into 'ok we'll lose out on £100k in rent and you do the pitch'

I assume the rental agreement also covers what slice Wasps get of matchday revenues over and above the base rent. Income to them is also being lost by the events not happening.

I'm not suggesting the negotiation would be a given. Just that it was worth trying as a way to get us a playable pitch.
 

Evo1883

Well-Known Member
I assume the rental agreement also covers what slice Wasps get of matchday revenues over and above the base rent. Income to them is also being lost by the events not happening.

I'm not suggesting the negotiation would be a given. Just that it was worth trying as a way to get us a playable pitch.

Wasps will still have to pay for lost revenue though , that's a separate claim
 

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
I assume the rental agreement also covers what slice Wasps get of matchday revenues over and above the base rent. Income to them is also being lost by the events not happening.

I'm not suggesting the negotiation would be a given. Just that it was worth trying as a way to get us a playable pitch.
If you were able to foresee these issues then I'm sure they would have tried.

Now it's a pretty pointless debate though. What needs to be done to get us a playable surface is the issue.
 

Sky Blue Heaven

Well-Known Member
Having read our statement, I would love for the club to release a copy of the independent report which would give an indication of when the pitch “may be” playable and the remedial works required.

This extract from the EFL statement is quite worrying:

“In addition, the report confirmed that there is no maintenance work possible that would make the pitch safe in time for Tuesday’s game”
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top