Search results

good question

Now because Boddy & Fisher are relying on it ? Then because trying to soften their image for a controversial deal? It was given i believe to put a positive spin on the wasps deal. It would be interesting to see what was actually said in the council chamber but thats never going to happen no...

I can understand that point of view certainly especially after todays news However I think you will find very little of CCC funds went in to the build as such so the council tax payers didnt actually pay for it. Most of the money came from the sale of land to Tesco and various grants not to...

2000 people? we only average what 10 or 11 thousand thats a very high percentage going in. 23 times a year at 4 hours a piece 92 hours for an establishment that opens well over 6500 hours a year. It will be a tidy sum certainly to you and me but in the scheme of things to a Casino and after...

Its an idea but will the loss of CCFC make that much difference? Yes they get beer sales on match days but its between 1pm and 3pm then 5pm to 7pm and something similar on evening matches in terms of hours. In that time yes they sell beer etc but it isnt a clear profit there are costs...

that of course would mean Tim Fisher as director of OEG and SBS&L would know early too. the update on 5th March doesnt change too much, the time limit to get a solution is 25/04/2019. By which time you would expect the Supreme Court decision to have been given weeks before and there be time...

usually get notified a day or so before i think.

You would hope this would focus everyone's minds particularly at SISU, Wasps, CCC & EFL The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the appeal any time now. Hopefully it gets rejected and everyone can sit down and talk like grown ups. The worst result would be to allow the appeal. Reject the...

Both sides have made a choice, both sides are entitled to make a choice that suits their own agenda. I seriously doubt both sides will back down this time. Both sides have backed themselves in to their respective corners. Yes wasps could choose to talk they choose not to. Yes sisu could choose...

precisely ...... the EFL do not have a reputation for dealing with problems, they usually adopt the path of least resistance

I find it hard to believe they would not let CCFC do that. Probably not their first choice but i dont see them stopping CCFC doing that especially when the EFL member can point to the 3rd party landlord refusing to talk

1) true in a sense, the case is essentially about whether CCC went through the right process and whether CCC provided State Aid to Wasps. Wasps are directly exposed by the legal action to financial risk or the risk of further legal action. It is not a passing interest in what is happening to CCC...

If anyone is interested the EFL ground regulations are here https://www.efl.com/siteassets/efl-documents/ground-regulations-efl-2018_19-final.pdf might help clarify what is within the rules for protests, and what stewards can work to

even before getting EFL approval there are serious hurdles to overcome. Nuneaton Town do not own the ground so have no say in it (if they are still around) The Nuneaton Rugby club have already shown how they react to their ground being affected by a football club. Access to the ground itself...

A third party paying the rent for next season won't change either.

Perhaps they have held back some of the player sale monies to cover this cash flow gap ? Perhaps there is a plan B that the efl will simply have to accept? ( no one really thinks they would boot out one of their own members do they?) The wheels for plan B would have to be in motion now and...

An arrangement that is not binding on anyone and allows the legal action to continue? It isn't the ability to pay that is the problem. Unless the fundamental problem is dealt with who pays is irrelevant

I do not have a problem with fans protesting when their club is under serious threat. It probably won't make a difference but to sit back and do nothing is unthinkable. It is a demonstration of passion of meaning to the team but also it expresses the frustration and so long as kept legal I do...

Perhaps because the trust are not involved in the court action ? Did the trust report say anything of note ? It got lambasted on here because it didn't. Was there really much to say from that meeting I suspect not. Never said he shouldn't say something or that some dialogue should not take...

It does not solve the problem. No talks until no legals. Some 3rd parties offering to pay rent does not change that