So..... and no, I am not as aggressive as Nick, am I right in saying, you directly asked them about the indemnity, they gave that reply and then you pursued it no further?Pretty much what you’d expect. No deal unless something is done on the complaint.
What was the point of the meeting then? Ask the questions and when they flat bat it with the standard response, ask the the obvious follow up questions. Then publish those questions and responses, reminding the public of Coventry that these parasites are continuing to prevent us playing in Coventry over an absurd requirement. Perfect opportunity to twist the knife at a time when Wasps are at their lowest point since arriving here.What I wrote above. We can’t force them to answer questions they don’t want to answer.
What was the point of the meeting then? Ask the questions and when they flat bat it with the standard response, ask the the obvious follow up questions. Then publish those questions and responses, reminding the public of Coventry that these parasites are continuing to prevent us playing in Coventry over an absurd requirement. Perfect opportunity to twist the knife at a time when Wasps are at their lowest point since arriving here.
Whenever the trust have anything to do with Wasps publicly, you can always guarantee it is going to be an absolute token gesture.
So..... and no, I am not as aggressive as Nick, am I right in saying, you directly asked them about the indemnity, they gave that reply and then you pursued it no further?
Or did you not ask the question and that was just expressed to you and then you didn't come back to them on it?
I am just wondering if you asked the question at all, or that was just what was stated by Wasps without challenge.
Hang on - Regarding the devils advocate point, why would SISU indemnify? At that point it would have been found that the sale was illegal?SISU can ask for it to be dropped or at least for it to put even lower down on the list than it is already so it’ll be sorted in 15 years rather than 5-8.
Edit: To play devil’s advocate with regards with who the complaint is against if it’s not against Wasps (which it isn’t) why would SISU (not CCFC) have any problem in indemnifying Wasps of any legal costs incurred?
If that is the case then their refusal to answer should be the line you are pushing, not the initial unsatisfactory response they did give.When we asked that question they gave that answer. We pursued it further but it was clear they weren’t going to give us another answer.
When we asked that question they gave that answer. We pursued it further but it was clear they weren’t going to give us another answer.
@CJ_covblaze if as you say you’re anti wasps as some of us, could you confirm what Neil White and the rest of the board’s thoughts are on the matter?
why do they not want to whip up anything against Wasps? What’s their game?
I’m assuming you do discuss this at the board meetings with what to do next
I mean wasps actions against the club? Why are they keen to surpress anything bad said against Wasps?Neil isn’t in to Rugby. A good proportion of the rest our board do not hold that view and love it as a sport. All that do, go to watch Cov, have never been to watch Wasps and wouldn’t ever consider doing so.
I mean wasps actions against the club? Why are they keen to surpress anything bad said against Wasps?
Trust should be right behind this. We have been evicted and these Henley groups are about to suffer the same fate.I asked 5 times on here and 5 on twitter regarding supporting the Henley alliance campaign
no answer still
why do i get the feeling that the trust think by trying to drum up hate for sisu they will leave and poof everything changes, nothing will change ccc will still be buddies with wasps and ccfc even with a new onwer be stuck flaffinf about and i cant see ccc helping even new owners out even if we got them.
Yep, the whole premise of Wasps being here is a supine CCFC happy to play second fiddle in their stadium etc
Trust should be right behind this. We have been evicted and these Henley groups are about to suffer the same fate.
Is it lost, or a deliberate choice? They're selling it as the latter but then you would, wouldn't you!The only downside is the farmhouse has lost its alcohol licence!
If (if!) SISU ever leave, we need to know possible sites for a competent owner to consider, anyway.Nobody believes it, but if there are viable sites - as fans we need to push SISU on this. Call them out.
the Ricoh isn’t viable unless we own at least 50% of it
Delivering alcohol with takeaways apparently and got found out.Is it lost, or a deliberate choice? They're selling it as the latter but then you would, wouldn't you!
Put out a poll on twitter to see how many trust members would be in favour of backing the alliance in their actions against Wasps. Then follow it up.When we asked that question they gave that answer. We pursued it further but it was clear they weren’t going to give us another answer.
Put out a poll on twitter to see how many trust members would be in favour of backing the alliance in their actions against Wasps. Then follow it up.
And can you confirm on here CJ when the poll is up? I don't check Twitter that often but would like to vote.
They will say the poll will not be exclusive to members and therefore cannot be valid
I agree - given that today a new set of commissioners were being appointed. I can't see that any ruling on this matter will be quickly resolved.....this could take years. Surely, the economic reality of trying to make the business model for the Ricoh work must be paramount, as at this rate both Wasps and CCFC financial viability to compete at a high level is unrealisable.Got to say as a Trust member I had absolutely no idea there was a meeting with Wasps, how was this communicated to members?
Wasps responses don't make any sense. They won't let the club back until the EC action is complete but they want the club to approach the EC to try and get it delayed?
Were they asked that if the EC action is sat on the to-do list for the next 15 - 20 years they will continue to refuse to allow us to play at the Ricoh for that long?
The indemnification issue is very simple, if Wasps believe they and the council are 100% in the right it simply isn't needed. They also need to be questioned on why they set terms, the club met the terms and then the terms changed. How can anyone be confident if the club agree to the new terms they don't change them again?
In some ways the longer it goes on the stronger our hand gets. If Wasps had got in their £10m stadium sponsor while we weren't there they could say nothing to do with you. If they can't get one unless we come back it allows a strong argument that we should get a decent share of it.The worry for CCFC is that Wasps will try to charge a ridiculous fee to cross subsidise the Rugby playing side. CCFC needs to have clear terms over the next 20+ years, so to allow a longer term business model to be developed
if its not against wasps why would sisu care about indemnifying costs?
but
if its not against wasps why do you need indemnifying?
It does. It's just like last time, there's the risk we don't have a club to come back!In some ways the longer it goes on the stronger our hand gets. If Wasps had got in their £10m stadium sponsor while we weren't there they could say nothing to do with you. If they can't get one unless we come back it allows a strong argument that we should get a decent share of it.
had sisu said we are gonna build a new stadium to the trust would have been million follows ups like wher eis it gonna be? Capacity? Turf Type? when start building? when finish building? what have the efl said? etc
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?