HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
As much as the pitch is shit, it’s not a reason to stay away from Coventry - that will be down to rebuilding relationships.
As much as the pitch is shit, it’s not a reason to stay away from Coventry - that will be down to rebuilding relationships.Again that’s not in our remit is it? If it was removed and some other reason was found and this wasn’t legitimate then all would know which organisation was stopping us playing at the Ricoh. Think the pitch may be an issue but again what can we do about that?
Completely agreeAs much as the pitch is shit, it’s not a reason to stay away from Coventry - that will be down to rebuilding relationships.
Bristol City and Swansea play on Rugby club pitches and dont have an issue playing on themAs much as the pitch is shit, it’s not a reason to stay away from Coventry - that will be down to rebuilding relationships.
I was at Ashton Gate for the rugby at the beginning of December, the pitch is immaculate. It was pissing it down that day too and it didn't cut up at all.Bristol City and Swansea play on Rugby club pitches and dont have an issue playing on them
it is obviously a problem that can be resolved
Perhaps Mark Robins first transfer deal when we return could be the Bristol City groundsman
YesI don’t understand why the indemnity clause isn’t being mentioned. Do they think people are thick?
Well true, but it's about trying to establish a way forward. Good luck on the call Pete.We didn’t call out all parties. The council got away with it a little
Have emailed mep’s to ask about this and if the complaint can be pushed under the carpet
I was at Ashton Gate for the rugby at the beginning of December, the pitch is immaculate. It was pissing it down that day too and it didn't cut up at all.
It's definitely possible to have a decent surface but Wasps won't pay the money for it.
I get the impression Wasps want us to pay for it to be sorted. Which is ridiculous IMO.
Yep that’s rightWhich is again something they should be called out IF that's the case.
They have no vested interest in having a playing surface that is fit for anything but rugby. They don't want us back and the council don't care.Which is again something they should be called out IF that's the case.
That is laughably bad.
Strange, he's contradicting himself already.
"Why won't you question Wasps?"
"We want to engage and not speak out about any side!"
"Why won't you support CCFC?"
"We do but we speak out about SISU"
They have drafted a PR expert in, who's he doing for PR for? He genuinely doesn't know how to communicate without contradicting himself.
Seems this has got the Trust ruffled.
Lol they sound like SISU nowHe's just said in hindsight they should have mentioned the indemnity. Also that they will improve communication from today and in future.
I've replied and basically said, to little too late.
Strange definition of "incendiary"!Wow phil just described the statement as incendiary
What’s he sayingGilbert is misleading
Nobody has mentioned the indemnity because of NDA. Ccfc have mentioned it and wasps have confirmed it.What’s he saying
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?