Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Nah it’s just in line with what they’d already signed. I’m trying find out specifically what that was
**ALL USERS READ THIS, ACTION REQUIRED ASAP** - Sky Blues Talk forum statement (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sky Blue Pete
- Start date
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I think the next issue will be that. There will be an insistence of non appeal if the decision goes against them and they will insist on the same for the other party. It’s a red herring really
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
The legal stuff? I think it’s a way to build relationships
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The complaint isn’t against wasps it’s against the council and therefore the indemnity extends to “all parties impacted”
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I think you’re right. That’s why I was asking about the line in the club press release about legal rights when they were also saying they’d agreed to no more legal action so something is obviously fishy there.
That’s why you focus on the indemnity which is indefensible. Ideally that’s it and we are back, more likely it uncovers the next obstacle to overcome.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Yep I ageee
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
They promised no further action against Wasps.
Think that’s fair enough. If they continue action against the council the only way it impacts Wasps is if the council are found to be in the wrong.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Completely agree, that’s the point I’ve been trying to make to Neil. Stop concentrating on potential issues years down the line and worry about the immediate problem.
Get that resolved and go from there.
Nick
Administrator
Exactly but they won't because that's not shouting sisu and it means saying something against wasps.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Bang on
Totally agree, we should be doing this while we have some momentum; somebody needs to go on the CWR phone-in on Friday and keep banging home our position. Any volunteers? (I suggested this previously but nobody stepped forward..).
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
I’m at music group practice unfortunately this week sorry
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Depends what dave boddy says tonight.
But I would say it’s to encourage them to get wasps ceo on to ask about what is stopping them removing the indemnity clause
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Unless, and I’m very open to this, the match needs to be the focus this Friday and we don’t need to bring up.
It would be great if you could. The key point to make is "why are the local media (including CWR) not calling out Wasps on the indemnity demand?" We need to make this point until they start doing something about it. Have a listen to last Friday's phone-in on the CWR website, I was on at about 37 minutes in; we just need to keep hammering that point until they listen. Pete was on the previous week so well worth a listen and then pick up on his points. Hope this helps!
How do i actually vote in this?
There are no voting buttons for me.
I've read some of the thread on my phone, but not all of it.
I support the statement.
I'm also a member of the Trust and pay a £1 every year automatically through paypal I think.
They haven't asked my opinion, but seem to talk on my behalf anyway!
There are no voting buttons for me.
I've read some of the thread on my phone, but not all of it.
I support the statement.
I'm also a member of the Trust and pay a £1 every year automatically through paypal I think.
They haven't asked my opinion, but seem to talk on my behalf anyway!
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
jordan210
Well-Known Member
I’m baffled by Neil to be honest,
He keeps saying If your a member your free to apply to join the board.
but it would be wrong to have an election at the drop of the hat
Should the members not have the option to have an election when they wish if they believe the trust doesn’t represent them ?
He keeps saying If your a member your free to apply to join the board.
but it would be wrong to have an election at the drop of the hat
Should the members not have the option to have an election when they wish if they believe the trust doesn’t represent them ?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
They do. You need something like 5% of members to support IIRC. I posted it before, have a read of the constitution.
jordan210
Well-Known Member
So Neil should be telling people the correct information like you have. Not thats its wrong to have an election.
Main issue is no one knows how many actual members the trust have. So its 5% of anything
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
And they are unwilling to put anything in place that cleanses their membership of inactive people.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
5% of 2700 is 135
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
I reckon there’d be 135 on here out of the 368 that voted in the statement thread
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The wording of that clause is pretty odd isn’t it? Everyone has to raise exactly the same motion (which yes can be done) and then the board arrange a special meeting.
There’s nothing that requires them to put that date on a communication platform either from what I can see
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
It’s an in though isn’t it? And as shmmee says act reasonably and expect others too and if they don’t point it out clearly
Nick
Administrator
The issue is that this isn't a new thing, people have become frustrated because they have acted reasonably in the past and not got anywhere.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I would use the “special meeting” to enact a policy action - it’s a takeover I believe that’s being suggested which will end up as a media war
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Yep course I completely understand that yep
Nick
Administrator
It's naive to think they won't be all over the Telegraph and CWR.
Look at what happened the other day on CWR for example. "Do you think the Trust aren't the voice of the fans?"
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
That’s a wise challenge Grendel and how it would appear yep I agree
Grendel
Well-Known Member
He’s still our representative on the FSA