Grendel
Well-Known Member
Phil is ok and has liked a couple of my tweets on the subject - he had a briefing from Bruce I’m sure
Oh it wasn't you Pete, you handled it really well.
Phil Upton would have done that on purpose. You could tell it was all he was bothered about.
Henry Winter has replied to me and said he's read our statement...fingers crossed now.
He seems to have taken an interest in the club:Henry Winter has replied to me and said he's read our statement...fingers crossed now.
He seems to have taken an interest in the club:
don't know. never really paid him too much notice. Maybe he only uses their line because he thinks that they are speaking for the fans. We'll see if does anything with the statement pretty soon.He's mates with the Trust isn't he?
They're quoting the trust film bloke now too.
Better article
don't know. never really paid him too much notice. Maybe he only uses their line because he thinks that they are speaking for the fans. We'll see if does anything with the statement pretty soon.
The problem is that to find out why people have an issue, they actually need to engage with those people who have an issue, and it seems there is no effort on their part.Shock, the trust telling half a story.
The funny thing is they claim they can't see why people have an issue.
The problem is that to find out why people have an issue, they actually need to engage with those people who have an issue, and it seems there is no effort on their part.
One of the board members should be responsible for engagement with members surely!
I like the idea of asking Wasps that question. Like you I doubt that they will answer it. A journalist talking to Eastwood and asking these things would be good.I think most contributors recognise what he's saying, hence the focus on the indemnity over everything else. It is the Sky Blue Trust that constantly conflates various issues and shrouds them in a load of emotive twaddle and out of date / context quotations.
I wonder whether the best form of attack on the indemnity clause is possibly not to ask it to be dropped per se, but ask Wasps for further information on it; what it is, why it is needed (and why from the football club) and what the probable impact is on the football club if they had to pay it. I doubt an answer will come but it exposes them to the sort of scrutiny they don't like.
I agree it’s what I’ve asked when I sent our statement to Mr EastwoodI like the idea of asking Wasps that question. Like you I doubt that they will answer it. A journalist talking to Eastwood and asking these things would be good.
You would hope that the next time he is speaking to the media that those questions would be raised. Hard to wriggle out of things with a mic or a camera in your face.I agree it’s what I’ve asked when I sent our statement to Mr Eastwood
cmd+f 'Indemnity' = no results
You would hope that the next time he is speaking to the media that those questions would be raised. Hard to wriggle out of things with a mic or a camera in your face.
It's interesting the Bull and Anchor say they are losing about 2 grand a match day from CCFC not being there. The bloke says you couldnt move on matchdays, that was mainly due to 1 person serving. With the new layout it would be interesting to see how it was handled then.
How will city fans take to being there if we go back with all of their Wasps affiliate posters advertising cheap tickets?
Hmm CJ isnt sure why nobody mentioned the indemnity?
Wouldn't that only work if they saw increases when Wasps came in?That's an idea actually, my mate is a surveyor as well. I'll suggest that all businesses within the vicinity could appeal their rateable value on the basis of a material change of circumstance, most obviously pubs.
In fairness to that pub, they've got to make ends meet and without Cov playing there they'll need Wasps. Be good to get people like than lobbying the council though, they should probably make an appeal on their business rates.
That's an idea actually, my mate is a surveyor as well. I'll suggest that all businesses within the vicinity could appeal their rateable value on the basis of a material change of circumstance, most obviously pubs.
Wouldn't that only work if they saw increases when Wasps came in?
Amongst the many things wrong with that article, one of the biggest things; how can the Chair of the Supporters Trust not actually support the team? Zero credibility right off the bat.
No, nothing to do with Wasps. The absence of CCFC is having a material affect on their business, therefore they can claim (especially a pub that has its RV calculated generally on the basis of beer sales) that there is an adverse impact and there RV should be reduced due to a material change of circumstances since the rating list was compiled on 1/4/2017.
You would hope that the next time he is speaking to the media that those questions would be raised. Hard to wriggle out of things with a mic or a camera in your face.
Mine's the second highest atmOn a positive note, the majority of "Highest rated" comments on the BBC article actually seem to be balanced and look at the wider picture.
Although not sure if it's just mainly posters from here!
OK thanks, 2017 is key. In which case, knock yourself outNo, nothing to do with Wasps. The absence of CCFC is having a material affect on their business, therefore they can claim (especially a pub that has its RV calculated generally on the basis of beer sales) that there is an adverse impact and there RV should be reduced due to a material change of circumstances since the rating list was compiled on 1/4/2017.
Mine's the second highest atm
I do agree with Shmmeee in that we need to avoid coming across as abusive internet fans. Which is hard when we read blatant lies.
I also agree with Grendel in that without a story to sell, the media won't be interested in the statement, so if that's us v Trust, so be it.
It's a fine balance.
Mine's the second highest atm
I do agree with Shmmeee in that we need to avoid coming across as abusive internet fans. Which is hard when we read blatant lies.
I also agree with Grendel in that without a story to sell, the media won't be interested in the statement, so if that's us v Trust, so be it.
It's a fine balance.
In hindsight I’m softening on the us V Trust thing, as you say it probably got the attention in the first place and certainly got the attention of the Trust. It’s segueing into a productive relationship that’s the issue though.
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?