breaking news? at 5pm today (6 Viewers)

dongonzalos · Jun 8, 2016

Nick said:
Like I said, you haven't made it very clear have you?

Those were the 2 options people see.

Yes I am not used to doing polls. I forgot that my explanation of the two answers doesn't stay with the poll.
As the thread moves on

The title should have said would you exchange legal action for a long term deal we are happy with.

That was the point I was making in the original debate where Grendel asked for a thread on it.

I personally would and still think we should call Wasps out by saying ok come back and negotiate. If we get a suitable deal on everything including academy the legal action will be dropped.

However I think the legal action suits SISU not the CCFC.
So I don't think they would do it.

I don't know why it suits SISU as I can't see it been successful but it seems it does

Nick · Jun 8, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Yes I am not used to doing polls. I forgot that my explanation of the two answers doesn't stay with the poll.
As the thread moves on

The title should have said would you exchange legal action for a long term deal we are happy with.

That was the point I was making in the original debate where Grendel asked for a thread on it.

I personally would and still think we should call Wasps out by saying ok come back and negotiate. If we get a suitable deal on everything including academy the legal action will be dropped.

However I think the legal action suits SISU not the CCFC.
So I don't think they would do it.

I don't know why it suits SISU as I can't see it been successful but it seems it does

I was only making the point that the poll and questions weren't clear, so you can't really keep going on about legals being more important to people than ccfc. As it isn't true.

dongonzalos · Jun 8, 2016

Nick said:
I was only making the point that the poll and questions weren't clear, so you can't really keep going on about legals being more important to people than ccfc. As it isn't true.

It dies say it in my first paragraph as well

I ask if you would give up the legal action if we got a long term deal that suits us.
I realise now it seems people don't read the explanation of the poll just the poll.
I hope that is the case as I would be gob smacked if people genuinely are saying no.
Apart from Grendel who did say no in the original debate and asked for a thread on it.

Godiva · Jun 8, 2016

Don, you may be pleased that the lease holder of BPA has the same opinion.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/butts-park-arena-lease-holder-11375016

King Henry VIII old boy Mr Millerchip, who is now based in New York, originally got involved with the club in an attempt to protect its long-term future, which has twice looked in serious jeopardy since the sport went professional in 1995.
With his name on the Spon End lease, Mr Millerchip could delay or even scupper any deal, meaning all involved will be keen to hear his views.

“Clearly the Higgs, Butts and Ricoh litigation are not directly related,” he said, “but ideally they should all be part of a wider agreement that settles all disputes.

“The most important thing for me is that past enmities are put aside and all involved in the top level of sport in the city move forward together.
“The current atmosphere wastes so much negative energy for all involved. We could achieve so much more if we can re-establish trust and start working together constructively for the good of the sports and the community.

Millerchip also stresses that since the need to protect his former club’s long-term future was the driver behind his reappearance on the local sporting scene, this must remain the paramount consideration in any future arrangement.
“I have owned the Butts lease since early 2014 to help protect the club against adverse development,” he says.
“Jon Sharp’s proposals are very interesting. To be fair, and I think he has said this, it is early days and there are clearly many issues to address.
“Jon and the football club will need to work constructively with the council, which may be challenging while there is ongoing litigation between the council and the football club’s owners, although this could be an opportunity to resolve that dispute.
“Jon is also fully aware that the long term protection of the rugby club is of paramount importance in any joint venture arrangement.
“The Butts is an under-used asset with a great history, and I look forward to talking more to Jon and the board of the rugby club as their plans evolve.”

Nick · Jun 8, 2016

Godiva said:
Don, you may be pleased that the lease holder of BPA has the same opinion.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/butts-park-arena-lease-holder-11375016

The same guy who works closely with CSF?

dongonzalos · Jun 8, 2016

Nick said:
The same guy who works closely with CSF?

If for some reason Wasps give a crap about it. It seems like it maybe the only card we have.
Use it offer it up but only if we agree an acceptable deal first.
If we are keeping it thinking it will be worth a shit load of compensation for SISU. Unfortunately I think we are going the same route as JR1

skybluetony176 · Jun 8, 2016

Nick said:
I was only making the point that the poll and questions weren't clear, so you can't really keep going on about legals being more important to people than ccfc. As it isn't true.

That poll seems to contradict that, at least on here anyway.

Funny thing is that just a few weeks prior after the inevitable failure of the appeal general consensus on here seemed to be SISU should just drop the litigation, without out asking for anything return.

Wasps say that the litigation is getting in the way and suddenly the tied has turned and we shouldn't drop the litigation.

Nothing as strange as folk. Opinion seems to have changed over something Wasps said when the truth is that win, lose or draw the litigation will probably add nothing to CCFC's fortunes, given that four judges have now ruled no case to answer to so anything other than a loss looks likely going forward and to cap it all of it means that there's no excuses for the longer term future of the club not to be discussed. You would think that any sound minded CCFC fan would want the litigation dropped. It gains us nothing and puts anything after the next two seasons in doubt.

Nick · Jun 8, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
That poll seems to contradict that, at least on here anyway.

Funny thing is that just a few weeks prior after the inevitable failure of the appeal general consensus on here seemed to be SISU should just drop the litigation, without out asking for anything return.

Wasps say that the litigation is getting in the way and suddenly the tied has turned and we shouldn't drop the litigation.

Nothing as strange as folk. Opinion seems to have changed over something Wasps said when the truth is that win, lose or draw the litigation will probably add nothing to CCFC's fortunes, given that four judges have now ruled no case to answer to so anything other than a loss looks likely going forward and to cap it all of it means that there's no excuses for the longer term future of the club not to be discussed. You would think that any sound minded CCFC fan would want the litigation dropped. It gains us nothing and puts anything after the next two seasons in doubt.

No, people are reading it that the litigation shouldnt have anything to do with Wasps negotiation with us.

Moff · Jun 8, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
That poll seems to contradict that, at least on here anyway.

Funny thing is that just a few weeks prior after the inevitable failure of the appeal general consensus on here seemed to be SISU should just drop the litigation, without out asking for anything return.

Wasps say that the litigation is getting in the way and suddenly the tied has turned and we shouldn't drop the litigation.

Nothing as strange as folk. Opinion seems to have changed over something Wasps said when the truth is that win, lose or draw the litigation will probably add nothing to CCFC's fortunes, given that four judges have now ruled no case to answer to so anything other than a loss looks likely going forward and to cap it all of it means that there's no excuses for the longer term future of the club not to be discussed. You would think that any sound minded CCFC fan would want the litigation dropped. It gains us nothing and puts anything after the next two seasons in doubt.

I don't really think the tide has turned. Most people feel that litigation isn't the way forward. Most people feel that even though that is the case Wasps shouldn't really blackmail the club with this issue...everyone has a legal right. It makes them akin to SISU.

I would suggest most people don't give a shit about the litigation, and that most people feel anger that a bunch of faceless tossers at SISU, CCC, Wasps, CSF etc are playing one upmanship with each other and potentially destroying the future of our club, whilst not giving a shit about us the fans. These people are all wankers.

skybluetony176 · Jun 8, 2016

Nick said:
No, people are reading it that the litigation shouldnt have anything to do with Wasps negotiation with us.

Well they're stupid then. Litigation has stood in the way of this club making any progress on pretty much anything for the last 3+ years. It's a distraction to everyone from fans to owners to local authorities who the club need to work with. The negotiations over staying at the Ricoh are just another example of how a course of action that when exhausted will not benefit the club in any way, shape or form is adding to the already substantial pile of things holding the club back.

It's so obvious that the results of the poll are clearly nothing but a hysterical knee jerk reaction to something Wasps have said.

Litigation is not helping our club, it only damages it.

James Smith · Jun 8, 2016

ccfcway said:
Funny, it already feels like they have been

Yeah that's true but if they left tomorrow I'd forget them in an instant.

James Smith · Jun 8, 2016

hill83 said:
Packet of bourbons and a reach around

Case of bourbon and a reach around?

AFCCOVENTRY · Jun 8, 2016

The KC v SG battle on Twitter is hilarious...it's still going on!

Nick · Jun 8, 2016

AFCCOVENTRY said:
The KC v SG battle on Twitter is hilarious...it's still going on!

Yeah but the strange thing is, who is battling for who?

AFCCOVENTRY · Jun 8, 2016

Nick said:
Yeah but the strange thing is, who is battling for who?

Looks like an underlying personal spat between them.

I tend to believe Kieran as he has no motive as he doesn't work for CCFC anymore. He admits Sisu should drop the legal battles but at the same time Wasps are acting in a manner to dislodge CCFC at every opportunity. Discussions behind the scenes aren't working anymore.

Nick · Jun 8, 2016

AFCCOVENTRY said:
Looks like an underlying personal spat between them.

I tend to believe Kieran as he has no motive as he doesn't work for CCFC anymore. He admits Sisu should drop the legal battles but at the same time Wasps are acting in a manner to dislodge CCFC at every opportunity. Discussions behind the scenes aren't working anymore.

But then who is Simon defending / siding with if Kieren is with the people who used to employ him / ccfc?

chiefdave · Jun 8, 2016

AFCCOVENTRY said:
I tend to believe Kieran as he has no motive as he doesn't work for CCFC anymore.

Tend to agree with that. He's not a CCFC supporter and he doesn't work for CCFC, why would he be getting involved and making stuff up?
The picture he is painting is a campaign of others working against the best interests of the football club.

dongonzalos · Jun 8, 2016

Nick said:
But then who is Simon defending / siding with if Kieren is with the people who used to employ him / ccfc?

Last I saw Simon was asking for evidence as he had been looking for it himself.
So sounds like he just wants the facts out there?

Nick · Jun 8, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Last I saw Simon was asking for evidence as he had been looking for it himself.
So sounds like he just wants the facts out there?

Like the facts that Wasps didn't have to move?

Strange how there wasn't much digging when people were saying Wasps had bought land. A simple "no comment" from both and left at that, but as it is CCFC there is a mad scramble for evidence to prove something wrong.

I am all for digging for dirt, but at least do it for everybody.

dongonzalos · Jun 8, 2016

Oops think Simon is pointing out that Kieran released articles on the official website that he knew wasn't true

dongonzalos · Jun 8, 2016

Simon Gilbert ‏@TheSimonGilbert
@skybluestalk @KieranCrowley1 @partridge1971 @tommyboy119 actively searching to keep fans informed. I don't care who is wrong. Truth matters

Nick · Jun 8, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Oops think Simon is pointing out that Kieran released articles on the official website that he knew wasn't true

No, Keiran said he disagreed with them. Written and misinformed by PR. His opinion was that they were BS. PR company were then sacked off.

dongonzalos · Jun 8, 2016

@KieranCrowley1 @SkyBluesTalk @partridge1971 @Tommyboy119 Are we still talking about the articles you published that you knew were "BS"?

dongonzalos · Jun 8, 2016

Nick said:
No, Keiran said he disagreed with them. Written and misinformed by PR. His opinion was that they were BS. PR company were then sacked off.

Weird, it has you as the author

But you pushed out official club statement on website you knew was "BS"?

Are there any more instances of club publishing things it knew were BS

Nick · Jun 8, 2016

Ha ironic really somebody from the telegraph can have a dig about bullshit articles.

chiefdave · Jun 8, 2016

Maybe Simon will make a comment on the CT's deal with CCC to suppress stories.

dongonzalos · Jun 8, 2016

Nick said:
No, Keiran said he disagreed with them. Written and misinformed by PR. His opinion was that they were BS. PR company were then sacked off.

Also PR company????

Nick · Jun 8, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Also PR company????

Yes, Advent. The same ones who did the PR for Higgs / ACL / CCC at the time.

dongonzalos · Jun 8, 2016

Nick said:
Yes, Advent. The same ones who did the PR for Higgs / ACL / CCC at the time.

They were acting for everyone?

olderskyblue · Jun 8, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Also PR company????

That can't be right. We all know it was only ACL, CCC, Higgs who used a PR company....

Nick · Jun 8, 2016

dongonzalos said:
They were acting for everyone?

I don't know if they still are.

I know they are heavily involved with CSF and the city of rugby stuff now.

Nick · Jun 8, 2016

olderskyblue said:
That can't be right. We all know it was only ACL, CCC, Higgs who used a PR company....

No, most people knew years ago about Advent?

olderskyblue · Jun 8, 2016

Nick said:
Ha ironic really somebody from the telegraph can have a dig about bullshit articles.

And that's your response to CCFC publishing BS ? It it was Covtel, you would have been all over it.

olderskyblue · Jun 8, 2016

Nick said:
No, most people knew years ago about Advent?

That's not the way it plays out on here Nick... Whenever anything comes out of those organisations, its PR, but when it's CCFC or their owners.. different story

Nick · Jun 8, 2016

olderskyblue said:
And that's your response to CCFC publishing BS ? It it was Covtel, you would have been all over it.

You mean the one pretty much everybody on here agreed it was BS, now Keiren has said it was his opinion it was BS too.

I am pretty sure you can see the difference between a statement on a company website and one published in local media?

breaking news? at 5pm today (6 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Attachments

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency