No and I think he wants it to remain that wayMillerchip isn't being taken to court is he?
No and I think he wants it to remain that way
Lighten up ffsSo anybody who takes somebody else to court, nobody should deal with them because of it?
Lighten up ffs
Good luck there is no logic in any of thisJust trying to see the logic of millerchip
So anybody who takes somebody else to court, nobody should deal with them because of it?
Millerchip isn't being taken to court is he?
Well someone on the radio said it. They must have meant the lease.No he doesn't own the land.
Well someone on the radio said it. They must have meant the lease.
Dropping legal action against the council doesn't mean they can't or won't against him in the future?Maybe he simply doesn't want to be associated with what must be the most litigious outfit ever to set foot in Coventry? It's his train set, and if he puts a pre-condition on talking to them that they stop taking everyone to court and have meaningful discussions, then it's his prerogative to do so. Why should be get caught up in the current mess?
If the club's owners won't change their stance, and he sees that as a stumbling block, then that's just it. No conspiracy theory - just a normal business decision to keep at arm's length from an ongoing dispute
Happens in business all the time. Samsung still provide parts for iPhone for example yet they have multiple huge lawsuits going against each other.Let's all answer this question honestly. Forget all previous discussions on this. If you were or had been taken to court and the case was still on going and at the moment JR1 and JR2 are would you get in meaningful talks looking to benifit your opponent to me there's but one answer, where that leaves our football club though, heaven knows.
Dropping legal action against the council doesn't mean they can't or won't against him in the future?
Of course it's down to him, as it is with csf and wasps.
Much rather they said "piss off" than spin their way through it.
But how is millerchip affected?In your world SISU take legal action and anyone affected just accepts that and deals with them as is there is not a problem because CCFC must be treated especially kindly.
I can tell you now that is not the world we live in.
Dropping legal action against the council doesn't mean they can't or won't against him in the future?
Of course it's down to him, as it is with csf and wasps.
Much rather they said "piss off" than spin their way through it.
And I'm sure they - like any number of parties - would be interested in working with the club, but don't like the way they handle themselves. To say 'we'd like to talk to you, but...' isn't spin. Surely it's just encouraging the other party to have a genuine dialogue and cease the stupidity; which seems to have the football club as its chief casualty at every turn
MMM So why does'not Millerchip say I don't want to deal with SISU because of their litigious nature instead of wanting to get CRFC CCC CSF talking to get the JR cancelled what benefit is it to Millerchip to get SISU to cancel the JR?Maybe he simply doesn't want to be associated with what must be the most litigious outfit ever to set foot in Coventry? It's his train set, and if he puts a pre-condition on talking to them that they stop taking everyone to court and have meaningful discussions, then it's his prerogative to do so. Why should be get caught up in the current mess?
If the club's owners won't change their stance, and he sees that as a stumbling block, then that's just it. No conspiracy theory - just a normal business decision to keep at arm's length from an ongoing dispute
That's the question isn't it. Same with Wasps, they were happily talking to the club and then suddenly stopped. What's changed, is someone in the background pulling strings?MMM So why does'not Millerchip say I don't want to deal with SISU because of their litigious nature instead of wanting to get CRFC CCC CSF talking to get the JR cancelled what benefit is it to Millerchip to get SISU to cancel the JR?
Unless they got wind of further legal a again just a thoughtThat's the question isn't it. Same with Wasps, they were happily talking to the club and then suddenly stopped. What's changed, is someone in the background pulling strings?
Not sure how you can get someone to drop legal action that hasn't even started yet!Unless they got wind of further legal a again just a thought
Nor meNot sure how you can get someone to drop legal action that hasn't even started yet!
I get the point, about why should he get caught up in it all.
I don't, however, see (again) why stopping legal action against separate parties would be the precursor to talks. Sure, it might end up a condition of any deal (and maybe one a deal falters on) but I'd always talk to people first, with no conditions.
That's the way to build trust from both sides, surely? So if legal action then stops it's because it's mutually beneficial to do so, rather than it looking slightly like bullying.
To put boots on other feet and all that jizz... I wouldn't be dropping legal action with no guarantee of a deal if I did. What, after all, would be in it for me? It's an empty statement as far as I'm concerned. Effectively he's saying he doesn't want to get involved which, going back to the start, is entirely his right.
But far better to just say that, as far as I'm concerned.
However if there is new evidence I think it's in admissible to be used as it was not in the original decision and the JR is only on what was said/shown at the time. However if the JR original judgement any way shape or form can be overturned on a technicality then the new evidence can be bought into play.Not saying I know totally, just giving an example - not necessarily the right example, but a possibility.
Let me turn it; there's some on here who elude to a grand conspiracy. Mentioned after your response, but I'm just answering yours first and not ignoring others. But this grand conspiracy would be orchestrated by CCC, I presume? But why?
If the theory is that CCC are exerting pressure on CRFC to encourage SISU to cease legal action, why would they do that? Why risk exposing themselves as trying to coerce the rugby club. It's not like CCC are in any danger legally, are they?
Since JR1 and Les Reid promising the 'smoking gun' SISU have been beaten comprehensively in court at every turn. Their attempts are getting ever more desperate looking by the moment: and it's not like there's any new evidence forthcoming at any time now. SISU will continue, but we all know it's a farce. CCC's legal team would know exactly that.
So in that position and in that knowledge, why would they open themselves up to the accusation of being a draconian puppeteer and break the 'circle of trust' by involving CRFC when their position is so very and overwhelmingly strong?
However if there is new evidence I think it's in admissible to be used as it was not in the original decision and the JR is only on what was said/shown at the time. However if the JR original judgement any way shape or form can be overturned on a technicality then the new evidence can be bought into play.
Keep grasping at those straws Nick. Won't change a thing, SISU are a busted flush, they're taking the club to a new level.The rugby club seem keen don't they? Sharp sounds like he was all for it.
It isn't crfc is it? It's millerchip isn't it?But if we follow the grand thinking of the conspiracy theory; the fear that there might be evidence hitherto unseen in all these court cases would be sufficient for CCC to rope in an otherwise disassociated party in CRFC to apply indirect pressure to drop the JR. Really? I mean really?
It isn't crfc is it? It's millerchip isn't it?
I think drawing that differential is an exercise in semantics, Nick. Should I rephrase 'Millerchip in his role at CRFC' instead of 'CRFC'? Does that give the conspiracy theory, which in analysis looks ludicrous, any more credibility?
I don't think there is a conspiracy theory by the way I just don't understand why these people just don't come out and say we don't want to do any business with you full stop! Or is it they don't want any negative PRBut if we follow the grand thinking of the conspiracy theory; the fear that there might be evidence hitherto unseen in all these court cases would be sufficient for CCC to rope in an otherwise disassociated party in CRFC to apply indirect pressure to drop the JR. Really? I mean really?
I don't think there is a conspiracy theory by the way I just don't understand why these people just don't come out and say we don't want to do any business with you full stop!
I don't think there is a conspiracy theory by the way I just don't understand why these people just don't come out and say we don't want to do any business with you full stop! Or is it they don't want any negative PR
I don't think there is a conspiracy theory by the way I just don't understand why these people just don't come out and say we don't want to do any business with you full stop! Or is it they don't want any negative PR
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?