Can’t vote on this one.
It is the problem with a one and one only as I can see merits with all approaches if just one. I've put SISU as much because they're the owners and have ultimate control, but certainly have sympathy to the fact that SISU don't care a jot what we do, so targeting them is all a bit pointless. There are pros and minuses for the others too if it's a one and one only shot.It needs an All option.
Why out of interest?
The question is specific however, as to which one. It's a bit like if you had to sleep with Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn, which would you choose!The other option is make it multi choice, so people can select more than one if not adding an all option?
The question is specific however, as to which one. It's a bit like if you had to sleep with Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn, which would you choose!
Johnson would be more fun about the encounter and make better noises when he came.
I think that I have a feeling I know where this is all leading to.Grendel, are you fucking bored today or what?
Do a Poll m8.Grendel, are you fucking bored today or what?
Has to be Wasps. A new ground is fiction so targeting either SISU or the Council of the back of that fairytale is just a waste of time and energy. There’s only one route to playing back in Coventry and like it or not it’s at the Ricoh.
It's true that the everyday approach would see the indemnity given from the seller...If the only thing stopping a return to the Ricoh is the indemnity that Wasps want should the EC find against them, then shouldn't the council be challenged? They sold the stadium to Wasps, it would be them that failed to meet EU criteria, so, given that JR1 & 2 went for them, they should be confident that any indemnity would be just a paper exercise shouldn't they?
Wasps probably have asked for this, with clearly no success, so putting the focus on CCC could be the best way to achieve us playing at the Ricoh?
Maybe... :emoji_smile:
It needs an All option.