It was a bloody letter. A bloody letter in this day and age.
Send an email direct and track it.
All of a sudden the telegraph can be believed.
As I said you just latch on and put it over as inside knowledge.
How can somebody who writes so many words say so little?Letters, why is everybody writing letters and faxes that don't get anywhere!!!!?
If I was an MP tasked to do something I would write a letter, I would have the same letter sent in email form. I would also speak to the relevant person by phone.
When I needed to report back to my boss I would not be saying 'well I sent a letter but didn't hear anything'. ( that's just not an acceptable answer). That's not how an MP tasked to do something should work.
My boss would be rightly asking 'well,what did they say to you on the phone'
Two things should happen now over the next few days. The club and the MP contact Wasps. Let's see if they do.
Worrying thing is, without a new CEO around Tim Fisher will do the negotiations with Wasps.
His record so far in such matters does not fill me with confidence
How can somebody who writes so many words say so little?
Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk
So what contact was it and who did he say that there was no contact with?Can you read? Chief Dave refers to it a few lines up.
If he sent a letter why did he not escalate it?Perhaps he tracked his letter.
So are you saying the Telegraph are lying?
So what contact was it and who did he say that there was no contact with?
If he sent a letter why did he not escalate it?
Something not right here, particularly in this day an age.
CET are just passing on a Chinese whisper and escalating it into a major story.
Its what all papers do otherwise stories would be boring.
Don't ever accuse me of being like yourself.Are you living on some kind of alternate dimension to everyone else on this thread?
Of cours he doesn't know throws in random Grendull "facts" and goes away
Don't ever accuse me of being like yourself.
I don't read the CET. I don't go on their website. As usual you know whats happening more than anyone else. So I asked you what is going on. But of course you ask questions but very rarely answer them.
Stop being a twat for once.You don't have to read the telegraph. There's a thing called the Internet - have a look - I think someone may have even linked it on here.
Do you think all of us are discussing something on here that's not happened? We are making things up for a giggle?
It was a bloody letter. A bloody letter in this day and age.
Send an email direct and track it.
All of a sudden the telegraph can be believed.
As I said you just latch on and put it over as inside knowledge.
Surely not. The same Nick Eastwood that was telling Wasps fans the club were planning to return to London while negotiating to buy the Ricoh? The same Nick Eastwood that told CCFC fans he knew nothing about us being kicked out of our dressing room and losing the use of the indoor warm up area only for it to be confirmed the next morning?When you say something isn't right, perhaps it could be, and I know this may come as a shock to you, that Nick Eastwood is lying
Tony runs him close.
Nick Eastwood was Wasps chief exec, was replaced by David Armstrong. Armstong is now being replaced by Eastwood.Not defending any one here, but who is the who in the story? Nick Eastwood may have thought that the Telegraph were meaning someone for the club for instance. It's always the same with anything around CCFC at the minute, theirs too much ambiguity form all sides.
I don't know. Someone gave a long winded explanation of why SP was better than Mowbray yesterday even crediting SP with a TM permanent signing. I might waffle but I always make a point with fact and if I do get it wrong (rare I know) I at least put my hands up.
Chinese whispers = Attributable quotes which are contradictory.If he sent a letter why did he not escalate it?
Something not right here, particularly in this day an age.
CET are just passing on a Chinese whisper and escalating it into a major story.
Its what all papers do otherwise stories would be boring.
Splitting hairs, Toni. Pressley couldn't sign him permanently as it was outside the transfer window, he was signed with a view to a permanent deal. Signed when Pressley was manager though I'll give you a little bit of credit, he was recommended by Hockaday.
How can somebody who writes so many words say so little?
Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk
Why did Eastwood say there had been no contact?
SP didn't sign him at all, Hockaday did. SP was shown the door two days later. Wasn't SP on gardening leave before he was sacked? He was only signed for 27 days initially. It was TM who signed him on loan to the end of the season and then signed him permanently in the summer. You credit SP with it though if it makes you feel better. No skin of my nose.
SP didn't sign him at all, Hockaday did. SP was shown the door two days later. Wasn't SP on gardening leave before he was sacked? He was only signed for 27 days initially. It was TM who signed him on loan to the end of the season and then signed him permanently in the summer. You credit SP with it though if it makes you feel better. No skin of my nose.
Nope. Pressley was in charge when we played away at Sheffield United in Stokes' debut, I was there.
Would Mowbray have signed him if he wasn't already at the club? I doubt it very much.
Bless you, Toni. You really try your best.
Well done. You finally got a fact in. He played the day he was signed, I'd forgotten that. Still doubt SP had anything to do with it though as he was hanging on by his finger tips. You could actually ask if SP wanted him given it was an initial 27 day loan. Like I said, it was Mowbray who signed him until the end of the season and then signed him permanently after being given complete control of the playing budget by Joy herself. So Mowbray actually signed him twice. Pretty sure that means he wanted him.
Bless you SP. You really try your best and even got there with a fact at the third attempt. Well done again.
Of course they would be willing to talk, any extra money in their coffers from a ground that wasn't built for them will be most welcome. We will be allowed to stay on terms profitable to them which means we will continue to take a financial hit which our competitors do not. Still, it's that or a groundshare outside the city.
I don't know. Someone gave a long winded explanation of why SP was better than Mowbray yesterday even crediting SP with a TM permanent signing. I might waffle but I always make a point with fact and if I do get it wrong (rare I know) I at least put my hands up.
Gredndel, while I agree with some of the points you make and am more 'on your side' in this, by arguing it you do more harm than good because you're an inherently dislikabke man.
Well people earn their own reputation don't they, they are judged on their actions to date,Replace Eastwood with Fisher in this and I wonder if we'd be seeing the same response?
Well people earn their own reputation don't they, they are judged on their actions to date,
I don't really know much about Eastwood, but I do know Fisher has thoroughly earned and
Is deserving of the Reputation he has.
We pay match day costs which contribute towards maintenance, cleaning, etc.Are we taking a financial hit though? We pay 100000 rent and get over 70000 back from the 50% profits on F&B. We have no responsibility for stadium maintenance etc..
The present rent deal is not really 'taking a hit'. We played about 26 games at a net rent cost of a bit more than 1000,00 a game. About 12 pence per spectator per game.
Nope. Pressley was in charge when we played away at Sheffield United in Stokes' debut, I was there.
Would Mowbray have signed him if he wasn't already at the club? I doubt it very much.
Bless you, Toni. You really try your best.
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?