Voice_of_Reason
Well-Known Member
As of today. Historically SISU must shoulder part of, but not all, of the blame. I am trying to show that having to groundshare again is something SISU had no other option.
As of today. Historically SISU must shoulder part of, but not all, of the blame. I am trying to show that having to groundshare again is something SISU had no other option.VOR can you clarify if you mean the situation as at today with the current lease position or over all or even both?
If they're considering the implications of an EC investigation taking place and the council and / or Wasps subsequently being found at fault it follows they have reason to believe the case is not the foregone conclusion we've all been led to believe.How can you argue that they wouldn't have to consider it?
If they're considering the implications of an EC investigation taking place and the council and / or Wasps subsequently being found at fault it follows they have reason to believe the case is not the foregone conclusion we've all been led to believe.
Should that be the case then why should it be CCFC not CCC or Wasps who take the financial hit?
As far as I'm concerned attempting what basically amounts to blackmail to try and get action stopped and then, when it becomes clear action can't be stopped, expecting the potentially wronged party to cover all financial implications for the party found at fault is 100% wrong. The stance simply isn't justifiable.
If they want to plan for being found to be in the wrong they should be planning for sorting out their own mess not relying on us to do it for them, potentially at a cost of no longer having a football club.
Ffs, Let it Go m8.I think she just raided her kids 'Frozen' dress up box.
I think you're getting confused, or just mis-read what NW said?
Who has said that CCFC should take the hit?
NW is just giving the reasons that Wasps could want an indemnity of some sort, not that he agrees with it, and neither do I.
The point he is making, is that from Wasps point of view, the EC review ending up with some costs to them may be possible, therefore for them, has to be considered.
He is trying to look at it from both sides to make sense of it, not support their stance. I thought he made that absolutely clear tbh.
Anyone that would agree to offering an indemnity would be completely nuts in my opinion.
But what nobody seems able to explain is how, if Wasps and CCC have done no wrong, it is going to end up costing Wasps millions?I think you're getting confused, or just mis-read what NW said?
Who has said that CCFC should take the hit?
NW is just giving the reasons that Wasps could want an indemnity of some sort, not that he agrees with it, and neither do I.
The point he is making, is that from Wasps point of view, the EC review ending up with some costs to them may be possible, therefore for them, has to be considered.
He is trying to look at it from both sides to make sense of it, not support their stance. I thought he made that absolutely clear tbh.
Anyone that would agree to offering an indemnity would be completely nuts in my opinion.
Again, it ties up resources in the meantime, diverts them from other avenues, means potentially money has to be set aside dependent on risk, and also restricts the sponsorship opportunities and therefore income, as people are averse to going all-in until they see if there's fire to go with the smoke.But what nobody seems able to explain is how, if Wasps and CCC have done no wrong, it is going to end up costing Wasps millions?
That's fine, but I think most would agree that if Wasps are after indemnity, they're asking the wrong party - they should be demanding this from CCC. Why are they not doing this?I think you're getting confused, or just mis-read what NW said?
Who has said that CCFC should take the hit?
NW is just giving the reasons that Wasps could want an indemnity of some sort, not that he agrees with it, and neither do I.
The point he is making, is that from Wasps point of view, the EC review ending up with some costs to them may be possible, therefore for them, has to be considered.
He is trying to look at it from both sides to make sense of it, not support their stance. I thought he made that absolutely clear tbh.
Anyone that would agree to offering an indemnity would be completely nuts in my opinion.
Because they’d then be demanding millions from the tax payer - that would really endear them to the general public once services are cut to pay them.That's fine, but I think most would agree that if Wasps are after indemnity, they're asking the wrong party - they should be demanding this from CCC. Why are they not doing this?
That's fine, but I think most would agree that if Wasps are after indemnity, they're asking the wrong party - they should be demanding this from CCC. Why are they not doing this?
Much better for them to go after the Pariahs of Coventry
they didn't! and some would say are still talking...Absolutely. Makes sense. So why did Wasps stop the talks with SISU?
Yep.... madness - the clubs own trustAnd in doing so being safe in the knowledge that a lot of CCFC fans and the main CCFC supporters' Trust would be right behind them, blaming their own club.
Because SISU wish to continue to pursue legal action which has a consequence for Wasps.Absolutely. Makes sense. So why did Wasps stop the talks with SISU?
Because SISU wish to continue to pursue legal action which has a consequence for Wasps.
If you were Wasps, would you then make a deal? Or... if you were Wasps, would you decide the gain of the football club being there is not worth the hassle?
(FWIW the last statement is exactly why protests need to be aimed at Wasps as well, as the aim has to be for the football club to be less hassle being there, then not being there)
Because SISU wish to continue to pursue legal action which has a consequence for Wasps.
If you were Wasps, would you then make a deal? Or... if you were Wasps, would you decide the gain of the football club being there is not worth the hassle?
(FWIW the last statement is exactly why protests need to be aimed at Wasps as well, as the aim has to be for the football club to be less hassle being there, then not being there)
(FWIW the last statement is exactly why protests need to be aimed at Wasps as well, as the aim has to be for the football club to be less hassle being there, then not being there)What about the hassle and the football club not there?
Genuine question (honestly not being a dick deliberately), but can you explain what SISU are to blame for?Of course they are to blame for the situation as well.
In the meantime, until judgement is made, it ties them up. Who knows what comes next, too.Yes, but only if CCC were proven to be in the wrong. So take it up with CCC. Why should CCFC pay for CCC and Wasps stitching up a deal between them - obviously if this is proven to be the case. If not, no worries.
Whatever, the club - yet again - suffers and gets blamed.
Genuine question (honestly not being a dick deliberately), but can you explain what SISU are to blame for?
But there is no way for the action to be stopped. London Wasps' choice is have City and associated revenue there while action drags on or shoot themselves in the foot and miss out on all that cash, turn public opinion against them and still have to deal with the action.Because SISU wish to continue to pursue legal action which has a consequence for Wasps.
If you were Wasps, would you then make a deal? Or... if you were Wasps, would you decide the gain of the football club being there is not worth the hassle?
(FWIW the last statement is exactly why protests need to be aimed at Wasps as well, as the aim has to be for the football club to be less hassle being there, then not being there)
The thing is you are blaming the legal investigation for things like sponsors not signing.In the meantime, until judgement is made, it ties them up. Who knows what comes next, too.
In that respect, if you were Wasps (and I get bored with saying that) and based on how things have gone over the past few years, would you deal with SISU?
I would absolutely deal with the football club in that scenario. Both sides have stated that the day to day relationship between CCFC and ACL is good. I would prefer to keep getting the revenue CCFC generate and avoid the potential for negative publicity that could come with kicking out CCFC.If you were Wasps, would you then make a deal? Or... if you were Wasps, would you decide the gain of the football club being there is not worth the hassle?
No, you’re right about Wasps - but as coventrians, and Coventry City fans we should be disgusted about an out of town entity kicking out a historic city icon in the football club.Because SISU wish to continue to pursue legal action which has a consequence for Wasps.
If you were Wasps, would you then make a deal? Or... if you were Wasps, would you decide the gain of the football club being there is not worth the hassle?
(FWIW the last statement is exactly why protests need to be aimed at Wasps as well, as the aim has to be for the football club to be less hassle being there, then not being there)
To pay himself 10m back too wasnt it as well?We also should be disgusted that an out of town entity has borrowed against a Coventry asset - much like we feared a few years back if SISU got hold of the Ricoh
I agree. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever. But... the only way to 'win' is to understand...No, you’re right about Wasps - but as coventrians, and Coventry City fans we should be disgusted about an out of town entity kicking out a historic city icon in the football club.
And wasps should be shunned... we as a city are Famous for that
Yeah... imagine if Joy did thatTo pay himself 10m back too wasnt it as well?
I'm sure it would too. That doesn't stop other elements having an effect though, does it? And it's within Wasps' power to try and do something about it.The thing is you are blaming the legal investigation for things like sponsors not signing.
Would the FCA investigation have no impact or the big name players leaving?
Like I said I understand their reasonings, but. Long term it should affect their status within the city.I agree. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever. But... the only way to 'win' is to understand...
The point is though, it can't be stopped... after it was consciously started by SISU, who didn't think it worth mentionming.But there is no way for the action to be stopped. London Wasps' choice is have City and associated revenue there while action drags on or shoot themselves in the foot and miss out on all that cash, turn public opinion against them and still have to deal with the action.
Is it? How does forcing ccfc out do that though?I'm sure it would too. That doesn't stop other elements having an effect though, does it? And it's within Wasps' power to try and do something about it.
Again, nothing wrong with what you say there either - I agree!Like I said I understand their reasonings, but. Long term it should affect their status within the city.
Unfortunately the public have given them a free ride
What you're saying isn't logical though it's spite. Sisu have started this action so we're going to kick the club out. Logic is objectively analysing the situation and working out what is best. In this case that is to keep the revenue that Boddy reported as being around £2m per year at the Ricoh.The point is though, it can't be stopped... after it was consciously started by SISU, who didn't think it worth mentionming.
Is it all that much cash? Is it worth the hassle?
Public opinion needs some protest doesn't it... and more than 21 of us!
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?