Nick
Administrator
So if the action of the rugby club was to not allow ccfc to play there but isn't their fault? For example.
You may be right about my lack of comprehension but I really do fail to see what Wasps have got to do with our situation. If we move out of Coventry it will not be down to the actions of a rugby club who I didn't give a toss about before they arrived in Coventry and still don't.
Spew your venom on those that have caused and affected our club in such away that it will be potentially homeless and without tangible assets.
What Wasps have done to their club is their business and they have positioned it to their advantage within our city. How I wish Sisu had done the same with CCFC within Coventry and then there would have been no opportunity for Wasps to land on our patch.
Its like having a beautiful girlfriend and not giving her any attention and then complaining when she breaks up with you and falls for the new kid in town. Can you blame her?
Nick, Wasps are in a position to deny Coventry City access to a stadium that was built for them. That is cruel irony, that Wasps feel that may want to go down that route is due to the actions of the our owners and their representatives.So if the action of the rugby club was to not allow ccfc to play there but isn't their fault? For example.
Not quite true that is it.He would want to go there to get a kickin to make the trust look bad?
I'd say it's stranger on the thread yesterday when mentioned about Fisher and a meeting the first reply was "Where did you hear that?" as if it was a secret (it was in the SCG minutes where he offered publicly).
All just seems strange.
I'm not sure what "taking a long hard look at themselves" will do to stop any anxiety about some nob head with a couple of shandy's down him getting aggressive and spoiling the whole thing. (I don't mean Tim....) I would have thought having concern over that is a sensible approach.
I wouldn't want Tim de-railing the event by attacking the trust the way he did at the last SCG meeting either. What's the point questioning them about fan ownership, their accounts etc when the club is "not for sale". There are far more important questions to be answered, and as has been said, lets him off the hook about those points.
Equally, what's the point in keep pushing out articles about fan ownership then? There has been more about them in the media recently than there has about the academy...
Don't give him chance to
There's a simple answer if Tim goes down that road. Is the club for sale? If no, then no point discussing that with him. move onto the academy question etc
No harm at all the trust venting their views, and what their answer might be to the rut we are in with SISU, and using the press for that. I would suggest if Tim wants to understand it more, he puts the club up for sale and then has a closed meeting to discuss it.
I'm confusedSo the trust can keep putting their views in the paper about fan ownership even though the club isnt up for sale, but fisher cant mention it because the club isn't up for sale so it's pointless?
Why not just stop banging on about fan ownership then if they dont want Fisher to mention it and the club isn't for sale?
I'm confused
There's a simple answer if Tim goes down that road. Is the club for sale? If no, then no point discussing that with him. move onto the academy question etc
No harm at all the trust venting their views, and what their answer might be to the rut we are in with SISU, and using the press for that. I would suggest if Tim wants to understand it more, he puts the club up for sale and then has a closed meeting to discuss it.
I'm not sure what "taking a long hard look at themselves" will do to stop any anxiety about some nob head with a couple of shandy's down him getting aggressive and spoiling the whole thing. (I don't mean Tim....) I would have thought having concern over that is a sensible approach.
I wouldn't want Tim de-railing the event by attacking the trust the way he did at the last SCG meeting either. What's the point questioning them about fan ownership, their accounts etc when the club is "not for sale". There are far more important questions to be answered, and as has been said, lets him off the hook about those points.
Oh yeah invite to a meeting first.
And there is the kick off point - conversation on the "discussions" He won't give much away but at least it may allow for some valid pressure points. "Sisu sell" is meaningless at the current time, but at least put pressure on with some degree of coherence.But I thought he said he had no influence on the sale position?
Apparently, also the Trust did not offer anything to show they could buy - even if for sale - so not much else to discuss there then
I also thought he answered the Academy question - I understood "all parties are in discussions"
Here's an idea, if they're worried about some pissed up idiot having a pop hold it somewhere that isn't a pub.I'm not sure what "taking a long hard look at themselves" will do to stop any anxiety about some nob head with a couple of shandy's down him getting aggressive and spoiling the whole thing. (I don't mean Tim....) I would have thought having concern over that is a sensible approach.
It's strange though, why wouldn't they have Fisher there but get gilbert up and speaking?
It's a bit predictable and can be seen a mile off.
Yep. Or even the clubs future existence!And round and round it goes. Fisher is playing the SBT Iike a proverbial fiddle. Just ask him key questions on the strategy for the clubs future success. Oh yeah invite to a meeting first.
So without trying to read pages and pages.
Is this right the trust are having an open meeting with Simon Gilbert.
They want one with Tim Fisher.
He has accepted and they want to meet him privately first to discuss security but he has refused to do this?
No, Fisher wants one with them from what cj has said. They want to screen him first to see if they are happy with what he has to say.So without trying to read pages and pages.
Is this right the trust are having an open meeting with Simon Gilbert.
They want one with Tim Fisher.
He has accepted and they want to meet him privately first to discuss security but he has refused to do this?
Mmm. A bit mischievous Nick. That last bit isn't true is it. Clickbater!No, Fisher wants one with them from what cj has said. They want to screen him first to see if they are happy with what he has to say.
is that correct? I thought they just wanted to discuss the forum wit regard to it's smooth running which I think would be sensible, it only takes one idiot to derail the whole thing.No, Fisher wants one with them from what cj has said. They want to screen him first to see if they are happy with what he has to say.
Didn't cj say they had to see if what he said was satisfactory and other issues resolved? I'll go back and double check.Mmm. A bit mischievous Nick. That last bit isn't true is it. Clickbater!
Nick, Wasps are in a position to deny Coventry City access to a stadium that was built for them. That is cruel irony, that Wasps feel that may want to go down that route is due to the actions of the our owners and their representatives.
Not really when you have Fisher offering.
There are things we need to consider before deciding either way. It's pretty obvious what they are.
No he's asked for one. We've asked to meet him first for a short meeting to discuss the finer details.
If what we hear at that private meeting is satisfactory and the issue I stated above is resolved then I don't have a problem with it
Dunno mate in all fairness. Looks like Dave has so could be right (eyesight doesn't allow for small text!). Soz if I jumped in a bit. PUSB a all thatDidn't cj say they had to see if what he said was satisfactory and other issues resolved? I'll go back and double check.
Sorry if I've misread
Here's an idea, if they're worried about some pissed up idiot having a pop hold it somewhere that isn't a pub.
Then if the worry is that if they kick off and he can use that against the trust, surely turning him down based on that being a worry is just as bad?That's a good idea, because obviously there is no way they could get a drink before the meeting is there? but what about the idiot's that don't need a drink to get ultra aggressive?
I just think it's sensible to at least consider this in advance.
If the trust are so concerned about about fisher and his safety at one of their meetings then they need to have address that. It's their failing.
One suspects actually it's nothing to do with that. Fisher I often see wandering around the concourse at the ground. He doesn't make any attempt to hide away.
I suspect they know they can't really handle him. As OSB says he's anything but Dim Tim. He is a pretty clever speaker in these sort of situations and can spin for all its worth.
If we can't have him at meetings like this but have, in the past, had a certain Nick Eastwood at the meetings I'm not sure what that says really.
As for Gilbert - a council stooge who has engaged on some very unsavoury discussions on social media - why on earth would anyone want to listen to him.
Perhaps the trust should have an ex players section and invite Reda Johnson and see if the Canley One actually shows up at all.
Then if the worry is that if they kick off and he can use that against the trust, surely turning him down based on that being a worry is just as bad?
"The trust can't even meet me on in case I get attacked"
It's just giving him ammo isn't it.
That's not me saying i think a trust member would attack him, I don't personally think anything would happen.
Plus if he is going to walk into a trust meeting on his own with 200 people there and start mugging them off he must have some balls or a disorder.
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?