Of course that is the priority !!
Removing Fisher just might help the negotiations and offer Wasps a route to changing their opinions on reopening negotiations.
It’s all about pride and principles and you need “like minded people” with a common goal to achieve that.
Anyhow. I’ll leave the usual idiots alone to wank each other off now in mutual likes and repeating endlessly what each have already said as if it makes you smart. Enjoy yourself girls. I’m sure Fisher appreciates what you do for him.
How would Fisher going help? Boddy is the one doing the negotiations and Fisher resigning wouldn't have any impact on the legal action.Removing Fisher just might help the negotiations and offer Wasps a route to changing their opinions on reopening negotiations.
Think that's the point missed, the replacement isn't going to be done by fan poll.How would Fisher going help? Boddy is the one doing the negotiations and Fisher resigning wouldn't have any impact on the legal action.
At best nothing changes, at worst someone like Dulieu gets dropped in by SISU.
Probably because there are more important things to worry about. It's like someone has set fire to your house, instead of putting the fire out then going after the guy they're just shouting at the bloke while their house burns down.
Looks like itAnyway is this person the SBT secretary?
Two more Rochdale grooming scandal victims receive council pay-outs
I don’t follow or are interested in the politics of the trust or any agenda of people on here.
Like the majority always CCFC and it’s current manager and team first.
However I do believe that Fisher is a devisive influence that only complicates a very difficult negotiating situation.
In the trust article they are very clear about Fishers roles and responsibilities and on those matters I agree with them. He should either resign or admit he supports the court cases.
If Fisher is really serious about ensuring CCFC's future at the Ricoh Arena in the long term, then his role as a Director of the companies pursuing litigation is key.
Under the "Confirmation Statement" lodged with Companies House persons are always cited as being a person with "significant control" over the company. In the case of the companies pursuing the legal claims Tim Fisher is such a person.
Therefore, if he's serious about securing CCFC's long term future her should use his "significant control" to drop the legal claim, which is the one barrier to opening negotiations.
Will he do it???????
Lets say Fisher resigns today, what happens then? Nothing has changed, the legal action doesn't disappear so Wasps still refuse to talk.If Fisher is really serious about ensuring CCFC's future at the Ricoh Arena in the long term, then his role as a Director of the companies pursuing litigation is key.
Under the "Confirmation Statement" lodged with Companies House persons are always cited as being a person with "significant control" over the company. In the case of the companies pursuing the legal claims Tim Fisher is such a person.
Therefore, if he's serious about securing CCFC's long term future her should use his "significant control" to drop the legal claim, which is the one barrier to opening negotiations.
Will he do it???????
Read the minutes or google the names of those on the board. Its a very small group of supporters, many with their own agendas, doing whatever they feel like irrespective of what the wider fanbase believes or what is best for the future of the club.I am not a member of the trust and would be disappointed if they were coming out with statements that have not been approved by their members, so if the trust have a mandate to call out Fisher and agree that signing the communique is not supported by their membership then that is perfectly acceptable to me. Coventry City supporters acting on behalf of Coventry City supporters.
Quite happy with that. Great.Still not a reason to get upset at Fisher being called out. What’s wrong with having an agenda against Fisher and SISU? They’ve earned it haven’t they?
I would say, if you consider this relevant, it probably deserves a separate thread so as:Anyway can someone confirm if this is roger Ellis the SBT secretary?
Council boss in charge at time of Rochdale child sex grooming scandal 'should pay back £80,000 payoff', MPs say | Daily Mail Online
I would say, if you consider this relevant, it probably deserves a separate thread so as:
- Not to get lost;
- Not to deflect.
Anyway, just a thought.
It isn't dealing with this particular issue as in this thread. As it happens, no bugger's answering you, so it's not taking the thread away from that issue at all(!) but...How is it deflection. I’m interested in the Trusts view on fit and proper people to sit on a board relating to the football club.
It isn't dealing with this particular issue as in this thread. As it happens, no bugger's answering you, so it's not taking the thread away from that issue at all(!) but...
Notice I did suggest you made a thread so it didn't get lost, if you considered it important. Doing that would focus on that particular issue, wouldn't it? It'd also be more likely your question would be seen (and answered) and could probably be discussed more in depth.
I would say, if you consider this relevant, it probably deserves a separate thread so as:
- Not to get lost;
- Not to deflect.
Anyway, just a thought.
And I'm not saying it isn't, am I?I think it’s relevant to highlight exactly who isn’t representing us m8
And I'm not saying it isn't, am I?
As it happens, I appear to be the one saying bring it more into the open rather than digressions on other threads.Who pissed on your Digestives m8 ?
As it happens, I appear to be the one saying bring it more into the open rather than digressions on other threads.
I'd have some questions myself if there were a thread dedicated to it, but I'm not going to waste (any more of!) my time digressing here.
In that case the submission to Companies House is totally inaccurate, which is against the law!Stop spouting bollocks - fisher has no influence over the club
I'm going to give it a wide berth for that very reason.This thread is hilarious. Already. Can’t understand why some supporters get so upset when Fisher gets called out.
What we need now though is a Trust statement on the Council and how we can apply pressure there.
Needs doing though.Good luck with that m8
Can answer the council one they said it was nothing to do with themAnyway, not enough time to do it properly, and my brain is still elsewhere but...
We've had the Tim Fisher stuff - fine. No issue with that, so let's add to it, dealing with the issue at hand.
Why, as reported 8th May 2017, were Wasps seemingly happy to talk about a deal for the club to remain at the Ricoh in the medium term at that point, but not now? What has changed? Has anything changed? Are Wasps still happy to talk about a deal? Note, this statement was made after certain legal action commenced. As, apparently, it was a long term deal that was not able to be countenanced while legal action was ongoing, (see also here) why can't the parties talk about a rolling annual deal, to be reviewed on conclusion of legal action?
As the EFL were instrumental in helping the parties reach agreement on the current deal, according to reports, are they talking to both parties now? What is their view? Do we have a direct view, as opposed to hearsay?
A couple that are more flights of fancy, but the answers would be illuminating:
If we're talking hypotheticals, would the council; be happy for a temporary arrangement for the football club to play at the Butts rather than the Ricoh if talks broke down? As a Plan B, would they be willing to facilitate talks between those two parties, where relations appear to be more positive? Would CRFC be more disposed to talks with the football club if the council were onside?
As an actual Plan B, the club must surely have one if a deal at the Ricoh is unable to be reached. If not, it would be terrible business practice. What is Coventry City's Plan B, if they are unable to stay at the Ricoh?
Think it’s still planning on a new stadiumAnyway, not enough time to do it properly, and my brain is still elsewhere but...
We've had the Tim Fisher stuff - fine. No issue with that, so let's add to it, dealing with the issue at hand.
Why, as reported 8th May 2017, were Wasps seemingly happy to talk about a deal for the club to remain at the Ricoh in the medium term at that point, but not now? What has changed? Has anything changed? Are Wasps still happy to talk about a deal? Note, this statement was made after certain legal action commenced. As, apparently, it was a long term deal that was not able to be countenanced while legal action was ongoing, (see also here) why can't the parties talk about a rolling annual deal, to be reviewed on conclusion of legal action?
As the EFL were instrumental in helping the parties reach agreement on the current deal, according to reports, are they talking to both parties now? What is their view? Do we have a direct view, as opposed to hearsay?
A couple that are more flights of fancy, but the answers would be illuminating:
If we're talking hypotheticals, would the council; be happy for a temporary arrangement for the football club to play at the Butts rather than the Ricoh if talks broke down? As a Plan B, would they be willing to facilitate talks between those two parties, where relations appear to be more positive? Would CRFC be more disposed to talks with the football club if the council were onside?
As an actual Plan B, the club must surely have one if a deal at the Ricoh is unable to be reached. If not, it would be terrible business practice. What is Coventry City's Plan B, if they are unable to stay at the Ricoh?
Can always raise with your local councillorNeeds doing though.
Isn't there public access to some council meetings? Should consider turning up and keep bringing the issue up ad nauseum.
Won't hold your breath. From what I can make out the trust secretary is an ex council CEO and there's another chap who shows as attending board meetings (despite not being listed on their website as a board member) who works for the council.Needs doing though.
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?