What a shock... the trust "speak up" (4 Viewers)

[Nick]

All of them involved in the Trust are hypocrites really. Wouldn't Trust any of them as far as they can be thrown and will all be in it for themselves.

How can they bang on about transparency? Maybe they can set an example and start being transparent.

 

---

[Nick]

If that’s the line SBT has no chance.

The ironic thing is he tried to preach about bad PR being spin but not realising he was misleading at the time.

He really isn't very bright.

 

[shmmeee]

That's the issue with 20 regulars meeting now and again becomes an echo chamber!!

So we only need 1/8 people who have read this thread to outvote them

 

[shepardo01]

Reply from trust

As things stand all parties have softened their positions with the exception of the club, if they’d only speak to us and allow us to bring all parties together.

If the case wasn’t there, there is nothing to stop a deal

what do we think to that?

WELL DONE PETE!.... a response
I'd email back asking how the trust think the Club can soften their position.
There is nothing they can do!!!
If I read that right, have the trust also acknowledged that the complaint cannot be ignored?
Is that just a turn of phrase, or is that a response to the comments from CJ/trust that they think the complaint can be asked to be forgotten about/ignored.....
Also, might be worth asking why they think the club would actually meet with them after all of their protests towards the club (note no protests against other parties, who funnily enough HAVE met with them...)
Encouraging that they have replied.... but it is a, poor wasps want to talk but nasty city are being awkward.... when it is the other bloody way round!!!

 

[Nick]

WELL DONE PETE!.... a response
I'd email back asking how the trust think the Club can soften their position.
There is nothing they can do!!!
If I read that right, have the trust also acknowledged that the complaint cannot be ignored?
Is that just a turn of phrase, or is that a response to the comments from CJ/trust that they think the complaint can be asked to be forgotten about/ignored.....
Also, might be worth asking why they think the club would actually meet with them after all of their protests towards the club (note no protests against other parties, who funnily enough HAVE met with them...)
Encouraging that they have replied.... but it is a, poor wasps want to talk but nasty city are being awkward.... when it is the other bloody way round!!!

Of course it is, they are playing the Wasps are goodies line again. Same as they did on the same day the BBC were filming about them kicking people out of the sports centre.

Fact is, the statement comes from whoever has the social media logins at that time.

 

[SlowerThanPlatt]

So we only need 1/8 people who have read this thread to outvote them

View attachment 13898

Was beginning to think my phone was glitching as used to seeing the users viewing at the bottom of the thread :woot:

 

[chiefdave]

we don’t currently have an open meeting planned at the minute, but the AGM will be in the summer in June/July.

Down to one meeting a year then.

the Trust have been trying to get Wasps to to relax their position, but in terms of getting them to drop the indemnity clause, is maybe beyond us.

How? They won't say a word against them. Members are constantly asking them to pressure Wasps and they've done nothing. How exactly is their position relaxed? If they won't drop the indemnity that's it.

Wasps see their business being damaged deliberately by Sisu, and want reassurances for any deal.

But again raises the issue that Wasps can only be impacted if CCC have done something wrong, and if thats that case they will be the cause of huge damage to the club. Why should the club pay if that is the case?

As things stand all parties have softened their positions with the exception of the club, if they’d only speak to us and allow us to bring all parties together.

All parties? There's only two and one, not surprisingly, won't talk to the Trust so how do they know what their position is or how it has changed unless the one party who is speaking with them has broken the NDA?

In terms of the EU appeal, that cannot be ignored, the case is ongoing and the latest from Brussels is its under review, but with no date set for a decision.

Why can't it be ignored? Every day in business companies involved in legal disputes with each other continue working together day to day.

what do we think to that?

Seems the same to me as at the meetings. Just saying what they think will shut you up. If they're going to back Wasps and the council over the club the very least they can do is stop treated those who flag it up as idiots.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Have

More self applauding bollocks unfortunately

But thanks for all your work Pete

have asked about what reassurances wasps need and what did he mean about if there was no Eu complaint then a deal could be done ? Let’s see if he replies

 

[tisza]

I appreciate your email and the Trust have been trying to get Wasps to to relax their position, but in terms of getting them to drop the indemnity clause, is maybe beyond us. Wasps see their business being damaged deliberately by Sisu, and want reassurances for any deal.

When we first spoke to Wasps a deal was never going to happen, but we have softened their stance with our input, views and pleas. As things stand all parties have softened their positions with the exception of the club, if they’d only speak to us and allow us to bring all parties together.

In terms of the EU appeal, that cannot be ignored, the case is ongoing and the latest from Brussels is its under review, but with no date set for a decision.

As a trust we just want the club back in Coventry!! And I know most fans to do!!

I hope that answers some of your questions


what do we think to that?

1.they admit there's an indemnity clause even if some apologists on CWR don't.
2.whether they like it or not if they can see Wasps point (about SISU deliberately damaging the business) they Should acknowledge wasps buying (& CCC selling) the Ricoh damaged the football clubs business.
3. Softening of attitudes from All sides was already in place before the indemnity was added if people are to believed an agreement was in place.
4.the trust should be primarily concerned with the long-term future of the club. Not just getting it back in Coventry. Yes it needs to be back in Cov but on terms the club and supporters can live with.

 

[Nick]

I guess CJ and Neil must be working or something tonight like they are when anybody asks them a question?

 

[tisza]

But then that means we stay out of Coventry, surely? If SISU were going to build a new stadium they would have done it by now.

We have the SISU/CCC dance. "There's land, there's not land". NDAs hiding everything.

 

[Sick Boy]

The Trust can fuck right off, they’re a disgrace.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Further reply that’s interesting

Wasps want reassurances that their business model won’t be affected. Whilst an agreement that no further direct legal action against them from Sisu was agreed in principle, the EU appeal is different. In the event that is upheld, it is the council who pay the bill, but the deal with Wasps is likely forfeit or subject would see them owing a significant sum of money that affects their business model.

As for what I meant by if the EU appeal wasn’t there, well as outlined above. They simply don’t want to lose money and protect their business interest.

I hope the trust don’t mind me sharing this. I’m sure the guys aware that I’m likely to share

I’ve asked him whether the sky blues trust is more concerned about wasps or ccfc business models and if the Eu complaint is upheld then does he really expect ccfc to pay the money that should have been paid by wasps to ccc?
I have asked if I’m being unfair

 

[Nick]

Why aren't the trust passing this onto members? Why did CJ lie about what was said?

They need to get their stories straight.

They are dodging around the indemnity.

 

[chiefdave]

Wasps want reassurances that their business model won’t be affected. Whilst an agreement that no further direct legal action against them from Sisu was agreed in principle, the EU appeal is different. In the event that is upheld, it is the council who pay the bill, but the deal with Wasps is likely forfeit or subject would see them owing a significant sum of money that affects their business model.

I've never heard anything so ridiculous. Whose side is the trust supposed to be on, Coventry City or Wasps? Frankly who gives a shit about how it affects Wasps business model if the council are found to be in the wrong.

Lets be very clear here. The scenario they are worried about is that it gets found out that the council have done something wrong which has given Wasps a huge, and unfair, advantage while at the same time doing significant damage to the football club.

What else should we cover? If Wasps get relegated should we give them compensation? After all thats something else thats not our fault that would impact their business model.

The Trust should not be giving Wasps any leeway with this, its simply unacceptable. It should be drop the indemnity, nothing else is acceptable. The football club conceded ground and agreed to no further action against Wasps. Instead of Wasps also conceding ground they introduced even greater punitive measures.

Also why is this coming out now, and in the manner it is? This sort of thing if true, and frankly I have my doubts as it contradicts what they've said before, should be getting passed on to members immediately not being left until there's a couple of phone calls to CWR questioning Wasps.

 

[Nick]

I'm sure cj will tell us?

 

[Wyken Sky Blue]

I'm not a fan of the Trust but they do raise a valid point.

Since moving to St Andrews we have heard nothing about SISU's plan to get back into Coventry. We can't stay in Brum forever.

Sent from my I3113 using Tapatalk

 

[Nick]

Wonder if Hoffman is going to rear his head again?

 

[Skybluefaz]

Those replies just say Wasps, Wasps, Wasps, Wasps, Wasps, Wasps. The sky blue fucking trust cares less about the football club than the London rugby team.

 

[Frostie]

Further reply that’s interesting

Wasps want reassurances that their business model won’t be affected. Whilst an agreement that no further direct legal action against them from Sisu was agreed in principle, the EU appeal is different. In the event that is upheld, it is the council who pay the bill, but the deal with Wasps is likely forfeit or subject would see them owing a significant sum of money that affects their business model.

So the Trust admit that the indemnity is the stumbling block but in calling for "bringing the club back to Coventry, particularly while it is so successful on the pitch, would engage thousands of supporters who are not attending matches in Birmingham."
that would of course mean accepting the indemnity...

They're claiming they aren't looking to damage the club but will happily endorse action which could bankrupt us just to keep Wasps happy!?

 

[Skybluefaz]

I'm not a fan of the Trust but they do raise a valid point.

Since moving to St Andrews we have heard nothing about SISU's plan to get back into Coventry. We can't stay in Brum forever.

Sent from my I3113 using Tapatalk

You aren't wrong, the club should be doing more to keep us informed

 

[chiefdave]

So the Trust admit that the indemnity is the stumbling block but in calling for "bringing the club back to Coventry, particularly while it is so successful on the pitch, would engage thousands of supporters who are not attending matches in Birmingham."
that would of course mean accepting the indemnity...

They're claiming they aren't looking to damage the club but will happily endorse action which could bankrupt us just to keep Wasps happy!?

Exactly, if what they're saying in these emails is true then why the hell are the in the Telegraph and on CWR today saying its up to the club to do something. They've confirmed what we all knew anyway, that until Wasps drop the indemnity we're screwed. But despite that very obvious and very simple fact they still can't bring themselves to even question Wasps.

 

[Frostie]

And not a single mention of the indemnity in the SBT statement... shock.
They are deliberately trying to mislead the less informed fans who take the Telegraph & CWR at face value that once again it's all nasty SISU's fault.

Just who do they actually represent?

 

[Earlsdon-Loyal-Blue]

Why aren't the trust passing this onto members? Why did CJ lie about what was said?

They need to get their stories straight.

They are dodging around the indemnity.

All smoke and mirrors as per usual Nick.
I wouldn’t blame the club if they refused to acknowledge the Sky Blues Trust anymore, they’re self serving to the detriment of the club and other supporters.

 

[Grendel]

Reply from trust



Thanks for you email, we don’t currently have an open meeting planned at the minute, but the AGM will be in the summer in June/July.

I appreciate your email and the Trust have been trying to get Wasps to to relax their position, but in terms of getting them to drop the indemnity clause, is maybe beyond us. Wasps see their business being damaged deliberately by Sisu, and want reassurances for any deal.

When we first spoke to Wasps a deal was never going to happen, but we have softened their stance with our input, views and pleas. As things stand all parties have softened their positions with the exception of the club, if they’d only speak to us and allow us to bring all parties together.

In terms of the EU appeal, that cannot be ignored, the case is ongoing and the latest from Brussels is its under review, but with no date set for a decision.

If the case wasn’t there, there is nothing to stop a deal being done, regardless of any of the personalities involved in trying to strike a deal.

As a trust we just want the club back in Coventry!! And I know most fans to do!!

I hope that answers some of your questions


what do we think to that?

As Paul Daniels would say “Not a lot”

 

[Wyken Sky Blue]

You aren't wrong, the club should be doing more to keep us informed

I'd like to think the majority of people on this forum would agree with that.

However, the SBT do seem to be more on Wasps and CCC's side in this mess when they and SISU are all equally culpable.

Sent from my I3113 using Tapatalk

 

[Covstu]

The whole approach is a short term view of the world and has always been that way.

We want back from sixfields - I know they will claim credit for it due to the marches etc but it was always on the cards. The club as a whole suffered as a consequence and we were back in the same position playing on a shit pitch and plummeting down the league

we want SISU out - well didn’t they back the wrong horse again after reading that Haskell article.

we want back from SA - so never mind the pitch this time, we just go back with our tail between our legs take the shit ‘deal’ and be no better off. Fans will appear for a few games then be back to circa 10k again unless we are still in top 3 with a few games to go.

Never mind the pally nature with wasps and the council! They don’t represent me and most of the fans.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I'm not a fan of the Trust but they do raise a valid point.

Since moving to St Andrews we have heard nothing about SISU's plan to get back into Coventry. We can't stay in Brum forever.

Sent from my I3113 using Tapatalk

I suppose boddy would say there’s nothing to say. We can’t sign an indemnity covering wasps losses should the eu complaint be upheld and this means we can’t play at the Ricoh.

I ask again who is the non disclosure agreement protecting? And why?

 

[MalcSB]

Reply from trust



Thanks for you email, we don’t currently have an open meeting planned at the minute, but the AGM will be in the summer in June/July.

I appreciate your email and the Trust have been trying to get Wasps to to relax their position, but in terms of getting them to drop the indemnity clause, is maybe beyond us. Wasps see their business being damaged deliberately by Sisu, and want reassurances for any deal.

When we first spoke to Wasps a deal was never going to happen, but we have softened their stance with our input, views and pleas. As things stand all parties have softened their positions with the exception of the club, if they’d only speak to us and allow us to bring all parties together.

In terms of the EU appeal, that cannot be ignored, the case is ongoing and the latest from Brussels is its under review, but with no date set for a decision.

If the case wasn’t there, there is nothing to stop a deal being done, regardless of any of the personalities involved in trying to strike a deal.

As a trust we just want the club back in Coventry!! And I know most fans to do!!

I hope that answers some of your questions


what do we think to that?

So they claim to have 2,700 members who they also claim to represent - but no open meetings planned!

 

[SlowerThanPlatt]

And the majority of the 2,700 are fans who would have signed up before or after the march on the belief they had good intentions and work with the club not against it.

It’s like CCFC quoting they have 100,000 members from their database but as we know only about 10% are active and attend regular games

 

[tisza]

And the majority of the 2,700 are fans who would have signed up before or after the march on the belief they had good intentions and work with the club not against it.

It’s like CCFC quoting they have 100,000 members from their database but as we know only about 10% are active and attend regular games

ask them to pay £1 a year membership sub and see how many are left next year?

 

[Nick]

Strange, Neil is unable to reply to general questions but is all over the council accounts liking their shit



Maybe the PR expert can point out any conspiracies?

 

[SkyBlueCRJ]

Reply from trust



Thanks for you email, we don’t currently have an open meeting planned at the minute, but the AGM will be in the summer in June/July.

I appreciate your email and the Trust have been trying to get Wasps to to relax their position, but in terms of getting them to drop the indemnity clause, is maybe beyond us. Wasps see their business being damaged deliberately by Sisu, and want reassurances for any deal.

When we first spoke to Wasps a deal was never going to happen, but we have softened their stance with our input, views and pleas. As things stand all parties have softened their positions with the exception of the club, if they’d only speak to us and allow us to bring all parties together.

In terms of the EU appeal, that cannot be ignored, the case is ongoing and the latest from Brussels is its under review, but with no date set for a decision.

If the case wasn’t there, there is nothing to stop a deal being done, regardless of any of the personalities involved in trying to strike a deal.

As a trust we just want the club back in Coventry!! And I know most fans to do!!

I hope that answers some of your questions


what do we think to that?

I spoke to Dave Boddy personally on Saturday and this is an outright lie. Equally, why do the club need the SBT to bring parties together. Dave said he actually has a fairly good relationship with those at Wasps, and is in regular contact. Effectively what the Trust are saying is that the club are being difficult because it doesn't want to put itself in a position where it and it's own employees I might add would be put in jeopardy. The Trust are an utter shambles

 

[Nick]

I spoke to Dave Boddy personally on Saturday and this is an outright lie. Equally, why do the club need the SBT to bring parties together. Dave said he actually has a fairly good relationship with those at Wasps, and is in regular contact. Effectively what the Trust are saying is that the club are being difficult because it doesn't want to put itself in a position where it and it's own employees I might add would be put in jeopardy. The Trust are an utter shambles

Tynan Scope has also questioned that this morning.

It's strange how suddenly the Trust have a different account of their meeting with Wasps suddenly when the indemnity starts getting questioned.

 

[olderskyblue]

I've never heard anything so ridiculous. Whose side is the trust supposed to be on, Coventry City or Wasps? Frankly who gives a shit about how it affects Wasps business model if the council are found to be in the wrong.

Lets be very clear here. The scenario they are worried about is that it gets found out that the council have done something wrong which has given Wasps a huge, and unfair, advantage while at the same time doing significant damage to the football club.

What else should we cover? If Wasps get relegated should we give them compensation? After all thats something else thats not our fault that would impact their business model.

The Trust should not be giving Wasps any leeway with this, its simply unacceptable. It should be drop the indemnity, nothing else is acceptable. The football club conceded ground and agreed to no further action against Wasps. Instead of Wasps also conceding ground they introduced even greater punitive measures.

Also why is this coming out now, and in the manner it is? This sort of thing if true, and frankly I have my doubts as it contradicts what they've said before, should be getting passed on to members immediately not being left until there's a couple of phone calls to CWR questioning Wasps.

firstly, there’s nothing new here. The deal was done, the champagne ready to be opened to celebrate, and then wasps found out that SISU had, during all these discussions and agreements, gone behind everyone’s back and complained to the EU.

that completely overturned all the “goodwill” going on between CCFC and wasps.

secondly, wasps are concerned the EU might disagree with all the UK judges who have deemed the Ricoh deal as above board. (Bit different to you saying they would “get found out”, but same end result). If that happened there may be significant costs involved to wasps.

the people who should be indemnifying them (if anyone should) is CCC, and I understand they refused.

it’s clear CCFC should not, but what’s new in anything the trust have said now?

what do you want them to do about wasps if they say the indemnity remains in the deal ? Whatever it is, I think we both agree they won’t do it.