If that’s the line SBT has no chance.
WELL DONE PETE!.... a responseReply 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!!!
Down to one meeting a year then.we don’t currently have an open meeting planned at the minute, but the AGM will be in the summer in June/July.
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.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.
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?Wasps see their business being damaged deliberately by Sisu, and want reassurances for any deal.
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?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.
Why can't it be ignored? Every day in business companies involved in legal disputes with each other continue working together day to day.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.
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.what do we think to that?
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 repliesMore self applauding bollocks unfortunately
But thanks for all your work Pete
1.they admit there's an indemnity clause even if some apologists on CWR don't.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?
We have the SISU/CCC dance. "There's land, there's not land". NDAs hiding everything.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.
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.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.
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.
You aren't wrong, the club should be doing more to keep us informedI'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
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.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!?
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.
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'd like to think the majority of people on this forum would agree with that.You aren't wrong, the club should be doing more to keep us informed
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'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
So they claim to have 2,700 members who they also claim to represent - but no open meetings planned!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?
ask them to pay £1 a year membership sub and see how many are left next year?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
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
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.
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?