What a shock... the trust "speak up" (2 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

Sisu have already committed to no more legal action though?

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Exactly, as I said they’ve already said they’re up for it so should be a formality.

 

---

[Grendel]

There shouldn’t be a complaint but that’s spilt milk. Focus has to be on dropping the indemnity, it’s indefensible and once it’s dropped focus can be put on Sisu to commit to no more legal action while we need the Ricoh and for plans for a ground. Both of which they say they’re up for. So we can hold them to that.

I suspect not. If the complaint is not upheld there is an appeal process

Conversely if they succeed there is a process of appeal for the other impacted party. I cannot see Sisu committing as they’d want all other parties to commit as well and if the complaint was upheld there is no way on earth there would not be an appeal

 

[shmmeee]

I suspect not. If the complaint is not upheld there is an appeal process

Conversely if they succeed there is a process of appeal for the other impacted party. I cannot see Sisu committing as they’d want all other parties to commit as well and if the complaint was upheld there is no way on earth there would not be an appeal

In the name of a new spirit of fan cooperation I’ve just uningnored you (@SkyBlueDom26 will be pleased). Hoping we can have a constructive discussion.

To your point, I think we have to focus on one thing at a time. By all accounts Sisu agreed prior to previous talks to something to do with “no more legals” that was acceptable to Wasps. So I think if we can get Wasps to drop the clearly bollocks indemnity then we are just asking Sisu to go back to where they were when they came to the table.

I suspect there’s more to it than that, but while the indemnity clause exists Sisu can hide behind it. There’s agreement among us that the clause needs to go so let’s start there and see where we get.

 

[olderskyblue]

In the name of a new spirit of fan cooperation I’ve just uningnored you (@SkyBlueDom26 will be pleased). Hoping we can have a constructive discussion.

To your point, I think we have to focus on one thing at a time. By all accounts Sisu agreed prior to previous talks to something to do with “no more legals” that was acceptable to Wasps. So I think if we can get Wasps to drop the clearly bollocks indemnity then we are just asking Sisu to go back to where they were when they came to the table.

I suspect there’s more to it than that, but while the indemnity clause exists Sisu can hide behind it. There’s agreement among us that the clause needs to go so let’s start there and see where we get.

I think the clarification of what “legals” actually means would take some time given the EU complaint is not seen as “legals”. Once bitten etc.

 

[CCFCSteve]

In the name of a new spirit of fan cooperation I’ve just uningnored you (@SkyBlueDom26 will be pleased). Hoping we can have a constructive discussion.

To your point, I think we have to focus on one thing at a time. By all accounts Sisu agreed prior to previous talks to something to do with “no more legals” that was acceptable to Wasps. So I think if we can get Wasps to drop the clearly bollocks indemnity then we are just asking Sisu to go back to where they were when they came to the table.

I suspect there’s more to it than that, but while the indemnity clause exists Sisu can hide behind it. There’s agreement among us that the clause needs to go so let’s start there and see where we get.

Agreed. If it is just the indemnity clause holding things up, surely retaining the clause only for any future legals (ie not the EC complaint) should work for all parties ?

Im no SISU fan but the EC complaint has been submitted, there’s nothing anyone can do about it now so surely a new rent agreement (that would benefit both sides) shouldn’t be contingent on what happens with that ?

As you say though, maybe there’s a bit more to it

 

[tisza]

In the name of a new spirit of fan cooperation I’ve just uningnored you (@SkyBlueDom26 will be pleased). Hoping we can have a constructive discussion.

To your point, I think we have to focus on one thing at a time. By all accounts Sisu agreed prior to previous talks to something to do with “no more legals” that was acceptable to Wasps. So I think if we can get Wasps to drop the clearly bollocks indemnity then we are just asking Sisu to go back to where they were when they came to the table.

I suspect there’s more to it than that, but while the indemnity clause exists Sisu can hide behind it. There’s agreement among us that the clause needs to go so let’s start there and see where we get.

I don't see how wasps can drop the indemnity - even if they are a 100% confident they are in the clear. Someone needs to cover/insure the potential financial impact - really should be the Council if they've messed up. Doubt the Council's insurance would cover it.
Someone on here (maybe OSB) must have done an analysis on the impact of Wasps/CCC losing in terms of the Wasps Bond, lease value guarantees etc.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

I don't see how wasps can drop the indemnity - even if they are a 100% confident they are in the clear. Someone needs to cover/insure the potential financial impact - really should be the Council if they've messed up. Doubt the Council's insurance would cover it.
Someone on here (maybe OSB) must have done an analysis on the impact of Wasps/CCC losing in terms of the Wasps Bond, lease value guarantees etc.

The council are in the wrong, but they have a duty to recover the lost money or revert back to the previous agreement, I.e give back what wasps paid and take the lease back.

they got the Ricoh on the cheap and they know they did. It’s scandalous to say “well it turns out we’ve been caught but SISUand CCFC should pay for our shady deal”

 

[Grendel]

I don't see how wasps can drop the indemnity - even if they are a 100% confident they are in the clear. Someone needs to cover/insure the potential financial impact - really should be the Council if they've messed up. Doubt the Council's insurance would cover it.
Someone on here (maybe OSB) must have done an analysis on the impact of Wasps/CCC losing in terms of the Wasps Bond, lease value guarantees etc.

Isn’t it claimed that it’s the indemnity against the club and not the owners that the issue?

If it is then this seems a pointless exercise by wasps as the club would be wound up rather than lay it and it makes it unsaleable for a price. Unless of course that’s the objective....

 

[Liquid Gold]

Surely there is no way the council can offer wasps indemnity. EU judges state aid and the council sorts it out by giving state aid. No chance. It looks like wasps are running scared and are trying to get the club to cover it. Sisu are doing the right thing in this instance by refusing it.

 

[shmmeee]

I think the clarification of what “legals” actually means would take some time given the EU complaint is not seen as “legals”. Once bitten etc.

Maybe. As I say one thing at a time.

I don't see how wasps can drop the indemnity - even if they are a 100% confident they are in the clear. Someone needs to cover/insure the potential financial impact - really should be the Council if they've messed up. Doubt the Council's insurance would cover it.
Someone on here (maybe OSB) must have done an analysis on the impact of Wasps/CCC losing in terms of the Wasps Bond, lease value guarantees etc.

That’s not really our problem. The point is that if Wasps end up paying back anything then by definition they or the council have done something wrong. It’s nothing to do with CCFC.

They’re essentially saying we can’t return while the state aid case is running. But don’t want to say that so have put forward a ridiculous clause to make it look like the club are the unreasonable ones. They need to own that.

 

[shmmeee]

Isn’t it claimed that it’s the indemnity against the club and not the owners that the issue?

If it is then this seems a pointless exercise by wasps as the club would be wound up rather than lay it and it makes it unsaleable for a price. Unless of course that’s the objective....

Exactly.

 

[tisza]

Isn’t it claimed that it’s the indemnity against the club and not the owners that the issue?

If it is then this seems a pointless exercise by wasps as the club would be wound up rather than lay it and it makes it unsaleable for a price. Unless of course that’s the objective....

If it's against the club and not the owners then would definitely make sense not to sign it.
Even the Trust has to accept that the club (or even the owners for that matter) should not suffer if there was a need for an indemnity to be paid as it would mean the Council and Wasps had been found to have acted improperly in the first place.

 

[Irish Sky Blue]

You probably have a point - but this would be far easier said than done.

For instance, would SISU want to be engaged with by another Trust after years of protest and vitriol from the SBT? My guess would be no - even if an olive branch was offered. Equally what purpose would this have? Even if Joy was willing to meet with a new trust would she just tell them what they want to hear? Time and resource would surely be better spent building the relationship back with the club and working with them rather than with SISU.

Then there's the issue with CCC. They change the goalposts and refuse to accept criticism. So holding them to account and building a rapport with them would be difficult to say the least. Like you said there's a fine line. We wouldn't want to be put in a position where we physically can't hold CCC account for any past or future wrongdoings otherwise it negates a key purpose of a new trust.

A relationship with Wasps would have to be a given - assuming we are able to sign a long term agreement at the Ricoh.

The initial primary purpose of a new Trust would surely be to get us back to Coventry. To do this I think you have to try and keep lines of communication open with everyone. Sisu have never been open and will only go to the media when they want. That position may not change. At the moment it doesn’t seem that even Boddy will speak to the Trust. A group that can speak and listen to Wasps, CCC, CCFC and possibly Sisu have a much greater chance of achieving something I would say.
Annual renewal of membership, a more up to date way of electing board members and of gathering fans views and ideas would also lend weight to what this new Trust would say and do. It would also have a more authorative voice in challenging the local media who seem unwilling to question all parties involved. Why the Telegraph or CWR don’t question Wasps on the indemnity is a major frustration.

 

[shmmeee]

The initial primary purpose of a new Trust would surely be to get us back to Coventry. To do this I think you have to try and keep lines of communication open with everyone. Sisu have never been open and will only go to the media when they want. That position may not change. At the moment it doesn’t seem that even Boddy will speak to the Trust. A group that can speak and listen to Wasps, CCC, CCFC and possibly Sisu have a much greater chance of achieving something I would say.
Annual renewal of membership, a more up to date way of electing board members and of gathering fans views and ideas would also lend weight to what this new Trust would say and do. It would also have a more authorative voice in challenging the local media who seem unwilling to question all parties involved. Why the Telegraph or CWR don’t question Wasps on the indemnity is a major frustration.

All of that could be done with the current Trust if we could organise a takeover. Setting up two trusts means only one would be recognised and people would ask why two.

Maybe the Coventry Supporters Group but that’s non political and excludes those outside Cov.

 

[Nick]

Maybe the Coventry Supporters Group but that’s non political and excludes those outside Cov.

That attempted dig is ironic.

 

[shmmeee]

That attempted dig is ironic.

?

 

[Nick]

How does it exclude those outside Cov?

 

[chiefdave]

Agreed. If it is just the indemnity clause holding things up, surely retaining the clause only for any future legals (ie not the EC complaint) should work for all parties ?

Not sure that would work as if the EC investigation shows the council to be in the wrong then it would require further action to obtain damages.

Of course that would be action against the council and not Wasps so no reason the club can't agree to no further action against Wasps, which I think is what they agreed last time before Wasps moved the goalposts.

If Wasps have obtained cover from the council when they made the purchase thats their own fault. its not like it wasn't know there was ongoing issues at the time.

 

[CCFC88]

The idiots who run that account are as bad as the trust.

This account is the only bigger joke than the trust currently.

Tweeted last night at 22:58 "Only just caught up with the result! Buzzing." Proceeds to tweet O'Hare to tell him he was a "Different gravy today", hasn't even watched the game.

 

[Grendel]

This account is the only bigger joke than the trust currently.

Tweeted last night at 22:58 "Only just caught up with the result! Buzzing." Proceeds to tweet O'Hare to tell him he was a "Different gravy today", hasn't even watched the game.

I can’t remember who Salop was on the CT site but JR was definitely on it and once when he was talking about selling one of the players whose our best I pointed out he never went. His reply was “I don’t need to. I know because of Andy Turners excellent match reports and ratings”

 

[SlowerThanPlatt]

The blokes an utter clown. I see he’s now joined forces with LiesReid and co to post their SISU bullet points

He said the Trust statement was spot on the other day

 

[shmmeee]

How does it exclude those outside Cov?

It’s the Coventry Supporters Club. I assumed it was for people in Coventry on the same way the London one is for London. Apologies if that’s wrong. Really wasn’t a dig.

 

[Nick]

The blokes an utter clown. I see he’s now joined forces with LiesReid and co to post their SISU bullet points

He said the Trust statement was spot on the other day

Strange how he went for a meeting with Wasps and is now their pal.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

Why does James Alexander retweet and like his own tweets - watching him argue on twitter and wanted to see who’s liking and retweeting him

 

[shmmeee]

Why does James Alexander retweet and like his own tweets - watching him argue on twitter and wanted to see who’s liking and retweeting him

Hahahaha. I was arguing with someone once (not about City) and spotted they were doing that so I called them out on it when they missed one.

Can only be to give them impression of support. The occasional retweet of a comment in a thread to put it onto your feed fair enough, but liking and retweeting everything is pointless.

 

[SlowerThanPlatt]

Strange how he went for a meeting with Wasps and is now their pal.

He actually had a meeting with Wasps?

 

[Nick]

Why does James Alexander retweet and like his own tweets - watching him argue on twitter and wanted to see who’s liking and retweeting him

Because people like him, Lies Reid and Salop888 (C West) are just trying their best to push an agenda and make everybody think they are right even though most of the time they are factually incorrect. They don't realise just shouting SISU to do a PR job doesn't work any more and that pretty much everybody bar those few see them for what they are.

 

[Nick]

He actually had a meeting with Wasps?

Yep, after the protest that BHSB and NW did at Wasps.

 

[tisza]

Sisu have never been open and will only go to the media when they want. That position may not change.

People have to accept all parties involved have behaved the same way.
CCC have "hidden" behind NDAs and commercial confidentiality from before the ACL deal was done.
Wasps pretty much the same.
Look at what's appeared in the media and it's a lot of nothing platitudes from ALL sides whilst trying to shift the blame elsewhere. All sides have tried to use the media to further their own aims - fans being used as pawns by all parties involved
Football club probably been most open about the indemnity - saying it could break the club. If an indemnity needed to be enforced it wouldn't be down to the actions of the football club it would have been because other parties had broken the rules.
CCC say it's none of their business (even though they are the cause for one being asked - if their actions are found to have been improper).

 

[Grendel]

Because people like him, Lies Reid and Salop888 (C West) are just trying their best to push an agenda and make everybody think they are right even though most of the time they are factually incorrect. They don't realise just shouting SISU to do a PR job doesn't work any more and that pretty much everybody bar those few see them for what they are.

West in particular is the only one who really promotes the Lies Reid account

 

[SlowerThanPlatt]

West in particular is the only one who really promotes the Lies Reid account

Who are these people? Have they ever had accounts on here or do they just stick to their own environment repeating the same things without being questioned?

 

[Nick]

Who are these people? Have they ever had accounts on here or do they just stick to their own environment repeating the same things without being questioned?

All seem very close to the Trust and people involved with the Trust.

Lies Reid was on the Trust board but CJ said he got kicked off because of his antics.

 

[Nick]

West in particular is the only one who really promotes the Lies Reid account

Council friends?

 

[SlowerThanPlatt]

All seem very close to the Trust and people involved with the Trust.

Lies Reid was on the Trust board but CJ said he got kicked off because of his antics.

They’ve had some unsavoury characters to say the least so must he have been bad

What did he do? Is he the guy who does weird photoshops of Fisher and Sepalla?

 

[Grendel]

Who are these people? Have they ever had accounts on here or do they just stick to their own environment repeating the same things without being questioned?

James Alexander was Ginetta / Sydney sky Blue on here. Total wanker.