shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Exactly, as I said they’ve already said they’re up for it so should be a formality.
Sisu have already committed to no more legal action though?
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
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
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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....
If it's against the club and not the owners then would definitely make sense not to sign it.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....
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.
Maybe the Coventry Supporters Group but that’s non political and excludes those outside Cov.
That attempted dig is ironic.
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.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 ?
This account is the only bigger joke than the trust currently.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.
How does it exclude those outside Cov?
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
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
Strange how he went for a meeting with Wasps and is now their pal.
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
He actually had a meeting with Wasps?
People have to accept all parties involved have behaved the same way.Sisu have never been open and will only go to the media when they want. That position may not change.
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
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?
West in particular is the only one who really promotes the Lies Reid account
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.
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?
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?