Trust Statement (2 Viewers)

Forums New posts
M

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
PurpleBin said:
Two options. We either stay here, continue to complain about everything they do (rightly or wrongly) argue amongst ourselves or we sit with them and open something up.

Even if one of us sat with them, joined their board and then acted as the go between the two SBTs...
Click to expand...
Surely at this point the single cause must be a return to Coventry. The biggest single barrier to that happening quickly is Wasps. Any pursuit of a change in ownership should be shelved for the time being.
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
matesx said:
"EU need to pull their finger out and get a ruling done"


What the hell takes so long??? Must be a year now?
Click to expand...
Really struggling to approach the Eu in any way since we’ve no longer got mep’s.

Have emailed and got nowhere. Have asked simon Gilbert if he has any contacts
 
Briles

Briles

Well-Known Member
pissing in the wind springs to mind.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
Could someone on here who lives in a country still in the EU ask their MEP to chase it up?
Click to expand...

It won’t be the only issue I’d imagine there are loads of problems
 
Liquid Gold

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
A one line statement isn't going to change things. When I can see them democratising their membership so people can have a voice without attending a pub on Monday night then things might start to look different.
 
P

PurpleBin

Well-Known Member
Liquid Gold said:
A one line statement isn't going to change things. When I can see them democratising their membership so people can have a voice without attending a pub on Monday night then things might start to look different.
Click to expand...

They're happy to do that...are you interested in meeting them?
 
P

PurpleBin

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
Are they happy to do that? Where's that been said?

Unless you mean the "we will put it to the board" comment?
Click to expand...

Sorry, lets say that's been discussed. I.e. a few, lets say 4 supporters who would sit down with the Trust and discuss the future, how we can all work together. Who would be interested in that?
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
PurpleBin said:
Sorry, lets say that's been discussed. I.e. a few, lets say 4 supporters who would sit down with the Trust and discuss the future, how we can all work together. Who would be interested in that?
Click to expand...

People already have? I have probably spent hours talking to CJ / Steve over the years.

Have they said they are going to bring in online voting etc to get more people involved?

Again, this isn't a new thing. It's what they do if they get questions asked, rinse and repeat.
 
Briles

Briles

Well-Known Member
Just commented on their statement:

Why doesn't the trust simply target wasps as they are the obstruction. Nobody else. Nobody in their right mind would sign that indemnity clause and the EU action can't be dropped. What on earth does the trust expect SISU to do? The Trust targets SISU more than any of the other parties and they are currently the only ones with no moves to make.
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
PurpleBin said:
Sorry, lets say that's been discussed. I.e. a few, lets say 4 supporters who would sit down with the Trust and discuss the future, how we can all work together. Who would be interested in that?
Click to expand...
I am and others are it’s just timing and the danger of being guilty by association of things the trust have done previously
 
Liquid Gold

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
PurpleBin said:
They're happy to do that...are you interested in meeting them?
Click to expand...
I can barely make it to games let alone trust meetings, that's why it's so essential for them to make the change first.

I have to say mate, CJ has been on at us all, this is a divide and conquer strategy, this Isn't the first time a spate of PMs have been sent about the whole thing. Don't get sucked in by it. Wait to see action, I'm sure there won't be any.
 
Last edited:
P

PurpleBin

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
People already have? I have probably spent hours talking to CJ / Steve over the years.

Have they said they are going to bring in online voting etc to get more people involved?

Again, this isn't a new thing. It's what they do if they get questions asked, rinse and repeat.
Click to expand...

Not sure on online voting but if people are willing to meet them and discuss plans in person, is it worth another shot?
 
P

PurpleBin

Well-Known Member
Liquid Gold said:
I can barely make it to games let alone trust meetings, that's why it's so essential for them to make the change first.

I have to say mate, CJ has been on at us all, this is a divide and conquer strategy, this sin;t the first time a spate of PMs have been sent about the whole thing. Don't get sucked in by it. Wait to see action, I'm sure there won't be any.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. This smacks of their name being tarnished to the point of no return I guess!
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Briles said:
Just commented on their statement:

Why doesn't the trust simply target wasps as they are the obstruction. Nobody else. Nobody in their right mind would sign that indemnity clause and the EU action can't be dropped. What on earth does the trust expect SISU to do? The Trust targets SISU more than any of the other parties and they are currently the only ones with no moves to make.
Click to expand...
They could reach out to wasps and for all we know they may have done or have tried to or are arranging to
 
Liquid Gold

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
PurpleBin said:
Fair enough. This smacks of their name being tarnished to the point of no return I guess!
Click to expand...
Mate, they've been offered the assistance needed to change over many years, just because they're talking about a conversation doesn't mean anything is changing, they've always been very good at deflecting. Like I said, don't get taken in by their words, once I see action is taking place to start a change in their membership system then I'll be happy to assist. I've said many times my annual membership fee is ready to be spent.
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Flying Fokker said:
They always fall short of committing to inside the Coventry boundary. Regular 7k crowds could be the norm unless we are in the city. No shows at Birmingham suggest we need to be in Cov.
Click to expand...

The 'city' boundary is an administrative border, it has no cultural significance. E.g. if the Ricoh was the other side of the Rowleys Green Roundabout it would be outside Coventry, I doubt anybody would actually complain.
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
OffenhamSkyBlue said:
If W*sps breach the terms of the contract by going bust they would!
Click to expand...
Under the terms of the head lease granted by Coventry City Council (“CCC”) to Arena Coventry (2006) Limited (“ACL2006”) in respect of the Arena (the “Head Lease”), CCC have reserved the right to forfeit the Head Lease if ACL2006 becomes insolvent. Insolvency in this scenario means a situation where ACL2006 becomes unable to pay its debts, has a receiver/administrator/provisional liquidator appointed over its assets, has assets seized in order to pay debts of ACL2006 or has a winding-up order made against it. The effect of forfeiture would be that the 250 year Head Lease would fall away and that ACL would then become the tenant of CCC at the Arena for the remaining 38 years of its existing lease. However, the right of CCC to claim forfeiture of the Head Lease is not an automatic right. If CCC made a claim for such forfeiture, this could be contested by ACL2006, any third party that held security over ACL2006 and any subtenants of ACL2006 by making application to a court in England. Further, if an administrator was to be appointed over the assets of ACL2006, then CCC would not be able to forfeit the Head Lease without the consent of the appointed administrator or with the leave of the courts.

If forfeiture was to take place prior to maturity of the Bonds, then U.S. Bank Trustees Limited, the entity that will hold the security on behalf of Bondholders, may not be in a position to assign the Head Lease for value in the event CCC forfeited the lease as described in the preceding paragraph. This may have an impact on the Bondholders’ ability to receive full repayment of their investment in the Bonds on the occurrence of such an insolvency event.
Click to expand...
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
PurpleBin said:
Not sure on online voting but if people are willing to meet them and discuss plans in person, is it worth another shot?
Click to expand...

As said, people have discussed plans and ideas already. Why are they suddenly going to start listening and implementing them?

Have a look through all of the threads where CJ has said he's taking things on board, the conversations off here etc.

They are just trying to get people to stop questioning them which they have been doing for years.

One of the main issues is that people don't feel represented because it's a few people in a pub on a Monday. They need to open this up, you don't open it up by saying "come to the pub on a Monday".

They know what they need to do, me and others have been giving them constructive feedback for years. Obviously not every suggestion is going to be implemented, that's life. They need to start with the basics though.

I by no means expect the "they must do everything I say". Just start with common sense and what anybody with eyes can see, involve more members and fans.
 
T

The coventrian

Well-Known Member
MalcSB said:
Surely at this point the single cause must be a return to Coventry. The biggest single barrier to that happening quickly is Wasps. Any pursuit of a change in ownership should be shelved for the time being.
Click to expand...
Ownership change will always be shelved for people like you.
 
S

smileycov

Facebook User
chiefdave said:
If we changed owners the issue of indemification would still exist which would rule out a return to Cov. Is getting new owners more important to you than getting back to Cov?
Click to expand...
How would it? They want SISU to cover the indemnity as they are chasing the council. Nothing to do with new owners surely?
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
If we changed owners the issue of indemification would still exist which would rule out a return to Cov. Is getting new owners more important to you than getting back to Cov?
Click to expand...

They will remove it for a new owner
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top