**ALL USERS READ THIS, ACTION REQUIRED ASAP** - Sky Blues Talk forum statement (1 Viewer)

Sky Blue Pete said:

Nah it’s just in line with what they’d already signed. I’m trying find out specifically what that was

Click to expand...

I think the next issue will be that. There will be an insistence of non appeal if the decision goes against them and they will insist on the same for the other party. It’s a red herring really

Sky Blue Pete said:

The legal stuff? I think it’s a way to build relationships

Click to expand...

The complaint isn’t against wasps it’s against the council and therefore the indemnity extends to “all parties impacted”

Grendel said:

I think the next issue will be that. There will be an insistence of non appeal if the decision goes against them and they will insist on the same for the other party. It’s a red herring really

Click to expand...

I think you’re right. That’s why I was asking about the line in the club press release about legal rights when they were also saying they’d agreed to no more legal action so something is obviously fishy there.

That’s why you focus on the indemnity which is indefensible. Ideally that’s it and we are back, more likely it uncovers the next obstacle to overcome.

shmmeee said:

I think you’re right. That’s why I was asking about the line in the club press release about legal rights when they were also saying they’d agreed to no more legal action so something is obviously fishy there.

That’s why you focus on the indemnity which is indefensible. Ideally that’s it and we are back, more likely it uncovers the next obstacle to overcome.

Click to expand...

They promised no further action against Wasps.

In mid-April, SISU signed an undertaking to irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh Arena

Click to expand...

Think that’s fair enough. If they continue action against the council the only way it impacts Wasps is if the council are found to be in the wrong.

shmmeee said:

That’s why you focus on the indemnity which is indefensible. Ideally that’s it and we are back, more likely it uncovers the next obstacle to overcome.

Click to expand...

Completely agree, that’s the point I’ve been trying to make to Neil. Stop concentrating on potential issues years down the line and worry about the immediate problem.

Get that resolved and go from there.

chiefdave said:

Completely agree, that’s the point I’ve been trying to make to Neil. Stop concentrating on potential issues years down the line and worry about the immediate problem.

Get that resolved and go from there.

Click to expand...

Exactly but they won't because that's not shouting sisu and it means saying something against wasps.

shmmeee said:

All we can do really is keep our position clear and keep on at the media to amplify it during interviews with key players.

Click to expand...

Totally agree, we should be doing this while we have some momentum; somebody needs to go on the CWR phone-in on Friday and keep banging home our position. Any volunteers? (I suggested this previously but nobody stepped forward..).

I’ll have to see. I just managed to get home in time the other week, what’s the general thrust if so?

shmmeee said:

I’ll have to see. I just managed to get home in time the other week, what’s the general thrust if so?

Click to expand...

It would be great if you could. The key point to make is "why are the local media (including CWR) not calling out Wasps on the indemnity demand?" We need to make this point until they start doing something about it. Have a listen to last Friday's phone-in on the CWR website, I was on at about 37 minutes in; we just need to keep hammering that point until they listen. Pete was on the previous week so well worth a listen and then pick up on his points. Hope this helps!

How do i actually vote in this?

There are no voting buttons for me.

I've read some of the thread on my phone, but not all of it.

I support the statement.

I'm also a member of the Trust and pay a £1 every year automatically through paypal I think.

They haven't asked my opinion, but seem to talk on my behalf anyway!

Sky Blue Pete said:

I’m sorry it closed on Tuesday night

thanks for coming on though

Click to expand...

Sorry I missed the vote.

Well done for what you are doing.

Thanks

I’m baffled by Neil to be honest,

He keeps saying If your a member your free to apply to join the board.



but it would be wrong to have an election at the drop of the hat




Should the members not have the option to have an election when they wish if they believe the trust doesn’t represent them ?

jordan210 said:

I’m baffled by Neil to be honest,

He keeps saying If your a member your free to apply to join the board.



but it would be wrong to have an election at the drop of the hat




Should the members not have the option to have an election when they wish if they believe the trust doesn’t represent them ?

Click to expand...

They do. You need something like 5% of members to support IIRC. I posted it before, have a read of the constitution.

shmmeee said:

They do. You need something like 5% of members to support IIRC. I posted it before, have a read of the constitution.

Click to expand...

So Neil should be telling people the correct information like you have. Not thats its wrong to have an election.

Main issue is no one knows how many actual members the trust have. So its 5% of anything

jordan210 said:

So Neil should be telling people the correct information like you have. Not thats its wrong to have an election.

Main issue is no one knows how many actual members the trust have. So its 5% of anything

Click to expand...

And they are unwilling to put anything in place that cleanses their membership of inactive people.

But there's no way that's the amount of 'active' Trust members so impossible to get.

Sky Blue Pete said:

I reckon there’d be 135 on here out of the 368 that voted in the statement thread

Click to expand...

The wording of that clause is pretty odd isn’t it? Everyone has to raise exactly the same motion (which yes can be done) and then the board arrange a special meeting.

There’s nothing that requires them to put that date on a communication platform either from what I can see

Sky Blue Pete said:

It’s an in though isn’t it? And as shmmee says act reasonably and expect others too and if they don’t point it out clearly

Click to expand...

The issue is that this isn't a new thing, people have become frustrated because they have acted reasonably in the past and not got anywhere.

Sky Blue Pete said:

It’s an in though isn’t it? And as shmmee says act reasonably and expect others too and if they don’t point it out clearly

Click to expand...

I would use the “special meeting” to enact a policy action - it’s a takeover I believe that’s being suggested which will end up as a media war

Grendel said:

I would use the “special meeting” to enact a policy action - it’s a takeover I believe that’s being suggested which will end up as a media war

Click to expand...

It's naive to think they won't be all over the Telegraph and CWR.

Look at what happened the other day on CWR for example. "Do you think the Trust aren't the voice of the fans?"

Is there not a space on the board that was vacated when Roger Ellis stood down?

mark82 said:

Is there not a space on the board that was vacated when Roger Ellis stood down?

Click to expand...

He’s still our representative on the FSA