chiefdave
Well-Known Member
They want the club to cover the idemnity not SISU. And a change of owners doesn't stop any potential EC investigation.
Trust Statement (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Liquid Gold
- Start date
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Such a daft argument. It’s absolutely right to say wasps warned Sisu to drop all legals but for whatever reason they made the Eu complaint and discussions continued and could continue allegedly (SO WHY AREN’T THEY!!!).
What was in the indemnity that meant we couldn’t signup to it and why didn’t wasps want to sign a good faith document.
Anyway how are conversations going with the various parties? Oh they’re not taking place. I wonder why
Last edited:
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
The thing is nobody is supporting Sisu's actions. We just want the club to return and to do that Wasps have to drop the indemnity. Some people think that is letting sisu off the hook so won't have it.
Surely you haven’t forgotten already - we were at the Ricoh!
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Of course they will drop it
If the club had new owners, they would have nothing to do with SISU, so how on earth would ccfc be liable to cover indemnity caused by a 3rd party??
I said shelved for the time being. Get back to Coventry plus some success on the pitch (hopefully one fit for football) and a change of ownership is more likely. Perhaps the only thing Sisu have said that I completely believe is that they won’t sell at the bottom of the cycle. That would crystallise any losses they have made on paper. There is an implication that they would sell at, or towards, the top of the cycle BUT the club needs to be attractive to potential buyers. Playing in Birmingham would be a big turn off. So, to get what you really , really want Wasps need to be targeted.
They would be if a legal agreement committed the club to it.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
There wouldn’t be it would be removed it’s there purely to distress the club and create in effect a hostile takeover
Irish Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
It is now okay that Sisu took the club to Northampton?
I think Fisher and Seppala have a lot of apologising to do for what they have done to this club.
eastwoodsdustman
Well-Known Member
Haven’t seen anyone ask why the trust would need security for their agm? Maybe they were worried it’s ‘members’ would turn up and vote the existing board out?
I wonder how many of the 7000 names were on the members list to be allowed in.
I wonder how many of the 7000 names were on the members list to be allowed in.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Not for me it’s not ok and I completely agree about apologising for past mistakes
Nick
Administrator
Nick
Administrator
Who were they paying for security?
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
There’s only 2600 or so members
But we haven’t signed it, so new owners coming in how on earth can they justify keeping the indemnity when the EC complaint is done by previous?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
They can't, but then they can't justify it now as they are still trying to get one company, Otium, to provide indemnity on an EC complaint made by someone else, SISU, against a third party, CCC.
So logically if a change of ownership would mean the indemnity falls away there is no reason for it to be in place now and it is a smokescreen from Wasps.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
If they continue to do absolutely nothing to reform it might be effective to swamp them with service access requests. They'd have to respond to each of them within a month, if you have a record of your membership and they don't it would be clear they're inflating membership figures, if they have your data you can ask for it to be deleted which again impacts their membership figures and if they fail to comply they'd be fined to the point they'd be shut down and a phoenix trust (irony alert) could come in and do an actual job. Considering they take a month to get a 3 line statement out I think even 100 requests could be enough to finish them off.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Their ownership has been appalling. Other issues does not stop this being the case.
The coventrian
Well-Known Member
Apart from the crook who owned bury who?
After all sisu have done during their disastrous tenure is that the best you can offer? I swear some of you suffer from Stockholm syndrome.
The coventrian
Well-Known Member
No it isnt but even if/when we do go back to the ricoh with sisu the likes of you will still maintain the status quo.
Nick
Administrator
I am sure "the likes of you" will find a reason not to go if / when we go back to Coventry.
The coventrian
Well-Known Member
Can you prove your bullshit theory nick or just more mud slinging? Naturally you talk shit and have no evidence for the bollocks you spout.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Can you prove your bullshit theory or just more mud slinging? :joyful:
I would like to believe that the indemnity clause would be dropped but wasps would still face the same risk(s) whoever owned the club.
The coventrian
Well-Known Member
Just joining in with the norm on here.
They don’t have to justify it, just demand it. And do you trust them not to?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
There is no risk
I think you are getting your anatomy mixed up.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Blackpool
Birmingham
Bolton
Darlington
Derby
Chester
There are 18 league clubs in non league
anyone that failed to pay monthly salaries to players or staff ever or failed to pay tax each month. Sisu have never failed to do this
I swear you swallow the crap hook line and sinker
That’s great, do wasps know that and if so why ask for an indemnity in the first place?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Because it would bankrupt the club which under Sisu is what they want - indemnity will never be paid by the club - it’s a game
Nick
Administrator
Seeing as you have called the club "SISU Eleven", "SISU FC" and nonsense like that I just assumed you wouldn't go and support them regardless?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I was being facetious, all statements, even fashion statements, are designed to catch attention. No one wants their statement to go unnoticed.
Regarding timing isn’t it because we’ve been pushing them to say something?
Nick
Administrator
Is it in the Telegraph and nationals yet? You can tell when they want to catch attention.
This is trying to stop people asking questions by doing the minimum.
