Search results

The New York Times reporter that covers the area isn't convinced Also numerous people point out that in the past when action has been taken because of intelligence suggesting an imminent threat supporting information has been presented by the White House and allies provided confirmation of the...

Well they've been pulled up in the local media for similar before and said they had taken steps to ensure it wouldn't happen again so hard to give them the benefit of the doubt. In any case common sense would tell you with the way things currently are this is a bad idea.

Agree with that, has to be consistent across the competition.

Presumably then as soon as the trust came out of that meeting they verified what Eastwood has claimed with an expert or did they just take a known lier at his word?

Classy as ever. Having had complaints in the past about their treatment of our fans bricks they're using them as target practice today.

Giving every season ticket holder 20 free tickets seems to have done the trick, not a spare seat!!!

No escape from Oggy and Clive even when you’re watching on TV!

Surprised we're unchanged. Thought he might have given some fringe players minutes.

Not complaining if it means we get a steam but how on earth is that cost effective for ESPN? Its a game only available to their TV subscribers in the US but isn't actually on TV, only available via a stream. I can't imagine more than a handful of people watching.

The genius has tweeted to the world that he is planning to commit war crimes. Someone needs to take his phone off him and show him Article 8 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court.

He's not bad under pressure is he.

9/11 according to VP Pence. Trump is playing a very dangerous game if he's making decisions based on the assumption Iran won't carry out attacks on the US in response.

What makes you so sure it will be an easy win for the US rather than another Korea or Vietnam, or even another Iraq or Afghanistan? I mean the last time the US took on Iran, backing Saddam Hussein and Iraq, was hardly a success.

You can only assume either Wasps lawyers made huge mistake and didn't cover that off which in inconceivable to me. Not like this is something that has come up years later, they would have known at the time what was going on. The other option is the council refused to cover indemnity, in which...

Not too difficult really. Lets say we agreed 10% of any future fee with Norwich. All they have to do is make sure when they sell the player on they include their own sell on clause for at least 10% but most likely more. Let's say Norwich sold to Leicester with a 20% clause. If he goes to Man Utd...

Exactly, Wasps knew the situation when they purchased the arena. Its inconceivable their lawyers didn't bring it up. If anyone should be providing indemnity for Wasps it should be the council given that it will only cost Wasps money if CCC are found to be in the wrong.

Wasps beat Bristol 26-21 and celebrate like they've won the Champions League. Leicester play Bristol the next week and stuff them 31-18. Looks like it will all come down to the two Wasps v Leicester games. Come on Leicester!

Could be game on here.

Not difficult is it. If you're meeting Wasps on behalf of fans question 1 is to confirm there is an indemnification requirement and question 2 is how is that reasonable. If those weren't the first questions asked then whatever meeting they had, details of which it appears are being kept secret...

Think we can safely rule out any notation that the indemnification was never requested by Wasps. They simply wouldn't have allowed the club to make statements placing the blame on them without responding if it wasn't true. So from the basis that it did once exist you've only got two options. It...