Search results

I'm confused. Are you suggesting wasps didn't know what was in the agreement SISU signed? That it wasn't examined by them and their lawyers, they instead just relied on SISUs word with their trackrecord for being so trustworthy?

Yes but the EC won't be looking at the same thing, at least they won't be looking at it the same way. From what I can make out, and admittedly a lot of the things I've read about EC investigations has gone over my head, they're not looking at legal technicalities or even UK law. Hence the need...

If CCC are found to be in the wrong that could lead to a civil case in which SISU claim lost earnings from CCC.

Are you expecting SISU to publish the legal document they signed? Can't see that happening.

I'm pretty sure, as apathetic as our fans can be at times, if SISU announced they were permanently moving the club 90 miles away there would be a protest of some description. Don't think we'd all sit around saying 'Tim Fisher says its the best thing for the club so we all support the move'.

I've still got my cashless card and flexiticket from when we first moved to the Ricoh!

Do you disagree with him? Wasps won't talk to the club unless a process SISU / CCFC have no control over is stopped. Unless you know of another stadium we can use then surely the only remaining option is to try and build our own stadium?

He wants to raise the threshold to £80,000 and an MPs salary is £79,468. Even if you assume that's just a coincidence did nobody point out to him how that was going to look?

What route does he take to Birmingham?

I've posted one example in this thread "the condition that the club’s owners permanently and unconditionally cease their legal action" taken from a Wasps statement. All you need to do is look at any statement from Wasps / Eastwood prior to the last couple of weeks. They all talk of legal action...

Not at all. If anyone is giving the new stadium credit it is the council. I'm just saying people can't hold up a Fisher statement, use the 'a new ground is plan A' as an example if you like, as 100% factual and a valid reason for other actions to be taken while at the same time ignoring other...

Not sure I would read too much in to that. Could just be a face saving exercise for the EFL and the last time they said we'd put up a bond it turned out that it hadn't actually been paid, was just a promise to pay it in the future if the club didn't return to Cov.

How are the EC going to fine Wasps if they find CCC to be in the wrong? I think the reality is they wouldn't even fine CCC, doesn't any fine go to central government?

We're paid by SISU / Coventry Council* to be on here all day. *delete as appropriate

Can't say I've really seen anyone take everything SISU say at face value. Although we do seem to have gone back to people picking out individual comments made by Fisher to justify the actions of the council and Wasps.

Not really the same is it. Wasps repeated the same requirement over and over again for months on every statement. SISU agreed to those requirements. Every statement from Wasps since SISU agreed to the requirements has contained different requirements. Its not hard to see.

The 'it's not legal action' argument may not wash with you personally but it is factually correct. And that's before you even consider any EC action will be against CCC not Wasps.

Are you not reading what Wasps previously claimed? Here again is their statement from 29th March 2019

The conflict is Wasps with themselves, just go back and read their statements. Originally they were about legal action being halted. Compare what they were saying before to what they are saying now. Here's one example which was as recently as March this year. That condition has been met. There...