Search results

I think Wasps not needing CCFC will turn out to be along similar lines as ACL ‘washing its face’.

Club tweeted earlier that SISU were making a statement but it may not be today. ITV might have been getting ahead of themselves.

Moz has just been live on ITV News. Literally not a single word about the council or Wasps. All about SISU, Sepalla and going to London to protest. Beyond a joke now, they aren’t even making an attempt to hide it. Problem is as the ‘official’ fans representatives they will always be the first...

Anyone who he supposedly represents in should attend and make their feelings known.

Sounds like that party Wasps had on a boat.

If the court case is that the council has decieved the electorate anything SISU said won’t come in to it.

If you genuinely believed at the time of the sale that Fisher would get a new ground sorted I would urge you to seek medical help.

Reid has followed up and asked Wasps about the significant risks mentioned on the radio. Got the usual copy and paste answer that was nothing to do with the question. Pressed for an answer to the actual question and they are refusing to comment.

This is the key thing. The argument that Fisher bullshits is irrelevant unless you think the standard a public body should be held to is the same as a Caymen hedge fund. Now we all know they said it, that can’t be walked back. The question becomes what did they do to ensure it happened. It’s...

Don’t think that makes much of a difference to the question being asked of him. BTW is the Andy Fletcher that attends board meetings any relation of his do we know? I’ve always assumed not but worth asking the question.

Surely you’re not suggesting no pressure has been put on SISU?

See the usual crew, such as armybike, are desperately defending the council on twitter. Not many of them left now though.

You really couldn’t make it up. What a joke.

The club have tweeted since posting this statement that SISU will be releasing a statement of their own and this is from the club not the owners.

Strong stuff maybe but nothing in there that isn’t correct. This is the type of thing we should have been seeing from the trust weeks ago instead of cosy meetings patting each other on the back.

Half the value of the lease doesn’t come close to providing enough security for the amount they owe on the bonds. Even if you take the valuation from their last accounts which struck me as very high.

How can Wasps use the lease as security for the bond issue if 50% is owned by someone else.

That makes no sense. Kicked us out doesn’t stop the legals so the risk to Wasps doesn’t decrease. In fact you could claim he was failed to act in the best interests of the business by turning a significant client away.

The lack of follow up questions is so frustrating. I’m not a trained journalist but I can think of several questions off the top of my head: What valuation would be the basis for negotiations; Would the buyer take on 50% of the bond liability; Why now, are Wasps in financial difficulties; Has...