Search results

If you're staying over best bet after the game is head into the casino for an hour or two. That way you won't be paying for a taxi to sit in a traffic jam.

That was members of the SCG I think, which does have a couple of the trust on there but I don't think it was them.

Wasn't King offered 2 years and when the contract turned up it was 1 year or something like that?

I can't understand why they didn't challenge that. Even if, as some thing, Garlick is somehow connected with SISU there were others there such as representatives of the trust who actually made the FOI requests. Why go to that trouble and then, when sat in a meeting with Fisher, just let him...

Pretty simple really, the council are a publically accountable body. There is now a doubt regarding some of their statements of fact and crucially those 'facts' may have been used to support both the granting of the loan to ACL and subsequently the sale to Wasps. As a publically accountable body...

Listen to the interview on Shane O'Connor's show. She stated that it wasn't her fault misleading information had been used, it was the fault of the council officers who supplied the information. Let's leave it at that as we don't need another 50 pages of denial.

Well this thread may get to 50 pages yet as MMM seems determined to mount another defence of CCC!

There's a very simple explanation for that isn't there? In the 50+ page thread you had several people vehemently defending the council even after Lucas had been on the radio admitting they had been less than truthful. Compare that to this thread, where are all the 'pro-SISU' people you claim are...

I think Fisher said Brandon was too small so only considered for a training ground. Using the same logic could Ryton have been just for a stadium but close enough to keep the existing training ground?

Be interesting to know who the others were. Does he mean no brainer as in we hadn't got a keeper so he'd be first choice or no brainer as in we're such a fantastic club he couldn't wait to come here?

Being realistic at an absolute minimum we need all the revenues the club generates, i.e.: all matchday F&B, advertising, parking etc as well as our share of naming rights. Is there anything to indicate Wasps would even consider letting us have them? The most beneficial thing the trust could do...

Realistically can they do that? There's other teams who play close to, but outside of, the place they take their name from. Couple that with the fact you have local councellors saying there are no available sites in the city boundary and I just can't see the FL making that call.

Agree with you. Now that it's all been handed over to them its going to be very difficult for us to get a stake even if we pay a premium for it. The only thing we could do in the short term is hope public pressure might push Wasps to sell however they have been welcomed with open arms so even...

People are saying there is no chance of Cov ever getting to Wasps level but they aren't that far apart are they? If Cov go up and at some point Wasps go down aren't they in the same division?

It's a tricky one. For me Wasps should not be here and the role of the council and higgs in helping them franchise halfway across the country is a disgrace. Same with the amount of coverage being given to them by CWR and the CT. Having said that we are where we are and while I wouldn't be...

Think there's a third option which is the best way forward, possibly the only way forward if we want any chance of success in the future, but very much depends on Wasps. 50/50 ownership of the Ricoh would be ideal, or at least the best we could hope for from where we are now. Work with Wasps...

Wasn't the plan a 60 acre site including the stadium, training complex (incuding academy) and whatever else was going on there such as retail. I guess the training complex might be ditched or seperate if big enough sites aren't available. If we could have got hold of 50% of the Ricoh and built...

Tim is going to use his magic beans.

Has to be cashflow doesn't it? I doubt Fisher is ordering the shirts himself so I'd guess the manager of the shop doesn't have the cashflow to order stock in, things like replica kits probably have a minimum order we can't afford.

Didn't Rugby council originally responded to say they had spoken with the club? Is releasing locations of old sites we didn't get an attempt to prove something is happening or an attempt at misdirection? If we're all talking about sites that by Fishers own admission aren't going to be the new...