Search results

Good job Barnet don’t have a vote... I mean we were no way gonna jeapordise our play off place, but that game was a car crash. Was obvious both teams settled from the 1st minute

@CJ_covblaze The intention is to drive a new stadium forward as it de-risks our profile - Joy Seppala - Feb 2016 "This deal would not have happened if it threatened the future of the Sky Blues or Coventry Rugby Club.” - Ann Lucas October 2014 “We effectively made a commitment to the Council...

It’s almost like defending Kim Jong Un and saying - yeah but Hitler did it.. fact is the council made statements that mislead the public in order to sell a stadium on the cheap to Wasps. Tim fisher and SISU are private businesses as are Wasps

I picked them up from the clubs statement and the 2013 statements from twitter put out yesterday. They’re the most poignant points that everyone needs to be questioned on I’m at work at the moment, but I could find the exact comments later on this evening if you’d like?

How about: Joy Seppala: Were driving towards a new Stadium - 2016 Ann Lucas: Must not threaten the security of the Sky blues - 2014 Nick Eastwood: Sky blues can play here as long as they wish 2018 WHAT HAPPENED? Obviously they’re not the exact word for word statements, but you get the point

And why are we bothered? Why are we crying about the mean words from the Sunderland fans? Imagine hating a low tier Midland club because you couldn’t get enough points to stay up. Not sure why you’d be interested in their thoughts and forum

Unsure. Depends on whether they can get stadium sponsorship at a high enough level. I always believe that we’re a bigger value than a rugby team on the basis were a football team and also a founding premier league team I have a feeling we’re about to find out though

You’re right, and Wasps need to fuck off back to London aswell

And letting the 130 year old football club that has brought millions to the economy die is in their best interests? Owners come and go. Football clubs don’t

Because the council made their statements irrespective of the 2013 comments. If we’re brimging up past actions, let’s go back to 2007 when the council would only deal with SISU buying the club

*Tinted glasses for CCFC.... we don’t want the club to die. We’ve all been on th SISU out brigade since this madness started. The council however sold a ground that was built for us, giving any post SISU Sky blues no future anyway

Considering they said the Ricoh didn’t need CCFC, I’d hope they’d have tried to wait SISU out, considering everyone knew the Northampton move couldn’t last. Then once SISU finally go, reunite the club with the stadium built for them

Thing is, the council have said that it must be a condition of sale that we must be able to play our games. A public body has to be careful with statements like that.

Under what terms? Are you saying that these comments shouldn’t be questioned?

How come when CCFC make a statement it’s fact I.e new stadium When the council make a statement - ahh they only meant 4 years. you know how it works, when the council get called out... it’s always “its ok, sisu have said this”

Difference is SISU ain’t a public body who have to be careful what they say. Besides nick eastwoods comments were Feb 18 not 2013 like many of the fisherisms

But then doesn’t this bring us back into the sale? When I say slip up - is this what SISU need in their case against the council?

They’re meeting in Westminster next week

They can as they’ve made it clear that it needs to be a condition of sale. It could be assumed wasps accepted this. I’m pro the statement - but anything left of the bridge has well and truly been burnt now

The point I’m making is - he didn’t say “it supercedes all agreements” last February when he made his statement, the current JR was ongoing then if I recall On top of that, as The report said, their must be a condition to let CCFC playing their home games st the Ricoh. Doesn’t say unless there...