Search results

Let's hope he's told them they have 10 mins to sort it out or I'm hauling you fuckers off!!

£24m would give you access to things listed above by chiefdave. You would also get: 0% ACL ownership and as an added bonus 0% non-matchday revenue of any kind. Seeing as we know what Wasps paid for everything later down the lane you can at least see why that particular deal didn't get done.

In 2007 - yes should have happened. By 2009 I would suggest £24m for the F&B revenues alone would be quite the barrier - a fine calculation by a Mr Gidney IIRC.

They probably didn't account for Wasps you are right. But then who would when the local council went on record countless times claiming how wrong it was for a team to be removed from its home town. Who knew that whilst the emotional propaganda was being dished out by the council it had...

What part of in my opinion did you miss? So in your opinion - if they didn't run away 'crying' why did they go? For the ambience?

1. Yes the FL insisted that ACL were paid the same amount as part of the agreement to let CCFC play in league. 2. So there couldn't have been discussions but ACL made 'rent offers' prior to the CVA meeting...? (Incidentally they couldn't have been accepted because only offered to club whilst in...

Not what I said was it. If CVA had not been rejected then club would have had the opportunity to get round the table and agree a mutually beneficial deal so that they stayed in Coventry. It may well have been short -term like, not dissimilar to what they agreed at the end of the previous...

I was certainly supportive of breaking the crippling rental agreement. IMO we only ever went to Sixfields due to ACL rejecting the CVA - this spiteful, vindictive action cost the club 10 points before a ball was kicked. Had that not happened we never would have gone. I went to support the team...

The law?? It's an ethics comittee meeting not the Old Bailey.

You were hardly as supportive of our temporary move as you are of Wasps permanent move were you??

I'm pleased for you that you have finally come to terms with the Sixfields move. It's important to let go and all that.

To be honest it was always going to turn out this way. The ethics committee is not going to bite the hands that feeds them is it? What will be more pertinent is what comes back from the court case... not this mummer's farce.

But our fate is our own hands isn't it? Yes our form has been poor but that doesn't mean we can't pick up. It's up to the players to step up their game as we go into March. A good month beckons.

Is it 14 games left? Not quite dire straits just yet then....

Using Wasps as an example - they are claiming that they will end up with the greatest revenue streams of all rugby teams in UK (if not Europe) and we've seen what their attendances are like. So to generate all that revenue it must be coming from somewhere like the non-match day operations

What a piss poor analogy... A child is a dependent - especially at that age. It relies on an adult figure to feed them, provide a safe environment to be in and most of all protect at all times. They failed in their duty to provide some of these basic provisions.

In all of those you list there is a partnership that is mutually beneficial to both clubs in terms of revenue. That is simply not the case for us. If it were there would be far less to gripe about.

I think she did it* *allegedly of course - absolutely no proof whatsoever. (and if I'm not allowed to say that then please accept my apologies and delete)

It's an odd choice of story for the Wasps PR machine to push out via the CET. I suppose we are now expected to be grateful for what we get.