**ALL USERS READ THIS, ACTION REQUIRED ASAP** - Sky Blues Talk forum statement (1 Viewer)

Sky Blue Pete said:

Email from sally johnson produces drive time show for cwr inviting or someone else to receive a call between 4:40 and 5:40

sticking with

- Drop the indemnity clause
- Drop all legal action henceforth and return us to the city of Coventry as a priority
- Says SB Trust needs to be ‘unbiased’ in its position
- Local news needs to stop misleading fans and hold all, equally to account#
I’d add mark robins and the players have done a remarkable job under the circumstances

that’s it the mantra agreed

Click to expand...

Spot on Pete. Keep it to those lines - a simple message that is difficult to argue against

Can someone tweet Eddie Jordan, Richard Keys, Alistair Mcgowern, Clive Owen and that bloke who sits in the crowd at the snooker in a Cov top..?

ta

Interesting that it has suddenly got the Trust talking about the Wasps meetings. CJ's comments are still saying they pressed Wasps whereas theirs doesn't.

As I stated we asked why they can’t do a deal. What harm would it do. We asked if they’re not worried about losing what do they have to lose. We asked if they realised what damage it was doing to the local businesses and community. Can’t really expand more than I have.

Click to expand...

Keep Going Pete
The indemnity clause is paramount in my mind
How can CCFC be made liable for any misdemeanour between CCC and wasps
Does any body think this is fair and equitable

Neil has just put a statement out from the Trust....

It doesn't really say much, just says it's all commercially confidential but Wasps and CCC really do want the club back.

It's also making out people who don't agree are conspiracy theorists.

It isn't saying drop the indemnity like CJ made out, it's asking them for explicit details which they obviously aren't going to give out.

rhino1002 said:

Keep Going Pete
The indemnity clause is paramount in my mind
How can CCFC be made liable for any misdemeanour between CCC and wasps
Does any body think this is fair and equitable

Click to expand...

If they want indemnity it’s because they know they have likely done something dodgy which could cost them millions. If it was all above board and legal they wouldn’t need to pursue the indemnity

Is it worth trying a few ex-players , especially those that come through the academy - Maddison, Wilson, Christie etc.

Add in the likes of the guys from the enemy, Cal Crutchlow, Christian Horner. Even if only one of them picks it up, they have a massive reach

Sky Blue Pete said:

That’s ok. No beating from our statement. David said he’s more bothered about wasps business than ccfc. That’s just bizarre

Click to expand...

Wasps response was via a confidential phone call...

jim20 said:

If they want indemnity it’s because they know they have likely done something dodgy which could cost them millions. If it was all above board and legal they wouldn’t need to pursue the indemnity

Click to expand...

That is exactly my thought
if nothing was wrong with the sale then the indemnity isn't required
if something is wrong with the sale(state aid) then why should CCFC pay for it
its like serving a prison sentence for somebody else's crime
Like i said not fair equitable

I am not sure why ‘certain CCFC supporters’ has been used in Neil’s statement

Interesting how Neil goes straight to the Telegraph from the Trust and doesn't actually disprove anything said.

Coventry City fans forum Sky Blues Talk issue statement

for anyone who wants to read it


it has become clear that certain Coventry City supporters and even some Sky Blue Trust members believe that our board as an agenda which favours Wasps Rugby Club.

Despite radio and newspaper interviews which have made our position clear, this misguided view persists.

The fact is that the only sporting club which is close to our hearts is Coventry City. To that end, we have been involved in conversations with stakeholders surrounding the future of our beloved club.

In recent months, we have had one meeting with Wasps, one with Coventry City Council; and one with The English Football League.

Our only motivation was to persuade all three parties to be more proactive to get the Sky Blues back to Coventry. Each of the parties demanded the meetings were confidential so no minutes could be published.

On each occasion, we made an emotional plea - stating that the people being hurt by Coventry City's absence were mainly the thousands of supporters, including the elderly and infirm, who cannot get to Birmingham.

All three stressed that they wanted the football club back in Coventry. We would be delighted to have a similar meeting with Coventry City and act as a glue if need be.

After the meeting with the council, we submitted formal Freedom of Information requests, particularly surrounding any planned new ground in Coventry. The answers were published.

In the EFL's case, an agreed statement was made and we published a press release accordingly.

After the Wasps' meeting, the rugby club reiterated the position it stated at the meeting with a press statement very shortly afterwards, so we, probably incorrectly, did not put out a release because it would have been saying the same thing.

At that meeting, we asked about the indemnity demand by Wasps and were told that it was 'commercially sensitive'.

Nevertheless, we have followed the meeting with a recent letter to Wasps, Chief Executive, Nick Eastwood, which is published below.

In a phone call response, he has told us again that it is commercially sensitive.

The Trust board continues to work, unstintingly, to get Coventry City back in Coventry. We are sorry to disappoint conspiracy theorists but that is all there is to it. We are volunteers who are all passionate fans of long-standing. If we can successfully bring people together to our common goal, we will be delighted.

The truth is that, while the team is playing brilliantly and will, hopefully, be promoted this season, many people are not getting to see them because of the exile in Birmingham.

Therefore we want all parties to get together to resolve this unhappy state of affairs.



Letter to Wasps.



Dear Mr Eastwood

Firstly I hope this e-mail finds you well and in good form.

You will recall that you met with a group of Sky Blue Trust Board Members on 16th October last for what was a very frank and wide-ranging meeting concerning Coventry City FC and the impasse concerning the Sky Blues returning to play at the Ricoh Arena. You ended that meeting by indicating that you would be more than willing to speak with or respond to us (or indeed any other Coventry City fans) if in the future, we had questions or views that we wished to put to you about this unfolding situation.

I am writing to you on behalf of the Trust in the spirit of your offer to ask two broad questions which are prompted by our deep concern over the current and future viability of CCFC in financial terms, and for the Club as part of the culture and tradition of our City, as a result of continuing to play in Birmingham rather than at the Ricoh.

First, as we raised back in October, there is a widely held feeling that Wasps could gain significantly from allowing CCFC to play at the Ricoh. Doing so would not affect the outcome or costs of any legal proceedings, would bring rental income to Wasps and could give a significant boost to Wasps’ reputation locally and regionally. Wasps have stressed their commitment to Coventry as a city and as a community yet CCFC’s continuing exile is disenfranchising a significant part of that community – those who support, value and care about our football club. We are asking you, therefore – Will you seriously and actively consider allowing the Sky Blues to play back at the Ricoh as soon as is possible and re-open negotiations?

In considering this you may have noted that the Trust has elicited positive responses from Coventry City Council in terms of their desire to see the Sky Blues back in the City and from the EFL who have indicate a willingness to engage with any of the parties to the dispute should those parties deem that to be helpful.

Second, we are of course aware of the action being taken by Coventry City’s owners under EU legislation which could have serious impacts on Wasps. We do realise the possible risks for Wasps as a business in the shorter and longer term should this action be pursued by SISU. We assume that the ‘indemnity’ requirement that has been discussed in the press is an attempt to mitigate these risks. However, while it appears to be the nature of this indemnity which is the immediate cause of the current Wasps-CCFC impasse, there is currently no information on the indemnity in the public domain. While we do understand the nature of business negotiations and confidentiality, can you please let us know what this indemnity is and what it is designed to ‘cover’ – is it in the form of a ‘deposit’ against future actions detrimental to Wasps, against future legal costs, against any future claim against Wasps arising from judicial decisions or simply a form of insurance? What do you see as the possibilities for the indemnity to be negotiated in terms of its size or nature, or even in terms of the very necessity for it?

In sum, the need for the Sky Blues to play in the city and the role that the indemnity issue is playing in the current situation are not only central to the very existence of the Club but are central to the lives of huge numbers of people in the City. We are at a critical juncture.

We look forward to hearing your response

Best Regards

Dave Eyles (Chair of the Sky Blue Trust)

SlowerThanPlatt said:

I am not sure why ‘certain CCFC supporters’ has been used in Neil’s statement

Click to expand...

To make out it's only a couple of people.

Strange how people have been asking him and CJ for months what was said when they met with Wasps, CCC and the EFL and now all of a sudden they jump into action to say "They all want CCFC are here" but the meetings were confidential.

Strange how they are allowed to mention those parts

Why has Neil never mentioned the indemnity before?

Nick said:

To make out it's only a couple of people.

Strange how people have been asking him and CJ for months what was said when they met with Wasps, CCC and the EFL and now all of a sudden they jump into action to say "They all want CCFC are here" but the meetings were confidential.

Strange how they are allowed to mention those parts

Why has Neil never mentioned the indemnity before?

Click to expand...

Do you think the statement would have got published if they didn’t have something contrary from Neil to put beside it?

I’m usually not one for conspiracy theories but it seems odd the Sky Blues Talk statement has been out since last night then Neil puts out something and there’s an article about it within 20 minutes

SlowerThanPlatt said:

Do you think the statement would have got published if they didn’t have something contrary from Neil to put beside it?

I’m usually not one for conspiracy theories but it seems odd the Sky Blues Talk statement has been out since last night then Neil puts out something and there’s an article about it within 20 minutes

Click to expand...

They would have waited for him denying it before putting it out I'd guess.

Interesting how letters to Wasps are suddenly being published?

Neil speaks - oh dear Coventry City fans forum Sky Blues Talk issue statement

Nick said:

Why has Neil never mentioned the indemnity before?

Click to expand...

We know why...and isn’t it fuckinawesome they can’t avoid it now?

Grendel said:

Neil speaks - oh dear Coventry City fans forum Sky Blues Talk issue statement

Click to expand...

Article only published about the statement from here when there’s something dismissing it

SlowerThanPlatt said:

Article only published about the statement from here when there’s something dismissing it

Click to expand...

That was always going to happen.

They could maybe feature David Johnson's article saying why the council aren't to blame which is clearly biased. Maybe they can ask Neil why he is knowingly ignored mentioning the indemnity for months?

and this:


maybe even this:

What volume would it speak if everyone replied to Trust statements on social media simply with

"The Sky Blue Trust don't represent me as a Coventry City fan"

Sky Blue Pete said:

Good statement that but not quite what he said by email

I will strongly say we are all united in the present and seeking the same thing. Trust have made it clear they have been pressurising wasps but it’s commercially sensitive. I don’t even know what that means

I do know ccfc are losing money
Wasps are losing money

Click to expand...

Quite what who said by email?

It's just an easy way to say "we are hassling Wasps" but not actually because it's hiding behind "commercially sensitive".

Sky Blue Pete said:

Good statement that but not quite what he said by email

I will strongly say we are all united in the present and seeking the same thing. Trust have made it clear they have been pressurising wasps but it’s commercially sensitive. I don’t even know what that means

I do know ccfc are losing money
Wasps are losing money

Click to expand...

Commercial sensitive information. Information that, if disclosed, could prejudice a supplier's commercial interests e.g. trade secrets, profit margins or new ideas. This type of information is protected through Confidentiality Agreements.

Both SISU and Wasps signed a confidentiality agreement. I think the likelyhood is SISU don't want their financial dealings becoming public due to their questionable offshore accounts, and Wasps don't want their sponsors to know just how much theyre in the shite.

Sky Blue Pete said:

Good statement that but not quite what he said by email

I will strongly say we are all united in the present and seeking the same thing. Trust have made it clear they have been pressurising wasps but it’s commercially sensitive. I don’t even know what that means

I do know ccfc are losing money
Wasps are losing money

Click to expand...

The statement by Neil is contradictory the that issued by CJ Joiner and Stuart Linnell - that the EU complaint can be asked to be forgotten about. Whare has this actually come from?

Both CCFC and Wasps have been open about an indemnity existing so I would suggest Mr White uses his expertise in PR to actually ask Wasps how a commercially sensitive item that appears in an NDA can have actually been so unsensitive quotes were made by both parties in the media

Briles said:

Commercial sensitive information. Information that, if disclosed, could prejudice a supplier's commercial interests e.g. trade secrets, profit margins or new ideas. This type of information is protected through Confidentiality Agreements.

Both SISU and Wasps signed a confidentiality agreement. I think the likelyhood is SISU don't want their financial dealings becoming public due to their questionable offshore accounts, and Wasps don't want their sponsors to know just how much theyre in the shite.

Click to expand...

This is not applicable to the Indemnity as its been discussed in public in the past

Briles said:

Commercial sensitive information. Information that, if disclosed, could prejudice a supplier's commercial interests e.g. trade secrets, profit margins or new ideas. This type of information is protected through Confidentiality Agreements.

Both SISU and Wasps signed a confidentiality agreement. I think the likelyhood is SISU don't want their financial dealings becoming public due to their questionable offshore accounts, and Wasps don't want their sponsors to know just how much theyre in the shite.

Click to expand...

That doesn't stop the Trust from showing them up though does it? They can still make Wasps look bad regardless.

Grendel said:

The statement by Neil is contradictory the that issued by CJ Joiner and Stuart Linnell - that the EU complaint can be asked to be forgotten about. Whare has this actually come from?

Both CCFC and Wasps have been open about an indemnity existing so I would suggest Mr White uses his expertise in PR to actually ask Wasps how a commercially sensitive item that appears in an NDA can have actually been so unsensitive quotes were made by both parties in the media

Click to expand...

There are always contradictions with what CJ says and when Neil speaks.

The commercial confidentiality stuff is just a front to say "yeah we are hassling Wasps but it's confidential" without actually hassling them.

Nick said:

That doesn't stop the Trust from showing them up though does it? They can still make Wasps look bad regardless.

Click to expand...

Definitely, it was more just explaining what it was.

Great to see the Sky Blue Trust communications officer articulating his objections in a mature and professional manner

Nick said:

Interesting how Neil goes straight to the Telegraph from the Trust and doesn't actually disprove anything said.

Coventry City fans forum Sky Blues Talk issue statement

Click to expand...

Been asked for months for info by their own members and nothing. Even claiming they were too busy and would need to be full time to respond.

Got this out pretty quickly though didn’t they. Doesn’t really address the issues, if anything it illustrates why people are unhappy with their actions.