Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Nah it’s just in line with what they’d already signed. I’m trying find out specifically what that was
Nah it’s just in line with what they’d already signed. I’m trying find out specifically what that wasShen you say removal of legal action does that include the right of appeal if the complaint goes against them?
Nah it’s just in line with what they’d already signed. I’m trying find out specifically what that was
The legal stuff? I think it’s a way to build relationshipsI think the next issue will be that. There will be an insistence of non appeal if the decision goes against them and they will insist on the same for the other party. It’s a red herring really
The legal stuff? I think it’s a way to build relationships
I think the next issue will be that. There will be an insistence of non appeal if the decision goes against them and they will insist on the same for the other party. It’s a red herring really
Yep I ageeeI think you’re right. That’s why I was asking about the line in the club press release about legal rights when they were also saying they’d agreed to no more legal action so something is obviously fishy there.
That’s why you focus on the indemnity which is indefensible. Ideally that’s it and we are back, more likely it uncovers the next obstacle to overcome.
They promised no further action against Wasps.I think you’re right. That’s why I was asking about the line in the club press release about legal rights when they were also saying they’d agreed to no more legal action so something is obviously fishy there.
That’s why you focus on the indemnity which is indefensible. Ideally that’s it and we are back, more likely it uncovers the next obstacle to overcome.
Think that’s fair enough. If they continue action against the council the only way it impacts Wasps is if the council are found to be in the wrong.In mid-April, SISU signed an undertaking to irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh Arena
Completely agree, that’s the point I’ve been trying to make to Neil. Stop concentrating on potential issues years down the line and worry about the immediate problem.That’s why you focus on the indemnity which is indefensible. Ideally that’s it and we are back, more likely it uncovers the next obstacle to overcome.
Exactly but they won't because that's not shouting sisu and it means saying something against wasps.Completely agree, that’s the point I’ve been trying to make to Neil. Stop concentrating on potential issues years down the line and worry about the immediate problem.
Get that resolved and go from there.
Bang onCompletely agree, that’s the point I’ve been trying to make to Neil. Stop concentrating on potential issues years down the line and worry about the immediate problem.
Get that resolved and go from there.
Totally agree, we should be doing this while we have some momentum; somebody needs to go on the CWR phone-in on Friday and keep banging home our position. Any volunteers? (I suggested this previously but nobody stepped forward..).All we can do really is keep our position clear and keep on at the media to amplify it during interviews with key players.
I’m at music group practice unfortunately this week sorryTotally agree, we should be doing this while we have some momentum; somebody needs to go on the CWR phone-in on Friday and keep banging home our position. Any volunteers? (I suggested this previously but nobody stepped forward..).
Depends what dave boddy says tonight.I’ll have to see. I just managed to get home in time the other week, what’s the general thrust if so?
Unless, and I’m very open to this, the match needs to be the focus this Friday and we don’t need to bring up.Depends what dave boddy says tonight.
But I would say it’s to encourage them to get wasps ceo on to ask about what is stopping them removing the indemnity clause
It would be great if you could. The key point to make is "why are the local media (including CWR) not calling out Wasps on the indemnity demand?" We need to make this point until they start doing something about it. Have a listen to last Friday's phone-in on the CWR website, I was on at about 37 minutes in; we just need to keep hammering that point until they listen. Pete was on the previous week so well worth a listen and then pick up on his points. Hope this helps!I’ll have to see. I just managed to get home in time the other week, what’s the general thrust if so?
I’m sorry it closed on Tuesday nightHow do i actually vote in this?
There are no voting buttons for me.
I've read some of the thread on my phone, but not all of it.
I support the statement.
I'm also a member of the Trust and pay a £1 every year automatically through paypal I think.
They haven't asked my opinion, but seem to talk on my behalf anyway!
Sorry I missed the vote.I’m sorry it closed on Tuesday night
thanks for coming on though
I’m baffled by Neil to be honest,
He keeps saying If your a member your free to apply to join the board.
but it would be wrong to have an election at the drop of the hat
Should the members not have the option to have an election when they wish if they believe the trust doesn’t represent them ?
They do. You need something like 5% of members to support IIRC. I posted it before, have a read of the constitution.
And they are unwilling to put anything in place that cleanses their membership of inactive people.So Neil should be telling people the correct information like you have. Not thats its wrong to have an election.
Main issue is no one knows how many actual members the trust have. So its 5% of anything
I reckon there’d be 135 on here out of the 368 that voted in the statement thread
It’s an in though isn’t it? And as shmmee says act reasonably and expect others too and if they don’t point it out clearlyThe wording of that clause is pretty odd isn’t it? Everyone has to raise exactly the same motion (which yes can be done) and then the board arrange a special meeting.
There’s nothing that requires them to put that date on a communication platform either from what I can see
It’s an in though isn’t it? And as shmmee says act reasonably and expect others too and if they don’t point it out clearly
It’s an in though isn’t it? And as shmmee says act reasonably and expect others too and if they don’t point it out clearly
Yep course I completely understand that yepThe issue is that this isn't a new thing, people have become frustrated because they have acted reasonably in the past and not got anywhere.
I would use the “special meeting” to enact a policy action - it’s a takeover I believe that’s being suggested which will end up as a media war
That’s a wise challenge Grendel and how it would appear yep I agreeI would use the “special meeting” to enact a policy action - it’s a takeover I believe that’s being suggested which will end up as a media war
Is there not a space on the board that was vacated when Roger Ellis stood down?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?