chiefdave
Well-Known Member
That's better to be fair. Lets hope its not just a one off so they can tick a box saying they've done it and they will actually work to apply pressure.
That's better to be fair. Lets hope its not just a one off so they can tick a box saying they've done it and they will actually work to apply pressure.
Is it not the case that it wouldn't have any effect on their stance? They made it very clear there would be no deal whilst there were legals. There are still legals (which were hidden by SISU and now can't be stopped). I think the indemnity is stupid, but I can see why Wasps put it in.
BTW, anyone who chooses to come back with "they're not legals", go and read/listen to what Boddy and Fisher have both said. Called them "legals", so that "argument" is finally put to bed.
Right - they’re legals. Can’t be stopped though.
Wasps need to stop saying “stop the legals” knowing damn well they can’t be.
The indemnity clause is always ignored by the trust and wasps.
Drop the stupid clause - the losses only occur if there is something wrong with the deal.
Jeez....:banghead:They aren't legals from ccfc or sisu. They would be EU against ccc.
They aren't legals from ccfc or sisu.
That's better to be fair. Lets hope its not just a one off so they can tick a box saying they've done it and they will actually work to apply pressure.
Club StatementTo be fair, I don't think they've stated "drop the legals" since it became clear the EU submission had gone in. They've reacted to something SISU did which could have wide ranging implications and IMO were justified in some anger towards them based on submitting (and hiding) the EU case. That anger is now manifest in the indemnity clause. Protesting against them would not make them any less angry IMO. It's clear that they're prepared to take the financial hit of us not being there so unless that becomes unsustainable, I don't believe there's anything practical fans groups can do.
Jeez exactly.Jeez....:banghead:
He pretty much killed the club! Not popular there."The Sky Blues chief executive admits it’s a difficult task, drawing on his own personal experience at Worcester City who, he says, spent 20 fruitless years searching for a suitable location"
Good to see we got the right man for the job..
Great, so how do we get 9000 more fans over to brum ?There is no guarantee for either of these scenarios. The ideal situation would be a return to the Ricoh and get promoted. That isn’t guaranteed either. We had an average attendance of 12 k last season. Surely with the results we have had, crowds would now be pushing the 15k mark. Both times we have been behind at St Andrews there has been lots of negative comments and calls from some of the crowd.Where I sit the players were being castigated for continuing to play it out from the back after Wash’s mistake even though we have played this way very successfully all season. Some football fans really act like they are brainless. I honestly haven’t noticed any difference in this between the Ricoh and St Andrews. Surely better to play in front of 15k mostly sky blues than 6 k mostly sky blues?
It's totally unsustainable.And your obviously forgetting the absurdity of the Ricoh?!?!
It's in Coventry, that is the ONLY plus side.
List pros and cons for the ricoh.
Pros.
•Its in Coventry.
Cons.
•Its owned by somebody who doesnt want us there.
•Come xmas the pitch will be shit.
•Its shit to get to for most fans unless you live in Holbrookes.
•Shit atmosphere.
•No decent boozers before the game.
•Money spent there goes direct to w**ps coffers.
•We don't own it.
Pros and Cons for St Andrews.
Pros.
•Good pitch (so far)
•No boo boys/negativity (as of yet)
•Easy to get to, plenty of free parking.
•Some decent boozers within stones throw.
•Earn bigger % on F&B sales (so I'm told).
•Good atmosphere (mentioned numerous times by MR and numerous players).
•Stadium rental agreement includes boxes/corporate (under w**ps at the Ricoh that was an extra at their discretion).
•The team and staff are made to feel welcome/wanted by BCFC and never were by w**ps.
•Longer we spend there, the less money were giving w**ps to keep them afloat.
Cons.
•Its not in Coventry.
So, other than it being in Coventry, can you give me one reason why we should be playing at the ricoh?
Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk
That’s not a good thing!3 years takes us to the summer of 2022. That same summer, commonwealth games will be over and Birmingham will be left with a stadium and no regular tennant !
That’s not a good thing!
Jeez exactly.
I guess we'll never know.Is it not the case that it wouldn't have any effect on their stance? They made it very clear there would be no deal whilst there were legals. There are still legals (which were hidden by SISU and now can't be stopped). I think the indemnity is stupid, but I can see why Wasps put it in.
BTW, anyone who chooses to come back with "they're not legals", go and read/listen to what Boddy and Fisher have both said. Called them "legals", so that "argument" is finally put to bed.
So you deliberately go out of your way to misconstrue, again. Every sane person knows that there is legal action, still ongoing, that can have an impact on Wasps. You're choosing to try and make some point, although it's unclear what it is.
To be fair, I should have expected nothing less from you.
I would rather be at St Andrews than the Ricoh - but - I would rather be in Coventry in a NON-WASPS owned stadium than St Andrews!Can’t believe people are saying they’d rather be in Birmingham. I understand all the arguments for it; better pitch, matchday experience etc but seriously?
It isn’t legal action really, it’s an investigation which could be followed by legal action against the council. So there is no legal action against wasps and never will be. There could be a consequence for wasps but if they were confident that all was above board why would they be wanting an indemnity?I didn't misconstrue.
The legal action is against ccc and wasps will only come into it if ccc are found to be at fault.
At least you have made another cameo to try and spin something, I don't think anybody expects anything else from you.
Your whole internet persona is to try and spin and misconstrue.
And when we get promoted?I would rather be at St Andrews than the Ricoh - but - I would rather be in Coventry in a NON-WASPS owned stadium than St Andrews!
I didn't misconstrue.
The legal action is against ccc and wasps will only come into it if ccc are found to be at fault.
At least you have made another cameo to try and spin something, I don't think anybody expects anything else from you.
Your whole internet persona is to try and spin and misconstrue.
Sorry, that's manifestly not true. Been on the internet for a long time, usually with an 'Orca' username and from well before this site existed.
I still don't understand the point you were trying to make and having tried to deflect to make this something about me, you're using your usual MO.
Every party involved in this knows that the existence of the current legal action is an impediment to CCFC playing at the Ricoh. You appear to have a different view.
3 years takes us to the summer of 2022. That same summer, commonwealth games will be over and Birmingham will be left with a stadium and no regular tennant !
It’s not legal action, it’s an investigation of the council.Sorry, that's manifestly not true. Been on the internet for a long time, usually with an 'Orca' username and from well before this site existed.
I still don't understand the point you were trying to make and having tried to deflect to make this something about me, you're using your usual MO.
Every party involved in this knows that the existence of the current legal action is an impediment to CCFC playing at the Ricoh. You appear to have a different view.
Not saying we should play at the Ricoh, but a few more pros
It’s very easy to get to for those not living in Coventry
The casino is great for after game drinks / gambling
I like Nottingham forests' ground. I like Preston's stadium. I like Bramall lane, Notts County, Carrow road.I would rather be at St Andrews than the Ricoh - but - I would rather be in Coventry in a NON-WASPS owned stadium than St Andrews!
Try reading what is said. If you don't understand simple things still to trying to get likes from council employees with fake accounts.
There's no deflection, I stated basic facts that its an investigation by the EU into CCC.
Wasps are only at risk and involved if the council are found to be in the wrong.
I doubt that you can process that though.
Perfectly able to process all of this thanks Nick.
You stated facts, I agree. However in the context of the point I originally made, I don't understand why. These points are already well understood.
I made the point that "there would be no deal whilst there were legals" and you decided it was important to state "They aren't legals from ccfc or sisu. They would be EU against ccc.", with a deliberate lack of context. Who submitted the case to the EU Nick? Do you have something to suggest or prove that the EU would have acted unilaterally to investigate, without a complaint being submitted by SISU?
I guess not. It's a SISU led legal complaint that the EU are legally obliged to act on. No complaint from SISU, no EU action.
This legal action, confirmed as "legals" by both Boddy and Fisher, have halted discussions between CCFC and Wasps. That is also a fact.
We'd be playing at the Ricoh if the EU complaint hadn't been submitted.
Try this quote from Eastwood, Nick.Both ccfc and wasps said that talks continued regardless of the EU stuff didn't they?
There is only an actual EU investigation if the EU think there needs to be one.
The bit you are missing is that things only start rolling from the EU if they think ccc did something wrong.
You are right, it is all about context and you constantly miss that.
It’s not legal action, it’s an investigation of the council.
When is the court case then? Show us where wasps are named in a current court case. Ill waitPeople who've called it "legals": Fisher, Boddy, Eastwood, Rupert Lowe MEP and many, many more.
People who are clinging to it not being legals, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and failing to understand it makes no difference whatsover: MalcSB
You are correct and also let’s remember Sepalla submitted this complaint to the EU, knowing it couldn’t be withdrawn BEFORE she publically offered to drop ALL legals if a site for a new ground could be identified.You continue to be steadfast in trying to avoid putting any blame on SISU though Nick. They submitted the complaint, knowing full well it would be impactful. They hid the complaint hoping to get a deal signed before it became public.
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?