Yup, this is what troubles me.
Rational behaviour is to say thanks but no thanks to SISU.
Or alternatively to say that actually these court actions are with other parties, we'll judge on our own merits... and disregard them.
The pre-conditions are... odd.
Because if they blame it on SISU, then they don't get the bad publicity (yes, I know they are well within their rights to as they own things etc) they would if they just said piss off.
If it was about not dealing with them because of being sued and not trusting them, why did Wasps enter negotiations knowing all about it? Then suddenly stop (around the same time as CSF stopped about the academy).
To say it is a conspiracy theory is a bit strong, but to think it is all co-incidence is a bit naive.
It has to be either coincidence or orchestrated, old lad. It can't be neither. If the latter, it's a conspiracy theory. The strength of it can be discussed; but if it tastes like chicken, it's chicken.
And again, I ask, given all the evidence that's out there. Or more pertinently not out there; why would CCC risk roping in an unassociated party such as CRFC? (And I don't draw the differential between CFRC and the bloke who pumped capital into the club and owns the 125 year lease that's the basis for the club's existence)
I have said many times I don't think SISU will win if it goes further, including when they came out about it.
Are CCC really unassociated though? CCC / Wasps / CSF / Millerchip. It would be interesting to know just how linked they are.
Is he investing in Wasps too? Is he planning to build something for / with Wasps at the Butts? Is it going to be something for / with CSF to manage?
It isn't just a random party like Just Sport that have suddenly come out and said about the legal action, all of the people banging on about it are linked aren't they?
Come on mate, Canley Crem is an associated party if you follow that reasoning, as CCC own the freehold to that land too.
You've said it yourself; SISU's legal options sit on rice-paper thin tendrils of hope. Why would CCC need to drag in anyone else? Surely to do so would be a risk of biblically stupid proportions?
Or more pertinently not out there; why would CCC risk roping in an unassociated party such as CRFC? (And I don't draw the differential between CFRC and the bloke who pumped capital into the club and owns the 125 year lease that's the basis for the club's existence)
OK, I'll play.
I'd say that ultimately there's little/no risk for CCC in 'involving' CRFC as is suggested. CRFC need CCC as we know. Overall, it's apparent that all sporting clubs need the council onside as it means things can happen a lot more easily and quickly. Forget about needing CCFC to help develop their ground - without CCC onside it becomes immeasurably harder. Leaving aside right and wrong... pragmatically you'd have CCC onside before CCFC (or, indeed, *anybody* else) in such a scenario if you played the game.
Therefore, co-operation comes into it, and talking comes into it.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that in conversations (informal) it comes up how much easier it would be for everybody, and how much more smoothly any planning processes could go, if there wasn't the distraction of legal action. What the other party to that conversation does from then on is, of course, up to them.
There is always the letter of the law wrt process, and then there's manipulating the edges of it... which does no wrong, of course - you break no rules, you do nothing that can be held against you. You have, in fact, done nothing but mentioned in passing what would be helpful.
Where, in that instance, is the risk to CCC?
Now, I am in no way saying this *is* what happens and has happened. But I wouldn't discount it absolutely as you seem to be. The wider context doesn't make it unlikely after all. Who loses to make that so?
Are you suggesting that when you enter relationships and negotiations with people. That if you are not involving them directly or indirectly in expensive pointless legal battles, you may have a better chance of those negotiations and relationships going smoother?
OK, I'll play.
I'd say that ultimately there's little/no risk for CCC in 'involving' CRFC as is suggested. CRFC need CCC as we know. Overall, it's apparent that all sporting clubs need the council onside as it means things can happen a lot more easily and quickly. Forget about needing CCFC to help develop their ground - without CCC onside it becomes immeasurably harder. Leaving aside right and wrong... pragmatically you'd have CCC onside before CCFC (or, indeed, *anybody* else) in such a scenario if you played the game.
Therefore, co-operation comes into it, and talking comes into it.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that in conversations (informal) it comes up how much easier it would be for everybody, and how much more smoothly any planning processes could go, if there wasn't the distraction of legal action. What the other party to that conversation does from then on is, of course, up to them.
There is always the letter of the law wrt process, and then there's manipulating the edges of it... which does no wrong, of course - you break no rules, you do nothing that can be held against you. You have, in fact, done nothing but mentioned in passing what would be helpful.
Where, in that instance, is the risk to CCC?
Now, I am in no way saying this *is* what happens and has happened. But I wouldn't discount it absolutely as you seem to be. The wider context doesn't make it unlikely after all. Who loses to make that so?
It's obvious that a fractured relationship hinders things.
I don't think anybody has suggested otherwise, have they? Debates centre around who fractures/fractured it and how best to resolve it, don't they?
My issue has always been that if you give them a chance to fuck you over, they shall. Royally. Again, my issue with our club's owners has always been that in my view, they're been all too ready to imperil the very future of the football club to achieve a financial output that's gone badly wrong for them; and as soon as you place that fate at the feet of a council; well, see above.
But; I do see councils and councillors as being calculating. Don't ever accuse them of not being so, as by Christ they are. And given their legal dominance over SISU's various claims in events so far; I still don't see why they need to involve anyone else. Be that the rugby club, the local Morris Dancers, or anyone else for that matter. They'd just baton down the hatches, surely?
No the odd person suggests that the council (previously) and now Wasps should let the legal stuff run. Separately they should be doing business deals with SISU and put the legal battles in a seperate box as it is not related to rent deals or stadium management company sales.
Well, at the risk of digressing an interesting point that comes out elsewhere (and this does indeed threaten to digress it) then Wasps had already stated the legal actions weren't their business. Therefore, we can discount them.
Returning to my earlier point... in rebuilding relationships I'd always be talking to interested parties. Legal actions are always far more likely to go away as a consequence of talking about what happens going forward... than stating that as a pre-condition.
So... none (few?) of us disagree with this, do we? It's just how much weight we apportion to each 'side' of this that causes debate.
At the end of the day, the negative view of the SISU strategy is that these battles tie up council resource and money. If there's a way tp help that go away far more swiftly, they'll take it.
And as we saw with the granting of the right to appeal... while there is a case that's allowed to be heard, there's always the threat of defeat. Even if seemingly slim, it's there. And that also ties up resource and cash in setting aside just in case...
As a small aside... please distinguish between councils and councillors in your 'small people...' remark. Please
Well, at the risk of digressing an interesting point that comes out elsewhere (and this does indeed threaten to digress it) then Wasps had already stated the legal actions weren't their business. Therefore, we can discount them.
Returning to my earlier point... in rebuilding relationships I'd always be talking to interested parties. Legal actions are always far more likely to go away as a consequence of talking about what happens going forward... than stating that as a pre-condition.
I don't disagree with your argument. And do I put such duplicity past those who work for our councils? Hell no. Indeed, I suggest there's nobody better.
But; and here's the rub, the SISU litigation process is one of ever dwindling return. It's chances now must be, what, 5%? That's probably generous. The council gets decent legal advice. That advice now would be to talk to nobody, involve nobody, cajole nobody. To get CRFC to manoeuvre to cut the JR in light of the fact that - really - how candid is our desire to share with the Blue and Whites; honestly? It's just not a goer for me
Are Canley Crem funding the city of rugby stuff too? Let's not play the link between them all down
Next we will be saying there is no link with CSF and Wasps, just co-incidence.
The other option is that it is just pr....
You tell me? Again it would be very naive to dismiss thatWho needs the PR?
You tell me? Again it would be very naive to dismiss that
So if wasps don't need it, why would people sign up on a Coventry city fans forum?Well, to run through the cast of characters; CCC, they've won every case bought against them so far, so I presume they're okay. Wasps, their revenues are in excess of expectation and they're on course to be the richest rugby club in the world, so they're okay. Higgs, well, they're honouring their rolling contract with the academy until the contract ends in 2017, after which Fisher since 2013 has told us he's got other plans - so they're okay. So that leaves us with whom? Oh, the football club, who have had questions asked with regards their governance in the House of Commons, no? They might need some help..,
So if wasps don't need it, why would people sign up on a Coventry city fans forum?
If higgs don't need it, again why would have somebody have signed up on here?
They are just the ones I can use as fact, the rest is pretty much obvious when any side is playing the pr game, isn't it?
It's ok, I can see you are just playing everything down.This is a grand forum, Nick; and I applaud what you do on here. I often disagree with you, but I do so with some respect for your passion for the club. Honestly.
But this forum isn't on Wasps radar with regards their global plans. It just isn't mate
It's ok, I can see you are just playing everything down.
There must have been some identity theft going on. As the email address was quite telling, as have been a few others. (Not wasps)
I'm not saying they will use this place as the centre of their marketing plans, but you don't need to play down the pr stuff by giving it the richest club in the world line.
The boycott wasps thread is a good example..
No I'm not saying it's guff as I don't know.I have to retire Nick. I'd like to share a pint with you sometime. I'll come back on this; but the richest club in the world 'guff', believe me, I've seen the figures - anyway, sleep well, dear chap
What I don't get is, some Coventry City councillor 's are apparently City fans and some people obviously must know John Sharp.
Aren't there ANY City fans who are friends with any councillors at all? Isn't there anyone who knows John Sharp?
Really thought someone on here would at least know something! It's like a complete closed shop.
Statements are made by parties and then everyone either tries to guess, or assumes what is happening.
Surely someone posting on here knows some councillors, or knows John Sharp or people that know John Sharp.
Why aren't we seemingly getting any leaked information anywhere?
Not saying it would be entirely accurate, or the total truth, but we are getting nothing at all, not even the tiniest slither.
It's a shame that there was one councillor I knew (an independent), but he stepped down about 5 years ago.
According to Linked In, John Sharp is also the co-owner of Millsy's Bar in Earlsdon and the the Royal Oak pub. Anyone go in either of those places?
Would love to know what he has to say about Chris Millerchip's intervention.
He has said hadn't he?
That he wanted to explore the possibility of doing something with CCFC.
However Millerchip said no and in September they have a meeting where he finds out what Millerchip wants to do.
That's what I mean, SINCE Millerchip's statement.He has said hasn't he?
That he wanted to explore the possibility of doing something with CCFC.
However Millerchip said no and in September they have a meeting where he finds out what Millerchip wants to do.
I hand on heart just cannot see how a 25,000 seater stadium could ever be built there.To be honest I wasn't keen on the Butts due to the 25k limited capacity.
However even I have changed my mind now.
However I don't trust SISU so I would want it built at 25k from the off. Not start at 12k and hope they get there one day.
That's what I mean, SINCE Millerchip's statement.
Asked if any groundshare deal was officially dead, he said: “That’s up to Chris to determine. There was a good possibility there for us, but it’s up to him.”
Yep, got that, but has their been any counter reaction since, other than it's up to Chris?I think it was:
Yep, got that, but has their been any counter reaction since, other than it's up to Chris?
Guess we will have to wait and see.
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?