Having it all in writing avoids any spin at all doesn't it? Don't you think the fact he didn't turn up and then nobody said anything for a couple of weeks about it, and then both the trust and CSF say about it within 24 hours gives a clue?
Wasps don't want any negative attention, they want SISU to be the baddies even when they do things. I don't think SISU are goodies by any stretch, but then again I don't fall for the "Wasps are going to save us, the academy is saved" crap that the trust tried to push to then go back on after they met them.
People seem to focus a lot on Anderson not going to a meeting (he said at the start he wanted to do things in writing to start) which is clearly what Wasps want. If people focused on them being dicks they would hate it. Nobody actually thinks it is strange that Wasps won't put things in writing,...
Let me get this right are you seriously saying CA was right not to attend that meeting???
I thought Grendel was the only Cyclopse but I just assume he does it just to be controversial.
However are you genuinely saying that was the correct thing to do?
Let me get this right are you seriously saying CA was right not to attend that meeting???
I thought Grendel was the only Cyclopse but I just assume he does it just to be controversial.
However are you genuinely saying that was the correct thing to do?
So there isn't room for both of them then...
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Where does it say wasps would agree to minutes being taken and agreed and discussion documents being released?
Didn't wasps or csf (I think it was csf) say it wouldn't be possible? Ccfc also don't seem to think it's possible.We will never know. The party that should be pushing it prefers to play the victim and batter them in court #wasters
People have a meeting to arrange a meeting?W
We will never know. It usually means a meeting to agree that.
The meeting was already agreed to in that context
I knew people fell for Wasps PR but what has amazed me since moving back to Cov a few weeks ago is how many people have fallen for it and how they just recite things from Wasps press releases as fact.Reading more of the comments on CET where so called city fans are revelling in this mess, cannot understand this. We all know SISU are cunts but this is about the long term future of our club and academy. People seem to be happy just get get one up on SISU, fucking grow up and see the bigger picture.
A state of the art facility available for community use was talked about. Now it seems it is actually a net loss of community facilities.I'm still unclear. wasn't it part of Wasps proposal to the council when "bidding" for the Ricoh that they would develop the land next to it for training etc.?
Both CSF and Wasps have said there isn't room for both. Of course that was before there was a small backlash and they had to do some PR. How much of their own money (not money raised by bonds or sponsorship) have Wasps committed to the training complex?Anyway, there is room enough at Higgs for both with a little work from all parties.
CCFC don't have a given right to be there so need to be more proactive in getting what they want. They don't want to invest money in the complex, like Wasps, so will need to rent the facilities.
That will be the type of development Wasps owner ruled out as soon as he had got what he wanted.I can't see how a training ground is physically possible at the Ricoh so I would say it's more about other developments on the complex or in the car parks.
As you have full details from CSF of what is available can you pass them on to Anderson.The majority of the academy could be based there. Extra pitches would need to found elsewhere but that is acceptable even in current academy rules.
Imagine the spin if he'd turned up to the meeting, asked for the details, not been given them and left.That is assuming you would have received all of the information requested at the meeting. The Trust seemed to come out with a random view didn't they that everything would be ok and Wasps are going to save the world?
I haven't said that. I would have been very wary of what comes out after.
I'd have probably have had a secret recording device on me
I have a feeling he knows exactly why Wasps refuse to put things in writing. Again, people don't seem to wander why as they are too busy shouting "go to a meeting" when he said months ago he wanted to do things in writing, but Wasps / CSF are both ignoring his requests. First they wanted to do things via TXT didn't they? People don't remember now that before the Wasps stuff came out, CSF gave CCFC notice they wouldn't be there any more and they also said it wouldn't be possible for CCFC to be there with Wasps and the pool.
Pretty sure they want people to focus on CA not going to a meeting (the ones he has insisted he gets things in writing first) anyway. It takes the attention away too doesn't it?
I said at the time there was more to it, people like Armybike were trying to make out I was paranoid...
There is much more to it than him waking up and deciding not to go. If they are bluffing, and after their letter to the council about the planners then if wasps / csf put their amazing offer in writing that he keeps banging on about it will put ca in a sticky situation.
Where does it say wasps would agree to minutes being taken and agreed and discussion documents being released?
Yes, didn't he then not turn up because he didn't have the requested stuff in writing?He agreed to go to the meeting then pulled out last minute
Don't have a secret device, turn up and put one on the table.Tell everyone they can have a copy afterwards.
Just bloody turn up if you are worried about spin (it was worse to agree then drop out last second)
If having it in writing was an "absolute" condition why agree then drop out last minute.
It was farcical and massively undermines the good work if things like this objection to the planning department
I knew people fell for Wasps PR but what has amazed me since moving back to Cov a few weeks ago is how many people have fallen for it and how they just recite things from Wasps press releases as fact.
A state of the art facility available for community use was talked about. Now it seems it is actually a net loss of community facilities.
Both CSF and Wasps have said there isn't room for both. Of course that was before there was a small backlash and they had to do some PR. How much of their own money (not money raised by bonds or sponsorship) have Wasps committed to the training complex?
That will be the type of development Wasps owner ruled out as soon as he had got what he wanted.
As you have full details from CSF of what is available can you pass them on to Anderson.
Imagine the spin if he'd turned up to the meeting, asked for the details, not been given them and left.
Yes, didn't he then not turn up because he didn't have the requested stuff in writing?
Meanwhile, you go on about this meeting you miss the point wasps or ccfc said it wasn't possible to begin with until they got beef.
Where does it say anything unless you get there?
One thing guaranteed not turning up does you harm
Turning up you have nothing to lose
Could this also be dependant on dropping legal action?
Didn't Jan say that Anderson had been in touch, and said he couldn't make the meeting because he was out of the country?He agreed to go to the meeting then pulled out last minute
Don't have a secret device, turn up and put one on the table.Tell everyone they can have a copy afterwards.
Just bloody turn up if you are worried about spin (it was worse to agree then drop out last second)
If having it in writing was an "absolute" condition why agree then drop out last minute.
It was farcical and massively undermines the good work if things like this objection to the planning department
No, they said the academy being there wasn't didn't they? When the news first came out.Wasps said they can't have a meeting to discuss the academy because they have beef?
Think that was the scg one wasn't itDidn't Jan say that Anderson had been in touch, and said he couldn't make the meeting because he was out of the country?
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Cheers, I couldn't remember which one was which.Think that was the scg one wasn't it
Doesn't the letter say they want to stay there long term? Anderson has also been saying they want it to be long term there too
Surely then if something at the csf doesn't work out and they actually did want to build one, people would use that against them.We've still never gone on the record (as far as I know anyway) and said we are no longer planning on building our own academy. It would be helpful to our case to clarify that point would it not?
Surely then if something at the csf doesn't work out and they actually did want to build one, people would use that against them.
They have said they want long term at higgs.
So if we are just going to go off of statements why did the council let wasps move here as they were looking for London?Ha ha ha "actually did want to build one" good one Nick.
I think the the clubs claim has merit but also contradicts what's been claimed before on the record. Clarify that, that's all I'm saying. Contradictions take merit away from the claim. The club needs one voice if they're serious about this claim not duplicity. Unless it's just another bluff of course, which let's face it would be standard for our owners.
And here endeth the thread!Some of this 'they said-we said we did -they did' business would be very easy to resolve, just release the text of the letters and emails and the responses or lack of. As regards the meeting business then that's fairly simple also. Turn up, have the discussion, take lots of notes, take notes back to office and type up letter that begins say "Just a brief note to cover our discussion...." Fairly normal business practice and leaves it up to the other party to offer their agreement or thoughts if they disagree.
No need to flounce around and it keeps the discussion going. About time all involved started acting like grown ups rather that eight year olds in the playground.
So if we are just going to go off of statements why did the council let wasps move here as they were looking for London?
They have said a few times they want it to be long term at the higgs haven't they?
They have claimed on the record since then Multiple times they want to be there long term.
If it is a bluff, it would be so easy for wasps to call it by putting details in writing wouldn't it. Especially as ccfc have put so much emphasis into it being in writing.
Do you know Nick I don't really give a flying one what Wasps claimed about London and frankly I don't know why you feel the need to bring it up as it has sweet FA to do with the AEHC and even less to do with the future of the academy.
The club have contradicting statement's regarding the academy.
All I am saying is put that duplicity to bed and sing from a single hymn sheet to avoid this duplicity in light of apposing the planning. It can only help our claim.
What I'm struggling with is why you would have issue with clarification? Isn't it about time we had some.
A simple public announcement saying we no longer have any plans to build our own academy and want to commit long term to the AEHC is all I'm asking for. Why are you queuing up the excuses for them not to do it? If the claim is genuine it gives it merit. Surely you can see that?
The trust could even relaunch it's petition of the back of it. I'm sure you've noticed the lack of signatures on it. Do you think that there's any chance that our owners duplicity contributes to no one taking them seriously and backing them or anything they say?
Don't know why you're all still arguing about this. Petition don't know how many people signed it couldn't have been more than a couple of thousand ie no interest. Just face it it's going, only a week to go to the start of the season enjoy the football if you can while you can. Nobody knows the truth quite frankly it's embarrassing from all sides see you at Swindon
No hint here there comes a time when people stop enjoying going and stop that's allWhile you can?
It's utterly disgraceful - and no more than 10% SISU's fault.
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?