Nick
Administrator
Maybe Overson is seeing a conspiracy too?
“wasps were obviously involved so I wasn’t happy”
Maybe Overson is seeing a conspiracy too?
Right that’s enough playing with you lot for now.
@Nick let me know if you ever feel like answering any of the questions posed to you rather than throwing insults and totally not conspiracy theories around. We might even have a debate!
He says he left the consortium because Wasps were involved and he wasn't happy about it. A little bit more than "talks about somewhere to play".
As per usual though, you play it down because you are denying something that has happened by using some other made up scenario.
They aren't conspiracy theories if they have actually happened.
It isn't playing with anybody, it's making yourself look silly.
What insults have I thrown?
You are strange. (act the victim about that and claim insult if you want).
Why can’t you answer a question Nick? Responded to every single sentence I’ve written apart from the question. Why is that?
Im not playing it down, I’m saying he doesn’t say much, because he doesn’t. You’re playing it up because it suits your theories.
Can you answer the question to Nick? Why won’t Sisu call Wasps bluff if the complaint can’t be stopped?
Grendel? Anyone?
Just keep insulting everyone who asks a question, totally the sign of a solid argument.
I did respond to it? I asked how do they ask for it to be forgotten then?
Weird how it seems to be people talking to Wasps who are coming out with that line knowing that it won't get things dropped.
How come you can't answer the points about Wasps being involved in the takeover consortium or the Haskell stuff?
Where have you been insulted by me?
He says wasps were involved in the consortium...
It's the same as when you tried to say the council didn't try it on about the butts.
They aren't theories, they are facts. You are the only one coming up with theories in this thread.
I said to you, what is the process on "asking for it to be forgotten"? It isn't a thing, it's just a line that the Trust and Linnell wanted to spin to distract from the indemnity.
Write a letter? Phone call? Email? We are in the communication age mate.
And I answered you. I think it’s sensible for any owner to build good relationships with the only stadium owner in town. I think it’s rather Fucking stupid to destroy the relationship with your sole supplier before sourcing alternatives. That’s been my issue with Sisu all along, tactically they’re a mess.
The council didn’t try it on. An internal email was sent and nothing came of it. You’ve tied all these half facts and vague sentences together with red string to fit your initial theory
So a random email to a mailbox? What would that do, exactly?
Again, I am sure Overson would have understood if it was just "building a good relationship" wouldn't he?
So you have the person who received the bid and a person who was involved with the bid saying Wasps were involved but it's just a conspiracy. The same as it was about Haskell and what went on then?
Please do point about where I have insulted you?
Involved is a very vague word mate. We don’t know what it means. Everyone is assuming it means whatever suits their theory.
I know Taylor Swift won't go out with me, but apparently I should ask her anyway. Put the ball back in her court.Im not playing it down, I’m saying he doesn’t say much, because he doesn’t. You’re playing it up because it suits your theories.
Can you answer the question to Nick? Why won’t Sisu call Wasps bluff if the complaint can’t be stopped?
Grendel? Anyone?
Just keep insulting everyone who asks a question, totally the sign of a solid argument.
An email from the council to Cov Rugby isn't internal, is it? Of course they were trying it on, they have even admitted to it.
You seem to have a one sided memory that misses out certain facts. It's ironic you mention half facts are you are slowly becoming the king of them with everything you don't seem have any idea about.
I know Taylor Swift won't go out with me, but apparently I should ask her anyway. Put the ball back in her court.
More insults.
I thought it was internal, it was during negotiations. It still didn’t go anywhere. It’s not an actual action is it? It’s a thought that didn’t go anywhere. And it’s your best evidence for your theories.
Solid analogy. Cos Taylor Swift is specifically asking you to ask her in order to get something you want that she has right?
Nope my mistake it’s a fucking terrible analogy.
Involved enough for the person receiving the bid to know they are part of it.
Involved enough for somebody involved with making the bid to be unhappy and leave the consortium.
It's not really "just being friendly with potential landlords", is it?
Why do you persist at scraping the barrel?
Where is the insult?
Strange, you seem to not know something again.
It was an action in response to a Cov Rugby business proposal.
You are the one that seemingly has theories about things that have already happened, you have some strange distorted memory where certain things are wrong or blocked out. (You can pretend that's an insult as well if you want)
You think this is a compliment?
“You seem to have a one sided memory that misses out certain facts. It's ironic you mention half facts are you are slowly becoming the king of them with everything you don't seem have any idea about”
I know this one. It’s because it’s not the only sticking pointIm not playing it down, I’m saying he doesn’t say much, because he doesn’t. You’re playing it up because it suits your theories.
Can you answer the question to Nick? Why won’t Sisu call Wasps bluff if the complaint can’t be stopped?
Grendel? Anyone?
Just keep insulting everyone who asks a question, totally the sign of a solid argument.
go on...I know this one. It’s because it’s not the only sticking point
I know this one. It’s because it’s not the only sticking point
Are you really getting that desperate you act a victim and try to claim that's an insult?
After all, it's fact that you seem to not know about particular things. How convenient.
Anyway this is dull. Same people posting the same arguments. In summary: we should focus on the indemnity, my guess is that that won’t be the end of it though. Sorry that triggers you guys so much.
What does that mean? “Convenient” go on. What are you implying? It’s obviously that im dishonest and yes I’m insulted by that.
Grow up and debate the ideas you fucking child (that’s also an insult and here endeth the lesson)
That's what I said, don't know how my own admission, that I've been consistent upon for ages has triggered me but hey ho.Anyway this is dull. Same people posting the same arguments. In summary: we should focus on the indemnity, my guess is that that won’t be the end of it though. Sorry that triggers you guys so much.
That's what I said, don't know how my own admission, that I've been consistent upon for ages has triggered me but hey ho.
Why can’t you answer a question Nick? Responded to every single sentence I’ve written apart from the question. Why is that?
Yep, get the indemnity sacked off and see the situation then.
That's why when Pete put together that statement he was also saying that SISU should not carry out any other legals so it isn't just Wasps.
You did agree with that statement didnt you?
I don’t know but that’s the answer isn’t it. If the indemnity is the sticking point why haven’t ccfc asked for it to be removed? Because it’s not the only issue. Is that not ochums razor. What we don’t know is why wasps continued to talk when they knew about the complaint?What are the other sticking points?
That's what I said, don't know how my own admission, that I've been consistent upon for ages has triggered me but hey ho.
I don’t know but that’s the answer isn’t it. If the indemnity is the sticking point why haven’t ccfc asked for it to be removed? Because it’s not the only issue. Is that not ochums razor. What we don’t know is why wasps continued to talk when they knew smoky the complaint?
Again assuming they did. Seems incredulous they didn’t. So it wasn’t an issue for a couple of months to wasps that a complaint had been made and then did it suddenly become an issue or was it part of the conversations? I think the latter cause it makes sense not cause I’m in the know. So ergo there are still discussions to be had about playing at the Ricoh. So why did they stop at that point?
We don’t know. Sisu out there statement and wasps have said nothing.
All associated with the club are truly devastated that we are having to play outside of Coventry – no one associated with the club ‘want’ this to happen despite some fans saying and thinking that some associated with the club do ‘want’ it to happen.
However it got to the point in negotiations where the terms presented to SISU that Wasps wanted SISU to sign up to and also sign the football club to sign up to simply was not possible by terms that were being presented.
If fans knew what these terms were they would understand and given the choice fans would not sign their club up these terms either.
While we have to deal with the reality and likelihood that CCFC will play at St Andrews next season it doesn’t have to be that way. We have the option and ability to reverse the deal with Birmingham and to go back to the Ricoh - at any point, any point now or during the season.
To reiterate no party from either Wasps, SISU or CCFC have ended discussions - they are simply stuck on some points they can’t agree on - points which could have future damage to the club and/or employees. SISU rightly so can not sign the club up to these terms.
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?