Then, with this knowledge out there...why are people saying that SISU took the club to Brum to ‘distress’ Wasps ?
But what nobody seems able to explain is how, if Wasps and CCC have done no wrong, it is going to end up costing Wasps millions?
Nobody is saying that are they?
Nobody is saying that are they?
Wasps are, that's why they're asking for an indemnity.
Wasps.
Fair point :emoji_laughing:
Edited to say: If they were asking for indemnity against any legal costs they incur in "contending" an EC investigation that finds everything was above board, they might have half a point, but to ask for indemnity against any and all costs even if the EC find against CCC/Wasps is ridiculous. Nobody sane would agree to that.
Has everything that has come to the fore following Joy Seppala's interview persuaded those who want to boycott St Andrew's to punish SISU to change their minds ? After all, circumstances were beyond SISU'S control on this occasion.
Is there a boycott then?Has everything that has come to the fore following Joy Seppala's interview persuaded those who want to boycott St Andrew's to punish SISU to change their minds ? After all, circumstances were beyond SISU'S control on this occasion.
Sisu are unreasonable, we already know this. Despite this they managed to give London Wasps the assurances they demanded for talks to start. After the EC complaint was leaked talks either were or weren't called off but they said themselves that it had been moved past. From what we understand now they are looking to be indemnified against any potential losses. A completely unrealistic position for them to take and something the club or sisu could never agree to. Looking at the stance they are taking now screams of desperation, it looks as though they were doing anything they could to avoid the EC complaint in the first place and when discovering it was submitted asked to be covered against losses, threatening the club and eventually making it homeless. It looks as though they are concerned about what will come from this investigation and if that is the case I fully support it being submitted.
Or a different angle...yet again, SISU tried to pull a fast one to get a deal but also get Wasps to a place of no return (fold or sell) & would hope to still get the Ricoh on the cheap.
I never fully believe nothing any of them say...mostly kids playground stuff. We are unlikely to ever get the real facts.
So all I can go on is the simplistic view of the facts that SISU saved us when nobody else appeared to want to. They embarrased our club by witholding rent & took us away from the Ricoh with ruthless disregard & clear lack of appreciation for what it would mean for the fanbase. They promised us a new stadium, they bought us back to the Ricoh, they missed out on buying the Ricoh, they have attempted to batter people in court & they seem to have got the finances on a steady course.
Future? All that is certain is that we are again playing all our games away from home this season. We are in fact homeless.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Yep...that is another fact. It appears they had no other option in the end.As of today. Historically SISU must shoulder part of, but not all, of the blame. I am trying to show that having to groundshare again is something SISU had no other option.
Suppose it is a bit like a yob causing damage & a witness reporting...they get caught & fined & the thug demands the witness pays the fine for grassing them up?If they're considering the implications of an EC investigation taking place and the council and / or Wasps subsequently being found at fault it follows they have reason to believe the case is not the foregone conclusion we've all been led to believe.
Should that be the case then why should it be CCFC not CCC or Wasps who take the financial hit?
As far as I'm concerned attempting what basically amounts to blackmail to try and get action stopped and then, when it becomes clear action can't be stopped, expecting the potentially wronged party to cover all financial implications for the party found at fault is 100% wrong. The stance simply isn't justifiable.
If they want to plan for being found to be in the wrong they should be planning for sorting out their own mess not relying on us to do it for them, potentially at a cost of no longer having a football club.
Agree with most you say, but there is a possibility of change though, it’s come out in her interview that her co-partner, Dermot Coleman has left the business whether that’s for pastures new or been given the boot we don’t know. Don’t think I’ve heard any comment from him since sisu have been here. Maybe he was a ball and chain to the ccfc side of the business, but then again same could be said of JS. Now all the decisions will be hers so it’s could to be interesting which way it goes or if things changeOr a different angle...yet again, SISU tried to pull a fast one to get a deal but also get Wasps to a place of no return (fold or sell) & would hope to still get the Ricoh on the cheap.
I never fully believe nothing any of them say...mostly kids playground stuff. We are unlikely to ever get the real facts.
So all I can go on is the simplistic view of the facts that SISU saved us when nobody else appeared to want to. They embarrased our club by witholding rent & took us away from the Ricoh with ruthless disregard & clear lack of appreciation for what it would mean for the fanbase. They promised us a new stadium, they bought us back to the Ricoh, they missed out on buying the Ricoh, they have attempted to batter people in court & they seem to have got the finances on a steady course.
Future? All that is certain is that we are again playing all our games away from home this season. We are in fact homeless.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Because history suggests that is what they do, by whatever means they can. They observed a new angle which is why they stepped back from their initial course & softened their attitude. They know that if the EU find wrongdoing - it could mean some financial difficulties for Wasps meaning they could get the Ricoh (on the cheap)Then, with this knowledge out there...why are people saying that SISU took the club to Brum to ‘distress’ Wasps ?
Because CCC don't need to rent the Ricoh to play thier football matches?That's fine, but I think most would agree that if Wasps are after indemnity, they're asking the wrong party - they should be demanding this from CCC. Why are they not doing this?
Yes the penny has dropped now..... new owners doesn’t seem to bring a fresh start unfortunately.The worst thing is about Wasps position, is if SISU sell, and we have new owners - the club would still be fucked if they lost the EC complaint
Maybe cutting their risk of losses overall? Or maybe they just decided SISU are simply too difficult to work with & untrustworthy.Absolutely. Makes sense. So why did Wasps stop the talks with SISU?
Oh yes they didYep...that is another fact. It appears they had no other option in the end.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Exactly, who in their right mind would want to deal with sisu.Maybe cutting their risk of losses overall? Or maybe they just decided SISU are simply too difficult to work with & untrustworthy.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Because CCC don't need to rent the Ricoh to play thier football matches?
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Let's turn the question around: Would you want to do business with someone who did that?
What just said 'ok...we will cover any resulting costs'?Oh yes they did
Yes Geoffrey. He opened the batting for Yorkshire and England.Is there a boycott then?
No. As I've said before they are all liars when it suits them.What just said 'ok...we will cover any resulting costs'?
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Ok Mr Pendantic - they bid for a stake in it.When were they offered the opportunity to buy the Ricoh?
Ok Mr Pendantic - they bid for a stake in it.
If I want to be pedantic - I wasn't offered the opportunity either!
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Because history suggests that is what they do, by whatever means they can. They observed a new angle which is why they stepped back from their initial course & softened their attitude. They know that if the EU find wrongdoing - it could mean some financial difficulties for Wasps meaning they could get the Ricoh (on the cheap)
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
"I am not a member of the consortium, you've got that from me. That's not someone giving it you third hand.
"I was a member of it, I am not a member of it now, or part of it, because I didn't agree with what was happening with the consortium.
"That's my personal opinion, other people would've stayed on the consortium because they could see the benefit of it.
"I personally couldn't, I didn't think it was right. I just don't agree with it, it's not the right thing for me, personally, to invest in."
"It's how you ask the question isn't it," he said. "Directly, they've [Wasps] never been involved, they've never been involved directly through Coventry City but certainly they were helping the consortium.
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?