Nick
Administrator
I think you being back posting and some strange accounts on Twitter appearing again give a good indicator.
I'll be honest, I don't know. Aren't the "removal of future legal action" and the indeminty entirely separate?
No-one, outside of those on the inside, knows the detail of these agreements. CCFC have already said they've dropped any legal claim against Wasps. The Indemnity has been guessed at being Wasps saying to CCFC that "if there's a problem with the way we bought the stadium, CCFC will pay". Quite right the club don't sign up to that. The full detail of the indemnity or the conditions for CCFC to return to Ricoh aren't known.
So we're now back to the two major parties saying one thing versus the other with regard to the indemnity. The timing of the "new stadium" announcement has been called out by many as PR in advance of announcing no return to Coventry. Sky Blue tinted glasses aside, who has most to gain by lying about it?
A good indicator of what?I think you being back posting and some strange accounts on Twitter appearing again give a good indicator.
A good indicator of what?
I've asked a reasonable question. One of the two parties involved here is lying. It could be either of them. Which has the most to gain?
There goes all my enthusiasm.
Oh well, Preston, Barnsley or Sheffield Wednesday away perhaps.
Really sad about this.
I still remember staying up all night in Perth to see whether SISU had saved the club . I thought that was good news at the time.
A good indicator of what?
I've asked a reasonable question. One of the two parties involved here is lying. It could be either of them. Which has the most to gain?
I Expect the club to respond tomorrow probably going on the attackIt could be both of them to be fair.
I am pretty sure we are going to hear more about it.
Sod the negativity around the announcement. Support the club, regardless of politics - too many people missed out last year because of this, and if they do so again, it’s their loss.
I enjoy St Andrews for a multitude of reasons, and the fact that by playing there means we aren’t helping to fund Wasps is a bonus.
Don’t get me wrong, I wish we were playing in Coventry, it’s absolutely ridiculous we aren’t, especially in our first year back in the Championship. But it’s not on the club, and it certainly isn’t on MR and the players.
There’s so much positivity around the club at the minute, let’s not let any third parties derail that.
We are where we are, and in fact we’re in a stronger position both on the pitch (promotion) and off it (Warwick Uni announcement) than when we confirmed St Andrews last year.
Re comments about MR potentially leaving because of St Andrews; he’s in a select group of managers in that he has influence in decisions and discussions beyond the usual remit of a Manager. He’s also been public on his views of the importance of the pitch and CCC. He isn’t going anywhere, at least not of his own volition.
Interested to hear your view on both statements G ?We won’t have a club in a couple of years so forgive me for not sharing in this positivity
We all know it’s the council we won’t hear off them mate they wont want the bad press Of a council who wants to kill its own football teamThere is a question that begs to be asked.
Is there a third party we have yet to hear from in these ground talks?
We won’t have a club in a couple of years so forgive me for not sharing in this positivity
We won’t have a club in a couple of years so forgive me for not sharing in this positivity
Grendel has talked about moonstone holdings.There is a question that begs to be asked.
Is there a third party we have yet to hear from in these ground talks?
That's what I don't understand. It benefits everyone for us to be back at the Ricoh, even if it's temporary. Whatever it is that's in the way is clearly so contentious that neither/either party is prepared to tell the truth about it. If it's just a personality clash between the hierarchy (and we've definitely been there before) then that won't be easily resolved. If there genuinely is an indemnity clause, CCFC can't come back. If there's no indemnity, the club are running the PR game about a new stadium to sell STs and putting the blame on Wasps to bump up sales at StA.In theory they’ve both got the same thing to gain.
Wasps will crack before usWe won’t have a club in a couple of years so forgive me for not sharing in this positivity
That's what I don't understand. It benefits everyone for us to be back at the Ricoh, even if it's temporary. Whatever it is that's in the way is clearly so contentious that neither/either party is prepared to tell the truth about it. If it's just a personality clash between the hierarchy (and we've definitely been there before) then that won't be easily resolved. If there genuinely is an indemnity clause, CCFC can't come back. If there's no indemnity, the club are running the PR game about a new stadium to sell STs and putting the blame on Wasps to bump up sales at StA.
I agree. There's also the longer game to consider though isn't there? Short term: New stadium annoucement = more STs at StA. Not coming back to the Ricoh = another way to dig at Wasps and put them under financial pressureWhy would they do that as they would be reducing the income for CCFC next season. They are not going to break off talks just to increases tickets at Stans.
That's what I don't understand. It benefits everyone for us to be back at the Ricoh, even if it's temporary. Whatever it is that's in the way is clearly so contentious that neither/either party is prepared to tell the truth about it. If it's just a personality clash between the hierarchy (and we've definitely been there before) then that won't be easily resolved. If there genuinely is an indemnity clause, CCFC can't come back. If there's no indemnity, the club are running the PR game about a new stadium to sell STs and putting the blame on Wasps to bump up sales at StA.
I agree. There's also the longer game to consider though isn't there? Short term: New stadium annoucement = more STs at StA. Not coming back to the Ricoh = another way to dig at Wasps and put them under financial pressure
That's what I don't understand. It benefits everyone for us to be back at the Ricoh, even if it's temporary. Whatever it is that's in the way is clearly so contentious that neither/either party is prepared to tell the truth about it. If it's just a personality clash between the hierarchy (and we've definitely been there before) then that won't be easily resolved. If there genuinely is an indemnity clause, CCFC can't come back. If there's no indemnity, the club are running the PR game about a new stadium to sell STs and putting the blame on Wasps to bump up sales at StA.
We probably have broke off talks as wasps are asking us to do something we can’t agree tooNot really, no
Not playing at the ricoh will financially distress CCFC so there is no way that CCFC would break off talks unless there was no way there could be an agreement
A chunk of games will be behind closed doors with another possible lockdown later on how would that of effected SISU with making a deal ? Would of if mattered to do another year in brum to add more pressure to Wasps
We probably have broke off talks as wasps are asking us to do something we can’t agree too
Both sides clearly think there’s a chance Sisu could win and they’ll end up with the Ricoh? If you value that at tens of millions (?) then a few seasons without rent payments/extra ticket sales is worth it.
This is probably a big part of it. Why accept Wasps demands if we don't feel they're fair and when we don't know how long we're going to be playing with reduced capacity for. For all we know we could be playing 30% capacity for half the season which is the difference of around 500 seats between the Ricoh and St. Andrews.Yes because the games will be BCD no matter where we play. It doesn't make financial sense to choose to play in Brum unless you feel you can not ever reach an agreement.
This is probably a big part of it. Why accept Wasps demands if we don't feel they're fair and when we don't know how long we're going to be playing with reduced capacity for. For all we know we could be playing 30% capacity for half the season which is the difference of around 500 seats between the Ricoh and St. Andrews.
I feel the council are fully involved here and putting the block on any deal for their war with SISUWhat I don't get is that the EU stuff is going to happen regardless of where we play and can't be stopped now.
SISU don't get the Ricoh if the case is found against CCC (I know you already know that). Wasps will have to stump up the difference between what they bought it for and whatever value the EU place on the Arena. The general assumption is that they won't be able to afford it, hence having an indemnity protects them from being destitute. That said, we now have an impasse over whether the indemnity exists at all.Both sides clearly think there’s a chance Sisu could win and they’ll end up with the Ricoh? If you value that at tens of millions (?) then a few seasons without rent payments/extra ticket sales is worth it.
Ok, how are the Council able to do that?I feel the council are fully involved here and putting the block on any deal for their war with SISU
SISU don't get the Ricoh if the case is found against CCC (I know you already know that). Wasps will have to stump up the difference between what they bought it for and whatever value the EU place on the Arena. The general assumption is that they won't be able to afford it, hence having an indemnity protects them from being destitute. That said, we now have an impasse over whether the indemnity exists at all.
Ok, how are the Council able to do that?
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?