It does of course but if none of the parties will talk to each other then it's just stalemate until the day dawns when we have nowhere to play the game. And that unfortunately seems ever likely.It needs to come to a head. 1 way or the other
Yes nothing New.Didn't we know it ended then months ago?
Or how about the FL go to Wasps and say are you prepared to extend the clubs agreement on the current terms. And then they could go to the council and request they asset the club with any plans they may have now or in the immediate future.I have a suggestion for FL , talk to the other parties involved and you ll find the one bleating to you is the cause of the problem , and yet again sisu play the victim card .
Or how about the FL go to Wasps and say are you prepared to extend the clubs agreement on the current terms. And then they could go to the council and request they asset the club with any plans they may have now or in the immediate future.
If they both say no then they couldn't make their stance much clearer could they. You would then be able to say without a doubt that the club are being forced out of the city.And if they both say no?
If they both say no then they couldn't make their stance much clearer could they. You would then be able to say without a doubt that the club are being forced out of the city.
Agree - the breakdown in relationships between the parties is very worrying. Its in none of their interests for CCFC to leave the city, it's a guaranteed revenue stream. However, if litigation costs keep rising then some of the parties might take the short term view of being prepared to lose CCFC from being based in Coventry. Lets hope that a pragmatic solution is forthcoming ....and soon. The ongoing uncertainty damages the prospects for recruitment & building the club back up again.What if both sides dig their heels in, what happens then ?
Money talks. Wsaps need every penny they can get in order to turn a profit and repay their bond holders. It's for this reason that I'm confident a solution will be hammered out, even if it's an interim 3-year one. After all, Wasps are not affected by the legal wrangling (CCC will have indemnified them against any claim by CCFC as to the deal, so the ownership is unquestionably theirs and CCC's only liability is financial compensation = not Wasps problem). I was surprised Wasps used the pretext of "the ongoing legal action" to suspend their talks with CCFC, as it doesn't affect them at all.Agree - the breakdown in relationships between the parties is very worrying. Its in none of their interests for CCFC to leave the city, it's a guaranteed revenue stream. However, if litigation costs keep rising then some of the parties might take the short term view of being prepared to lose CCFC from being based in Coventry. Lets hope that a pragmatic solution is forthcoming ....and soon. The ongoing uncertainty damages the prospects for recruitment & building the club back up again.
Money talks. Wsaps need every penny they can get in order to turn a profit and repay their bond holders. It's for this reason that I'm confident a solution will be hammered out, even if it's an interim 3-year one. After all, Wasps are not affected by the legal wrangling (CCC will have indemnified them against any claim by CCFC as to the deal, so the ownership is unquestionably theirs and CCC's only liability is financial compensation = not Wasps problem). I was surprised Wasps used the pretext of "the ongoing legal action" to suspend their talks with CCFC, as it doesn't affect them at all.
I think that's the point of this thread i.e. why we're all getting worried.....We can always go to Northampton again.
We might be in League 2 by then.Isn't there a rule saying we couldn't be in the same league?
Birmingham - 19 milesbut to where ?
there's the old discretion though so that could be ignored.Isn't there a rule saying we couldn't be in the same league?
We can always go to Northampton again.
Never heard of such a rule. Plenty of teams in the same division have ground-shared before now.Isn't there a rule saying we couldn't be in the same league?
There is a rule, brought in when the MK Dons owner nicked Wimbledon out of London to stop it happening again. When we moved to Northampton I remember Fisher had to give certain assurances to our future ground situation and submit a financial bond, a million quid if my memory is correct. Have there been that many clubs share the same ground while in the same division ? Wimbledon certainly shared with Charlton and Palace but where they in the same division at the time, Wimbledon were in the Premiership.Never heard of such a rule. Plenty of teams in the same division have ground-shared before now.
There is a rule, brought in when the MK Dons owner nicked Wimbledon out of London to stop it happening again. When we moved to Northampton moved to Northampton Fisher had to give certain assurances to our future ground situation and submit a financial bond, a million quid if my memory is correct.
Or how about the FL go to Wasps and say are you prepared to extend the clubs agreement on the current terms. And then they could go to the council and request they asset the club with any plans they may have now or in the immediate future.
We could go to Wasps ourselves (it is our problem) crazy as that sounds. We could also ask for the FL to be included in the talks and come up with a solution that the FL Wasos and is find acceptable.
"It's good to talk"
You do realise Wasps have stopped talks?
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?