Grendel
Well-Known Member
No it’s a cheap sound bite. Wasps lie all the time.
You may well be right about a signed contract , because SISU, would not sign it , and if they did, going by SISU past record they probably wouldn't honour it, leaving themselves open to a beach of contract and litigation .
So if you were the landlords, and going by SISU past record , i think they would have made it very clear during last year's agreement " drop the legals " and we will talk .
A variable agreement is binging in law , harder to prove I know, but all of the those meetings would have been minuted and both parties would have copies .
So may I suggest it's more than just soundbites .
If OSB is right (and he normally is) then he personally and his actions unquestionably link the club directly the legal proceedings. If he’s gone that link is removed. Might also be enough to break the stand off.
How would that work in practice? Fisher would have signed off as the representative of Otium, not himself personally, so removing him doesn't remove that link.I think the point is though that Fisher must have signed off on the legal action being done in the clubs name if it’s legally required of him to do so as his roll. Any new patsy wouldn’t carry that connection so the clubs argument that they have no control over the legals would stand up more.
Who are the trust claiming to speak for these days? Despite signing up way back when, I can't remember the last time I was contacted by them.
As long as they clearly state who they're actually putting out statements on behalf of (i.e. "Four members of the trust board met last night and decided to put out this statement"), then I'm OK with it.
Otherwise they're no better than all of the other parties in my opinion.
As far as I'm concerned they've gone way beyond their remit and they've completely lost the plot in terms of only focusing on one side of the issue. The people putting out this stuff can call themselves whatever they want, but they can't claim to speak for their fans or even their membership if they manage themselves like this. I don't know the history behind the multiple twitter accounts etc. but if the trust are stooping to the level of honesty that SISU and the Council have fallen to then they've lost already!
Bluntly then, I don't want my quid back, but I certainly don't want them claiming to speak for me.
John Sharpe has already said that they won’t deal with the club on a ground share while Sisu are involved.
What a fucking crock of shit. CRFC need to keep well away from any of those London hedge funds. They have no obligation to do anything and why should they, who would possibly get involved with those litigious morons by choice.Then that’s a fourth avenue for pressure.
We can’t be pissed at Wasps and the Council taking that stance but not CRFC
Then that’s a fourth avenue for pressure.
We can’t be pissed at Wasps and the Council taking that stance but not CRFC
What a fucking crock of shit. CRFC need to keep well away from any of those London hedge funds. They have no obligation to do anything and why should they, who would possibly get involved with those litigious morons by choice.
Things do change though. History has taught us that.Yeah, the Butts isn't an option for plan B. There is no plan B that keeps us in Cov
I would also say that, tbf, they could have cut those words about legal action out of the statement, and nobody would have ever noticed!Is it just a co-incidence that as soon as there's a bit of a sniff of a chance of any pressure against the Council and Wasps the Trust and those involved jump right in the middle to try and divide? It's all well and good people saying that Fisher is divisive, why are the Trust trying to outdo him? Are they really out of touch to think that because somebody wants the club to play in Coventry regardless of legal action that means they are backing the legal action?
I would suggest that it is not local people we need but competent people. See Leicester City for details.
Competence and a genuine love of the club who set realistic goals.
We still don't feel sure what SISU's objective is, it may be to recoup money from their failed investments then butt out regardless of consequences to the club, can anyone assure me it isn't?
Are you on a mission, you keep having bigs ?Stop putting stuff in bold, it doesn't make your ramblings any more profound
What really should be coming out, however... and often doesn't, is showing we learn from the SISU school of how not to do things.
I would also say that, tbf, they could have cut those words about legal action out of the statement, and nobody would have ever noticed!
Personally, I think the Trust should have swallowed it and gone along with it anyway, as it's not a huge deal but... I also don't quite understand why it *had* to go into that statement at all. The message would have been the same, anyway!
How are they involved with the football club ?Nobody has said they do have an obligation do they? CRFC are already involved with the club. There was also the issue of the council not being happy with the thought of CCFC doing much there, hence their fast move to try and block it. Would they be more willing if there wasn't any pressure or risk of CRFC burning bridges with the council if they worked with CCFC?
I don't think he was suggesting go and picket CRFC or pitch invade, more just ask them a constructive question to see what happens.
That's another thing, the council haven't really been asked why they wanted to try and block things at the Butts.
The Trust and that madman who fronts the Jimmy Hill Way I believe have long concluded they would rather the club go to the wall than exist under the current owners.
I have come to the conclusion that they are obsessed with “fan” ownership. What this really means is a seat at the top table for the Trust.
Thus was apparent when they became involved with Haskell and co as he promised the same. The fact he was a shameless chancer seemed to escape their attention.
They keep saying they are the voice of the fans. Well prove it. Ballot members on the direction they are going in. Have a confidence vote on themselves.
You could argue that if you take away the legal action, since Boddy has come in the competence level in terms of running the club day to day has gone up massively. Couldn't you?
Boddy doesn't seem to be doing a bad job of day to day running but he is not a Director.
Otium (ie CCFC) is a single director company which is unusual for an enterprise of the club's size, you need input from various competences and ideas need to be challenged and tested.
Remember previously the old board took their eye off the ball so to speak and let Richardson have too much control, consequently he led the club into terrible debt.
The idea of a board of directors is to discuss strategy and jointly agree the best way forward. Oucho's comment is quite reasonable, a full active & committed board is more healthy.
Are you on a mission, you keep having bigs ?
Sorry i didn't know i need your permission
If your going to be patronising, then so can I.
Run along now there's a good chap. !
I get your point .
The trouble is, it's a private meeting , so who agreed to what and who said what is just open to speculation.
Perhaps the two parties just don't trust each other, Now there's an understatement !
He actually contributes nothing, so why are we paying him ? Even if it is only in the form of expenses ?Fisher has no strategic impact into the club. He has no control and no influence
Fisher has no strategic impact into the club. He has no control and no influence
FWIW, and reading between the lines, it does seem CRFC were happy to deal with us... but CCC were less happy for them to do so!
One thing CRFC do realise is you need the local authority onside, so their path of least resistance is to cut the club off and go their own way.
Fisher has no strategic impact into the club. He has no control and no influence
Yes what is the point of Mr Fisher, other than having a free lunch at games (when he bothers to turn up )He actually contributes nothing, so why are we paying him ? Even if it is only in the form of expenses ?
It does look as if the obsession is with fan ownership and the politics away from it. It's the same as the whole stuff with the SCG where they were fighting over a seat at a board meeting.
It needs to go back to the priority being CCFC first and foremost and going from there which is the approach the other fan groups take. It doesn't mean they love SISU or want a front row seat for the court action, their priority is CCFC before their hatred for the other parties.
Am all for that.Then back to my original point that CCC need to show support for all options that keep the club in Coventry. No one is happy with any of the outcomes so “I don’t like it” doesn’t wash too well with me.
Suspect this is correct. They seem to have some misguided notion that if Otium folds the club will be handed over to them when in reality it will cease to exist. There's even a note in the minutes of a recent Trust board meeting for them to get an update off Hoffman!The Trust and that madman who fronts the Jimmy Hill Way I believe have long concluded they would rather the club go to the wall than exist under the current owners.
I have come to the conclusion that they are obsessed with “fan” ownership. What this really means is a seat at the top table for the Trust.
You're*Are you on a mission, you keep having bigs ?
Sorry i didn't know i need your permission
If your going to be patronising, then so can I.
Run along now there's a good chap. !
I think you mean you'reYou're*
May I be the next pedant by pointing out that you're is short for you are
Sorry i didn't know I need your permission is correct use of your
If your going to be patronising, then so can I.
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?