Why would it have to be inside the boundary - Binley Woods, Baginton, other sites are on the edge of the City and would be fine for 99% of fans surely?They always fall short of committing to inside the Coventry boundary. Regular 7k crowds could be the norm unless we are in the city. No shows at Birmingham suggest we need to be in Cov.
You can tell the approach, if they want it to be seen it's on the telegraph and cwr before their own site.By the looks of it, they have put it out including a little segment about Wasps, passing off the indemnity by adding "whatever that may be" THEN, burying it under a little flurry of likes and retreats!
They have not even posted it on their Facebook page.
Token effort.
Pathetic. Of course it will be forgotten about...
Also includes fuel to confuse people that there are still legals that CAN actually be dropped - Rubbish....
Can someone on twitter ask about the October November December and January minutes and whether they have had a reply to their questions to wasps yet? Have asked cj who thought they had been published. I would love the trust to apologise to Sisu for working behind their backs to support a change of ownership and recognise their mistake and over reach of their position as a group of supporters. Things like that make a difference. I think if I met with joy I would apologise for hating her for moving Ccfc to Northampton and risking the club my son and I hoped to enjoy for decades as I did with my dad. That’s how respect and communication works, if someone isn’t listening you don’t just repeat the same statement and shout louder and louder. At some point you change tackYou can tell the approach, if they want it to be seen it's on the telegraph and cwr before their own site.
If they have all of a sudden been published retrospectively, how do we know they are accurate?Found the minutes up to December ignore me
Don’t think they were late I wasn’t looking in the right place and it was just that the September ones put on twitter on 17/2If they have all of a sudden been published retrospectively, how do we know they are accurate?
Don’t think they were late I wasn’t looking in the right place and it was just that the September ones put on twitter on 17/2
"Wasps demanded a further agreement to be signed both by the Football Club and SISU. This agreement introduced conditions that would unreasonably restrict the Club and SISU’s basic legal rights and would commit the Club and SISU to underwrite Wasps’ costs and any future damages."
NEWS: Statement issued by Coventry City Owners SISU following groundshare announcement
That's SISU's interpretation. We just don't know the details
I think it’s better although it makes sense to be near good egress points on the current road network.Why would it have to be inside the boundary - Binley Woods, Baginton, other sites are on the edge of the City and would be fine for 99% of fans surely?
It's more about what the trust don't say. This isn't a new thing, it's been going on years.
They have had to be prompted to publish minutes or mention the indemnity. They had to be hassled for a year about their blokes behaviour on social media after cj was telling me how wrong I was and that he wouldn't do that.
If the trust really are willing to listen then great, it's just that its been the same cycle for years now.
If they show signs of actually meaning it and would take things on board.They're open to sitting down and discussing how it can all be improved though. Would you sit down with them Nick? Got to be worth a shot? Nothing to lose?
I’m certain at least that many have been talking since our statement.The Trust are open to reform. They're open to having a sit down and discussing the way forward. Would 3 or 4 people be willing to put themselves forward for a meeting with the Trust and forming some sort partnership so it's not the trust but a general group of City fans together?
They're open to sitting down and discussing how it can all be improved though. Would you sit down with them Nick? Got to be worth a shot? Nothing to lose?
If they show signs of actually meaning it and would take things on board.
Again, this is something that has gone round and round for years. It occurs when they get questioned.
Have a look through cjs threads asking for ideas and feedback and then see how much is implemented.
I’m certain at least that many have been talking since our statement.
Hopefully it will be!I hear you, genuinely. Still think it's different now...
Nobody could be arsedThere was some effort to get SBT representation on their board... can’t recall what the outcome was But I don’t think it went anywhere.
But it’s about credibility isn’t it? Jump into bed with wasps for years then all of a sudden try band get the fans onside. I have not seen many people that have anything positive to say about them?I hear you, genuinely. Still think it's different now...
But it’s about credibility isn’t it? Jump into bed with wasps for years then all of a sudden try band get the fans onside. I have not seen many people that have anything positive to say about them?
This statement feels a bit ‘look at me!’ And attention seeking, the content is ok but what’s it going to do. If it stated we are in discussions with all parties in making this happen I would be more confident of their ability to represent the fan base. Sending out bland statements without any substance behind it won’t pressure anyone to make decisions about returning to Coventry.
Depends on what they are designed for and it’s intended purpose, we are in a very potentially successful season and have probably heard from SBT about 3 times over this period (if that), just seems a strange time to pipe up with the same obvious statementsAren’t all statements attention seeking? Isn’t the the point of statements?
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?