chiefdave
Well-Known Member
They want the club to cover the idemnity not SISU. And a change of owners doesn't stop any potential EC investigation.
They want the club to cover the idemnity not SISU. And a change of owners doesn't stop any potential EC investigation.How would it? They want SISU to cover the indemnity as they are chasing the council. Nothing to do with new owners surely?
Such a daft argument. It’s absolutely right to say wasps warned Sisu to drop all legals but for whatever reason they made the Eu complaint and discussions continued and could continue allegedly (SO WHY AREN’T THEY!!!).PSB man would rather we have a go at sisu than do anything to attempt a return
The thing is nobody is supporting Sisu's actions. We just want the club to return and to do that Wasps have to drop the indemnity. Some people think that is letting sisu off the hook so won't have it.Such a daft argument. It’s absolutely right in fact but we are now where we are what now?
Back to the stadium now. Where were we?
They want the club to cover the idemnity not SISU. And a change of owners doesn't stop any potential EC investigation.
If the club had new owners, they would have nothing to do with SISU, so how on earth would ccfc be liable to cover indemnity caused by a 3rd party??They want the club to cover the idemnity not SISU. And a change of owners doesn't stop any potential EC investigation.
I said shelved for the time being. Get back to Coventry plus some success on the pitch (hopefully one fit for football) and a change of ownership is more likely. Perhaps the only thing Sisu have said that I completely believe is that they won’t sell at the bottom of the cycle. That would crystallise any losses they have made on paper. There is an implication that they would sell at, or towards, the top of the cycle BUT the club needs to be attractive to potential buyers. Playing in Birmingham would be a big turn off. So, to get what you really , really want Wasps need to be targeted.Ownership change will always be shelved for people like you.
They would be if a legal agreement committed the club to it.If the club had new owners, they would have nothing to do with SISU, so how on earth would ccfc be liable to cover indemnity caused by a 3rd party??
They would be if a legal agreement committed the club to it.
It is now okay that Sisu took the club to Northampton?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 tack
Not for me it’s not ok and I completely agree about apologising for past mistakesIt is now okay that Sisu took the club to Northampton?
I think Fisher and Seppala have a lot of apologising to do for what they have done to this club.
PSB man would rather we have a go at sisu than do anything to attempt a return
Haven’t seen anyone ask why the trust would need security for their agm? Maybe they were worried it’s ‘members’ would turn up and vote the existing board out?
I wonder how many of the 7000 names were on the members list to be allowed in.
There’s only 2600 or so membersHaven’t seen anyone ask why the trust would need security for their agm? Maybe they were worried it’s ‘members’ would turn up and vote the existing board out?
I wonder how many of the 7000 names were on the members list to be allowed in.
But we haven’t signed it, so new owners coming in how on earth can they justify keeping the indemnity when the EC complaint is done by previous?They would be if a legal agreement committed the club to it.
They can't, but then they can't justify it now as they are still trying to get one company, Otium, to provide indemnity on an EC complaint made by someone else, SISU, against a third party, CCC.But we haven’t signed it, so new owners coming in how on earth can they justify keeping the indemnity when the EC complaint is done by previous?
Their ownership has been appalling. Other issues does not stop this being the case.It is now okay that Sisu took the club to Northampton?
I think Fisher and Seppala have a lot of apologising to do for what they have done to this club.
Apart from the crook who owned bury who?There are worse owners
No it isnt but even if/when we do go back to the ricoh with sisu the likes of you will still maintain the status quo.If we changed owners the issue of indemification would still exist which would rule out a return to Cov. Is getting new owners more important to you than getting back to Cov?
I am sure "the likes of you" will find a reason not to go if / when we go back to Coventry.No it isnt but even if/when we do go back to the ricoh with sisu the likes of you will still maintain the status quo.
Can you prove your bullshit theory nick or just more mud slinging? Naturally you talk shit and have no evidence for the bollocks you spout.I am sure "the likes of you" will find a reason not to go if / when we go back to Coventry.
Can you prove your bullshit theory or just more mud slinging? :joyful:No it isnt but even if/when we do go back to the ricoh with sisu the likes of you will still maintain the status quo.
I would like to believe that the indemnity clause would be dropped but wasps would still face the same risk(s) whoever owned the club.There wouldn’t be it would be removed it’s there purely to distress the club and create in effect a hostile takeover
Just joining in with the norm on here.Can you prove your bullshit theory or just more mud slinging? :joyful:
They don’t have to justify it, just demand it. And do you trust them not to?But we haven’t signed it, so new owners coming in how on earth can they justify keeping the indemnity when the EC complaint is done by previous?
I would like to believe that the indemnity clause would be dropped but wasps would still face the same risk(s) whoever owned the club.
I think you are getting your anatomy mixed up.Can you prove your bullshit theory nick or just more mud slinging? Naturally you talk shit and have no evidence for the bollocks you spout.
BlackpoolApart from the crook who owned bury who?
After all sisu have done during their disastrous tenure is that the best you can offer? I swear some of you suffer from Stockholm syndrome.
That’s great, do wasps know that and if so why ask for an indemnity in the first place?There is no risk
That’s great, do wasps know that and if so why ask for an indemnity in the first place?
Can you prove your bullshit theory nick or just more mud slinging? Naturally you talk shit and have no evidence for the bollocks you spout.
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 statements
I was being facetious, all statements, even fashion statements, are designed to catch attention. No one wants their statement to go unnoticed.
Regarding timing isn’t it because we’ve been pushing them to say something?
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?