Grendel
Well-Known Member
He does but so does Salop, we are the “troll farm” on here lol.
They’ve had some unsavoury characters to say the least so must he have been bad
What did he do? Is he the guy who does weird photoshops of Fisher and Sepalla?
I don't see how wasps can drop the indemnity - even if they are a 100% confident they are in the clear. Someone needs to cover/insure the potential financial impact - really should be the Council if they've messed up. Doubt the Council's insurance would cover it.
Someone on here (maybe OSB) must have done an analysis on the impact of Wasps/CCC losing in terms of the Wasps Bond, lease value guarantees etc.
All of that could be done with the current Trust if we could organise a takeover.
Each time a vacancy comes up, someone stands and enough attend to elect them.
Wouldn't take too many run throughs to end up with a majority.
We could have already had 2-4 if people had been bothered. Pretty sure CJ could be persuaded to stand aside.You don’t really believe Kalns and Ellis ha e home do you? Elections only occur at an AGM - meetings have to have policy items agreed in advance by the board.
It’s never going to happen
We could have already had 2-4 if people had been bothered. Pretty sure CJ could be persuaded to stand aside.
We could already have had a sizeable presence.
As soon as one happened, that person would be publicising them.The minute one happened the meetings would never be publicised
But again it's the Council being investigated rather than Wasps. Wasps have capitalized on the opportunity created by the appalling relationship between CCC and SISU.But are WASPS guilty of anything but clever dealing ????
That's pretty much it. There was even the bizarre situation at one point where the judge at the hearing over whether to grant an appeal or not approved the appeal on the basis the judge in the original case had considered the original lease and the extension two separate transactions when they should be one. The same judge then heard the appeal and ruled against SISU as they had to be considered separate transactions by law.The JR's concluded, on the evidence that WASPS paid the correct price for the lease extension. The logic was as they held the short lease the Council would not get any further monies from anyone else so what ever they got was profit
However, I think the complaint is CCC - knowing WASPS were going to ask for the extension - did not say the stadium plus 250 year lease is Umpty Million in first place?
As the lease extension took place in the same meeting as the sale then clearly this had been discussed. Normally some delay takes place on these things ( even artificially ) to make it look uncontrived but I suspect WASPS did not have the funding in place and would only get it once they had the longer lease in place.
So the complaint must be around whether the Council agreed to contrive a scheme that aided WASPS to buy the stadium and get CCC out of a hole OR was it the best offer they thought they could get and only then by the route chosen.
FFS, isn't that the same stuff that was in the Telegraph the other day. There's nothing new is there?
Here we go!!
"The only party not responding are CCFC"
.....and you absolute clowns wonder why...
EFL have always been involved - were with the Sixfields saga. Nothing new there. Not involved because of Trust influence.
Here we go!!
"The only party not responding are CCFC"
.....and you absolute clowns wonder why...
I have never noticed tell now. But the join the trust logo on the website is the black power fist.....
You don’t really believe Kalns and Ellis ha e home do you? Elections only occur at an AGM - meetings have to have policy items agreed in advance by the board.
It’s never going to happen
Not with that attitude.
We need:
- people who are members
- those people to nominate someone
- at least one person to attend AGM and be proxy for the others
As long as everything is done according to the rules, can’t see how anyone could stop us short of mobilising a bigger number to vote against.
Classic Militant Tendency tactics.
As I keep asking.
According to the rules, how did Tim Kalns get onto the board as I can't remember any sort of vote? (I may be wrong)
wasn't it the case there were 6 places available and only 6 candidates nominated?As I keep asking.
According to the rules, how did Tim Kalns get onto the board as I can't remember any sort of vote? (I may be wrong)
As I keep asking.
According to the rules, how did Tim Kalns get onto the board as I can't remember any sort of vote? (I may be wrong)
As I keep asking.
According to the rules, how did Tim Kalns get onto the board as I can't remember any sort of vote? (I may be wrong)
And in itself that's not necessarily a bad thing, as it starts waking up a sleeping supporter base that seemingly doesn't care. If they get a bigger number that time around, you work for an even bigger number yourself the next time. Eventually... they lose, if the will is there.can’t see how anyone could stop us short of mobilising a bigger number to vote against.
Are there still vacancies? Couldn't we propose someone now and they'd be straight on if they follow the same process as previously.If there'd been more candidates than vacancies at the last AGM, there'd have been votes at the meeting, and the ones with the most votes would have been elected. Given the numbers attending those meetings, it wouldn't have taken many of us (relatively) attending to swing the vote in favour of a particular set of candidates.
I don't know.Are there still vacancies?
Only if nobody stood against them. otherwise there would be a vote.Couldn't we propose someone now and they'd be straight on if they follow the same process as previously.
I don't know.Also how many board members will be up for re-election next time round?
Because you were talking about getting on to the trust board and trust rules?And I keep saying: I have no idea. I only know Tim Kalns exists because you keep going on about him.
What’s the relevance to this conversation?
Because you were talking about getting on to the trust board and trust rules?
He wasn't elected unopposed, was he?So, as has been explained to you i there aren’t enough nominees they get elected unopposed. But there would be if we stood nominees. So it’s not relevant.
He wasn't elected unopposed, was he?
I don't know.
Only if nobody stood against them. otherwise there would be a vote.
I don't know.
Fucking hell mate. What actually is your problem? I don’t know. I’m nothing to do with the trust. You’re obsessed with the guy, you tell me.
You fancy answering an actually useful question and telling us if you can email all members to get support for the press release and any planned action to get SBT members on the Trust board?
You can only enact people at an AGM
If there are spare places then what happens I believe a board member can nominate a person for selection later - Kalns
I can assure you if the trust had an AGM and had wind of a “coup” they would change the date at very short notice or get the media to swing the Jimmy Hill Way.
Attending meetings also is a waste as the rules are official agenda items have to be approved in advance of the meeting and at 7 days notice (meetings can be rearranged)
Technically with a lot of effort it would be possible at the next AGM to make changes but it would be virtually impossible to deselect some of the existing group. I personally wouldn’t want to spend one minute with Dave Johnson in the same street let alone a board meeting.
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?