D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
And the football league have been consulted every step of the way on the Butts proposal, and shown round the site.
Legal action (18 Viewers)
- Thread starter dongonzalos
- Start date
And the football league have been consulted every step of the way on the Butts proposal, and shown round the site.
Nick
Administrator
Yes but if they can see they are being forced out of the ground and the local council are blocking attempts to move then what choices do they have?
The FL have been involved with things like the Butts haven't they?
Can you make you're mind up about this?
"SISU choosing not to proceed is them dropping it isn't it?" - the answer to this is, as I've said several times, no.
You then say turn it 'pretty much' - no it's not.
Now you've switched to it being the same result!
Not going ahead with JR2 is not them dropping it. You can't drop something you haven't started.
Nick
Administrator
It is quite clear what Astute was getting at, why are you obsessing over an exact word?
He meant they had to drop / not go ahead with / make legals go away. Whichever wording or phrases you want to use, to 99% of people it would make sense and mean pretty much the same thing.
It is the same result isn't it? Dropping legal action or not going ahead with legal action = no legal action.
SISU want to proceed with legal action, whilst I don't believe it's the correct course of action, if they believe it is then they should be able to proceed as they deem appropriate.
Wasps want to put negotiations on hold, whilst I don't believe it's the correct course of action, if they believe it is then they should be able to proceed as they deem appropriate.
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Nick, I will say this again the Butts will not happen, never pass planning in a million years which could include the Secretary of State by the way. SISU gave the Football League a promise, guarantee, assurance call it what you want to give hard and fast new ground proposals ages ago which would have to include the financing details too, forget BPA !
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Christ, I've never known anyone be so obtuse!
Lets make it easier for you. JR1 will, as far as we can tell at the moment, still be running at the point our current Ricoh lease expires. If Wasps won't talk to the football club while that action from SISU against CCC is in progress are they not effectively saying stop all current legal action against CCC or we will not reengage in talks with regard to the football club staying at the Ricoh long term?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
And the only conclusion you can draw from that is that unless SISU drop (or don't even start in the case of JR2 if you're going to argue semantics) legal action against a third party (CCC) we will no longer be able to to play at the Ricoh. If CCFC are willing to talk to Wasps and Wasps aren't willing to talk to CCFC do you not think, at the very least, a percentage of the blame would lie with Wasps?
Nick
Administrator
I'm not saying it will.
Just that in the FL's eyes I think the club would give them enough to show issues they are against wouldn't they?
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
I think Wasps have a certain Finnish/American well and truly by her fanny hairs !!
Nick
Administrator
It is the whole "but they don't own CCFC" argument again isn't it?
Where CCC try and block things from happening in the city, Wasps don't speak about a long term deal but they don't own CCFC so it isn't their fault.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
The league will be in a tough position. You have to remember here SISU and Otium are different entities from a legal perspective. What do the league do if Otium, as the football club, go to them and say Wasps refuse to even talk to them about staying at the Ricoh and a new stadium, at the Butts or elsewhere, could be years away - citing the fact that the council have already tried to block them playing at the Butts.
The options for the league will be either kick us out or allow another groundshare. Kick us out and no doubt more legal action will follow.
Astute
Well-Known Member
I certainly don't believe that continuing with court action is what SISU should be doing. It continues to harm our football club. But who are Wasps to give SISU the ultimatum of give up all legal actions before they will continue with negotiations on us staying at the Ricoh? All this shite was going on before they arrived on the scene. They know that they can't tell SISU what they can or can't do. It is their legal right. But they can refuse to negotiate on us staying there. So yes they have not told SISU that they can't continue with legal matters. But it is blackmail at best. And why have they added a clause to negotiations?
Something is going on. And I don't feel easy about it.
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
The one thing that is happening Nick is this pot is starting to bubble now and will continue too and needs to.
But the Football League have a duty to the 91 other members in a soon to be re-gigged league. Some of those may say as well as others on the outside wanting in all armed with lawyers how many chances do we get and I think it would be difficult to seperate otium and sisu to be honest.it may have been otium representing the football club who gave ground proposal promises anyway.
Obsessing?
You'd decided to wade in and you were wrong - me highlighting that doesn't equal that I'm obsessing.
You had the option to drop the matter (correct context as it was ongoing) but didn't take it.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
It wouldn't be an easy desicion either way. As far as we've fallen the FL kicking Coventry City out of the league would be big news and might shine more of a spotlight on how the league is run than they'd like.
If we're worrying about league regulations being broken I'm more concerned that yet again the rugby has dictated when we can play at the Ricoh, with our first game of the season having to be away to accommodate the rugby. That's a clear and direct breach of the regulations that require the football club to have primacy.
It's not blackmail at all -
"Blackmail.
(1)A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—
(a)that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b)that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
(2)The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.
(3)A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years."
Nick
Administrator
Yes but according to that if they do so in the belief that they have reasonable grounds for making the demand it doesn't count. Easy defence for blackmail. "I thought it was reasonable".
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
The football fixtures aren't released until 22nd June Dave, rugby fixtures some weeks later. How do you know this?
Nick
Administrator
I think there's rugby on at the Ricoh on the first day of the season.
What are the 'unwarranted demand with menaces' ?
"The negotiations are on hold until the legal matters are resolved" isn't, so maybe you can enlighten me?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The whole debate about legal action is tiresome and a distraction.
There is no way an organisation can tell another that no future action can be taken. That's absurd - they themselves could breach a contract leaving the other side powerless.
Regarding on going legal action again it's absurd. What if some tenant broke his leg in a rented property and was suing for compensation. His lease deal was up and the landlord said "ok mate - here's some new terms - sign here oh and by the way sign this settlement of nothing for the claim against me"
Frankly it's a joke and is why wasps have distanced themselves from saying its a real factor.
Perhaps as Armybike and Dongonzalos are so interested in this they can e mail Mr Armstrong and ask him the flowing;
Was an outline proposal put to the club?
What was the length?
How long is the severance agreement allowed?
What is the rent and is this for the full term?
See what response you get.
There is no way an organisation can tell another that no future action can be taken. That's absurd - they themselves could breach a contract leaving the other side powerless.
Regarding on going legal action again it's absurd. What if some tenant broke his leg in a rented property and was suing for compensation. His lease deal was up and the landlord said "ok mate - here's some new terms - sign here oh and by the way sign this settlement of nothing for the claim against me"
Frankly it's a joke and is why wasps have distanced themselves from saying its a real factor.
Perhaps as Armybike and Dongonzalos are so interested in this they can e mail Mr Armstrong and ask him the flowing;
Was an outline proposal put to the club?
What was the length?
How long is the severance agreement allowed?
What is the rent and is this for the full term?
See what response you get.
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
You know me...I'd be the first to criticisee Wasps but in their defence, it's a tournament they're hosting and have done so before...it's not necessarily a Wasps game. And we could be drawn away on the first game of the season so it would be irrelevant.
If we have many Sunday games this season then I'd agree but I a one off for a tournament, I don't think it's a big thing.
If we have many Sunday games this season then I'd agree but I a one off for a tournament, I don't think it's a big thing.
Nick
Administrator
Really?? Surely the menace is knowing that it could screw the football club over?
Nick
Administrator
No it is just a tournament on the first game of the season, so it does mean we have to be drawn away.
Where's the demand? What demand have they made? You can't just pick and choose the parts that you think fit.
Nick
Administrator
They have said they won't negotiate until the legal matters are resolved. I am sure you aren't stupid.
The demand is that legal matters are resolved, what are the chances of all legal avenues being exhausted before the current agreement expires?
That's not a demand.
A demand is telling someone they must do something - "You must drop the legal action".
Allowing a course of action already underway to conclude prior to negoations isn't telling anyone to do anything, therefore not a demand.
It's not blackmail.
Nick
Administrator
It is if there is a timescale involved though isn't it? ie the only way for the legal action to be stopped before the current rent agreement is for SISU to stop it, otherwise the club aren't at the ricoh.
No it's not.
Astute
Well-Known Member
'You must stop all legal actions or we won't continue with negotiations'
'We will only continue with negotiations if all legal actions stop'
Both mean exactly the same. One was said. Yet you say the other is totally different. Why?
One was said? Where and when? It's a direct quote?
Are you suggesting that there circumstances where the legal actions would continue for ever, they'd never stop?
What demand has been made?
Why aren't SISU/CCFC pursuing legal act regarding this apparent blackmail?
For clarification, this isn't blackmail.
Astute
Well-Known Member
So what do you think was said and what do you think was meant by it?
And do you wear black and yellow at weekends?
Because you're assertion that it's blackmail is incorrect I'm a Wasps fan.
The SBT equivalent of Godwin's Law strikes again!