If Otium were removed from any court action, wouldnt that challenge that CCFC is taking action against Wasps.? Would that open up challenge to Wasps?
If Otium was removed from any court action would that stop "SISU" taking further action against Wasps or CCC? No they are entitled to take what action they choose to.
Any arrangement is between Wasps and Otium for usage of the stadium isnt it? not SBS&L or ARVO or SISU? Yes the owner on both sides has to sign off but legally speaking it is not a lease be it 1, 10 or 100 years between Wasps Holdings/ACL and SISU
Why does Otium (or even perhaps SBS&L) need to be included for "SISU" to be able to take legal action? What stops SISU removing Otium from the legals, especially when not apparently liable for any of the costs and no one from Otium involved (i dont agree that either is the case btw) Why not put in a clear buffer between Wasps and SISU by clearly removing Otium from legal actions? (SISU are not actually taking any action legally it is Otium/ SBS&L /ARVO be it they all appeared to be controlled by Seppala/ SISU Capital Ltd). Wouldnt that in its self challenge the Wasps position, give others something to use? Surely if CCFC is important to SISU they need to find ways to put pressure on Wasps that are not court action based
I dont think fans pressure will work on either side, didnt before and there is greater apathy than previously - takes more than a stern few words on a forum, expecting someone else to do it
Wouldn't taking Otium out of the case remove from Wasps their perception of the high ground? Could that stoke up our fans to protest easier (still have my reservations on fan action that doesnt mean it shouldnt be encouraged though)? Wouldnt that strengthen the CCFC hand? put pressure on CCC to get involved to pressure Wasps?
What drives Wasps stance has to be cashflow and breaking SISU's involvement isnt it? Are these weaknesses for them - most probably but not challenged much
The situation really has nothing to do with the well being of CCFC though, it is and always has been about the investment money that SISU are responsible for either as agents or principle. For fans to keep referring to doing the best for CCFC is i am afraid understandably misguided.
Wasps having a 250 year lease does not stop CCFC/Otium having say a 100 year lease at the stadium. A move that would create value in CCFC/Otium accounts and Wasps accounts. Could such a long term agreement make (a) CCFC more saleable and (b) maintain the lease value bond security for Wasps?
Not in anyones interest for CCFC not to be at the Ricoh next year. Also there is the need to maintain a connection to the stadium that is important to both clubs should the thinking be SISU will sell out at some point
Why do the papers never ask the question of Wasps "you did it last year why not this" or "do you not think this will damage your reputation in the city if CCFC are not playing at the Ricoh" or "how will not having CCFC playing at the Ricoh affect your finances" etc
The EFL would not take the actions mentioned they simply could not afford it in this case let alone setting precedents in others. The EFL runs a competition and so long as that competition is safe in general terms then there is no real incentive to act.
Yes Wasps need to be challenged, but so too SISU. Both sides are equally important to the solution. Seems to me that Wasps get little challenge but equally SISU provide much of the cover for them to hide behind. If the CCFC owners focussed more on CCFC than investors then they might position things differently. A lot of what is going on is all semantics - all in the perception and positioning of statements/actions
I think both sides are so entrenched that no real solution will be found, other than a more expensive 1 year deal for CCFC - and the merry go round starts again next year.
