Awful lot of second guessing going on, so i will add some of my own
Firstly i think it might well turn out that CCFC & Wasps agreed a deal but that SISU had not signed it off. Could a deal still be done? perhaps, but this news greatly risks that not being the case. I am two minds whether we will or wont be at the Ricoh next season. I do think being elsewhere will greatly risk CCFC though.
I suspect SISU could not sign off any contract because it said no more legals, something they knew might well not be the case. To sign would have left them open to legal action
But people need to be really clear these complaints and court actions are not about the well being of CCFC, it is all about the SISU investors and always has been
Having been made aware of the complaint Gilbert had to put it out there, just as any other reporter would have
Technically there is still no legal action going on, but there is a possibility there will be - that will be expensive and time consuming. Up until now then it was possible for both sides to say it was ok to talk. Has it only just become apparent that there is a tangible threat of legal action..... if the decision to complain to EC was February when did Wasps find out, i would think it wasnt until just recently.
I dont have a problem with a time delay between the complaint being made and news now becoming available. If complaint was end of February then by the time the EC have processed it and informed CCC then it is around the right timescale. I would think the news has come from CCC, who i assume are not involved in the rent discussions and therefore not covered by the NDA. I also suspect that CCC were not aware of the complaint until notified by the EC.
At present it isn't legal action but a complaint to the EC that may or may not lead to investigation which in turn may or may not lead to a referral to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). At which point it becomes legal action against CCC. If said legal action is successful for SISU then it gets referred back to the UK courts to implement EU law. That means action in English courts after the ECJ judgement entirely different to both JR's (which were an examination of process primarily). That could take years and could include the requirement for Wasps to repay the state aid deemed to have been received.
To be able to go to the EC you have to show all other avenues of challenge have been exhausted - that box is ticked
An investigation by the EC could take 12 months or more before decided and the case being heard if referred to the ECJ years after that
Going to depend as to how the wording of the complaint has been put as to if the same ground as the JR's is covered or if there is more added
There is not an immediate threat to Wasps but there is a potential financial threat in the future. That could cost hundreds of £1000's to fight and if they lose bankrupt Wasps and seriously affect their owner.
Yes the case, if it goes to the ECJ could take years to arrive at a decision. However the financial danger for Wasps could arrive sooner than that. Recent ECJ case law allows for an interim order to be made in the English Courts to repay (with interest) the state aid prior to the case being decided. That aside such legal action is going to be expensive for all sides
The challenge in the ECJ could seriously hamper the refinancing of the Bond, which has already been hampered by the accounting irregularities (although as the time goes on those decrease in effect assuming no more are discovered). To say that Wasps are not threatened by this is a nonsense. CCC may of course win any case if one is even brought so the threat goes away.
Just because a party fights a case or demands it go away is not an admission of guilt or makes them wrong. At this stage just because a party brings a case does not mean they are right or that their case has any merit at all. The challenge is high risk, but a challenge brought by who? Otium, SBS&L, ARVO, SISU, someone else, some or all of those
A thought comes to mind that this is not just about CCFC. I have had a discussion some time ago where it was suggested that it was a case to establish a principle in a general sense and challenge existing interpretations of law. In which case you would think there is more than SISU involved behind the scenes
Which brings me to another thought. If SISU have outsourced the costs to a litigation buy out fund, CCFC's owners may not actually be in control of where this may lead. Even if they wanted to stop they cant because they have agreed for someone else has conduct of the claims. For the litigation buy out fund, which would take on high risk projects, it is a choice to accept the loss or to carry on with the potential prospect of huge gains in cases other than SISU's. The litigation buy fund would have major funding available, no brainer for them irrespective of what SISU want
Final thought, if SISU won the end game i would not expect there to be huge funds coming to CCFC, by the time the litigation buy out fund has taken their cut (usually high eg 40% or more) SISU recovered their in house costs, repaid the loans & Interest due to ARVO, SBS&L, repaid the investors funds, repaid the preference share dividends Otium owes etc, then the figure is going to be very significantly less than fans might expect
