Grendel
Well-Known Member
The lower rent was for a limited period and reverted back after two seasons
Seppala Interview on Sky Sports News (21 Viewers)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
The lower rent was for a limited period and reverted back after two seasons
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Thats what we hope!
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
The cold hearted pursuit of profit while not caring about what happens to the club will do for me.
Nick
Administrator
I am not sure they will, they will just say "Drop the legals".
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
that's why I am of the opinion that if we get to the Championship they'll sell.
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
Not particularly fussed about the rent strike, but the Northampton move has pretty much crippled the fan base.
Other than that they’re only guilty of withdrawing the funding - I seem to remember they stopped funding in January of the boothroyd season. Then we replaced King, Gunarsson, Westwood etc with Murphy Chris Dunn and McDonald.
This is when the sisu out stuff started. Again, my annoyance with football fans... when the transfers stop - the owners are automatically shit.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Or try and stay up with a limited budget and, if fail, try and bounce.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I've based my opinion on the sell at the top of the cycle comment, admittedly it was by fisher so perhaps not to be taken too seriously.
But if it is true, just getting to the Championship is pretty much top of the cycle unless you're prepared to underwrite the eye watering sums Brighton, Bournemouth and Villa did or have faith in your manager to do what Wilder did at blades.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
They'd probably look at Holloway at Blackpool and hope.
Or find new investment, with the same terrifying consequences if it went wrong.
SkyBlueCRJ
Well-Known Member
I’d agree with that. Would be interesting to see how much she’d demand though. Wigan was sold for £20M last summer and that was inclusive of their stadium etc. The only thing that concerns me is that even with promotion to the Championship her asking price could still potentially be ridiculous
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Don’t think we got a lot of it back. Seem to recall the council citing a time limit on claiming a refund and only paying back the last two or three years.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I expect it will be. If the price is too high now I doubt a promotion will give them a reality Check with regard to what the club is worth
Doesn't surprise me. Bunch of crooks.
duffer
Well-Known Member
That certainly seems to be what SISU are claiming. As ever, from where we sit as fans it's very hard to see the truth. It's a bit like trying to follow a high ball from the back of the old West End!
Either way though, indemnifying Wasps against Council malfeasance is none of our business. By design we were specifically excluded from the deal, if there was anything dicey about it Wasps should look to their advisors for a remedy.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
There's enough in her interview to suggest a perfectly valid reading that she wanted it open for Otium to continue to pursue action.That certainly seems to be what SISU are claiming. As ever, from where we sit as fans it's very hard to see the truth. It's a bit like trying to follow a high ball from the back of the old West End!
I've no doubt there'd end up legal action over what constituted legal action too, tbh.
Nick
Administrator
There was enough for Wasps to start talks after they said it was needed before they even discussed anything wasn't there?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
What you're suggesting is flexibility and willingness on Wasps' part to negotiate a deal, that's then stymied by bad faith on thge part of SISU not disclosing what they've been doing. Therefore, in Wasps' position, it's hardly surprising they may not be confident on what comes up in the future. Subsequent readings do nothing but confirm that, in Wasps' position, you'd stop giving the benefit of the doubt really, don't they.
Nick
Administrator
Ah so the legals weren't dropped and nothing was really signed to say it but it was just Wasps being flexible and willing to do a deal after saying for months they won't even talk until they are dropped?
You will be telling us they didn't know until Gilbert revealed it next...
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Wow! Wonder what squad we had back then
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
Clive Platt and Marlon King
Cov City Daytrader 87
Well-Known Member
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
What?!?
Do you disagree with the fact that SISU have acted in bad faith by not revealing all they were doing?
Would you seriously trust any SISU proclamation at face value?
I was once told that the reason anti-SISU posts died a death was because there was nothing to argue with. Surely there's nothing remotely contentious in either of those questions? Surely we all nod and agree with them?
Nick
Administrator
They have all acted in bad faith haven't they? You are trying to make out Wasps are some lovely people who just want to help CCFC.
They are all plotting and scheming. I wouldn't trust much at face value which is why I try to peace things together. Wasps said they wouldn't talk until something happened, CCFC / SISU said that something happened, talks actually happened. You are now trying to say Wasps just commenced talks without it because they wanted a deal after refusing to talk about it for months because of it?
Do you think Wasps also acted in bad faith in any way?
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
In all fairness - the original caveat was that SISU stop all legals proceedings against Wasps,
What they do complaint wise and against the council wasn’t part of the caveat - a technicality I know. But in theory that’s for nothing to do with Wasps
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I'm really not.
Do you agree that SISU have acted in bad faith by not diclosing their actions?
Nick
Administrator
Yes if they didn't tell anybody it had been reported.
You were suggesting they weren't bothered about the legals being called off and just wanted a deal. They were obviously happy with what was signed else they wouldn't have commenced talks?
Is it in good faith with the Wasps / Hoffman romance?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
The complaint to the EC was about a third party not Wasps. It didn't fall within the requirements Wasps had put in place which the club met prior to Wasps changing the terms.
Presumably if there was a requirement for everyone to be upfront about things involving third parties Wasps informed the club they were talking to Hoffman?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Excellent. So why are you arguing with my point?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
So this will have no consequence to Wasps, will not involve Wasps, and is a total irrelevance to Wasps?
My word yes, no wonder they weren't told!
Nick
Administrator
The point wasn't about the bad faith it was about the stuff being signed to stop the legals....
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
If, as we have repeatedly been assured, the council did not wrong then there will be no consequence to Wasps, will not involve Wasps, and is a total irrelevance to Wasps.
Its simple, Wasps put a condition in place. The club and SISU met that condition. The condition was changed.
Nick
Administrator
Only if the council are found to be at fault which as Wasps would have made sure everything is watertight isn't a worry at all.
They then had enough signed to say there would be no further action to do with the Ricoh sale to be able to commence talks didn't they?