Again, it ties up resources in the meantime, diverts them from other avenues, means potentially money has to be set aside dependent on risk, and also restricts the sponsorship opportunities and therefore income, as people are averse to going all-in until they see if there's fire to go with the smoke.
It's not an uncommon legal tactic.
Absolutely, and it's unlikely that SISU raised the complaint to benefit the good people of Coventry.
That doesn't alter the point that Wasps have been arguing that the Ricoh deal was absolutely above board, whilst now simultaneously demanding that they are indemnified against the fact that it may not have been.
The interesting thing to me, is that there would seem to be no path for SISU to sue Wasps directly if they agreed to forego further legal action. In which case, who would be able to demand damages from Wasps?
The EC doesn't apply damages even if the complaint against CCC is upheld, as I understand it. So the only action I can see is another bash at the Council, by SISU, in the Civil court (ding-ding, seconds out, round three).
I'd see this a straight claim for damages rather than a JR, in which case no risk to Wasps.
OK, I'm stretching a little here, but is that demand for an indemnity actually designed to protect CCC? And if so, why?
From the very start of all of this the relationship between Wasps and CCC has been deeply suspicious. I'm very happy to see it under the spotlight.