Seppala Interview on Sky Sports News (31 Viewers)

Forums New posts
higgs

higgs

Well-Known Member
After wasps bottoming out and accusing them of trying to take us over is there any way back to the Ricoh now or has Joy's interview scuppered a future agreement?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
usskyblue

usskyblue

Well-Known Member
Ibby said:
Club badly needs new owners.
Click to expand...

Like Hoffman...

giphy.gif
 
olderskyblue

olderskyblue

Well-Known Member
usskyblue said:
Then, with this knowledge out there...why are people saying that SISU took the club to Brum to ‘distress’ Wasps ?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should ask whoever is saying that?

Maybe because SISU has past history of doing that perhaps? Doesn't mean they are right though...
 
olderskyblue

olderskyblue

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
But what nobody seems able to explain is how, if Wasps and CCC have done no wrong, it is going to end up costing Wasps millions?
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying that are they?
 
olderskyblue

olderskyblue

Well-Known Member
duffer said:
Wasps are, that's why they're asking for an indemnity.
Click to expand...

Fair point :emoji_laughing:

Edited to say: If they were asking for indemnity against any legal costs they incur in "contending" an EC investigation that finds everything was above board, they might have half a point, but to ask for indemnity against any and all costs even if the EC find against CCC/Wasps is ridiculous. Nobody sane would agree to that.
 
Last edited:
Voice_of_Reason

Voice_of_Reason

Well-Known Member
Has everything that has come to the fore following Joy Seppala's interview persuaded those who want to boycott St Andrew's to punish SISU to change their minds ? After all, circumstances were beyond SISU'S control on this occasion.
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
olderskyblue said:
Fair point :emoji_laughing:

Edited to say: If they were asking for indemnity against any legal costs they incur in "contending" an EC investigation that finds everything was above board, they might have half a point, but to ask for indemnity against any and all costs even if the EC find against CCC/Wasps is ridiculous. Nobody sane would agree to that.
Click to expand...

Just to add to this, there will be no costs as such for Wasps to contend the investigation - it'll be the EC asking the Council to explain their process regarding the sale, and then a decision from the EC as to whether that complied with the law.

No lawyers, no court, no legal fees for Wasps to worry about in terms of the complaint itself. Whether it opens up the Council to a bit more court time down the road is another matter...
 
S

SkyBlueCRJ

Well-Known Member
Voice_of_Reason said:
Has everything that has come to the fore following Joy Seppala's interview persuaded those who want to boycott St Andrew's to punish SISU to change their minds ? After all, circumstances were beyond SISU'S control on this occasion.
Click to expand...

I doubt it would change minds as people believe want they want to believe. An interview might provide perspective, but it won't reverse the view of the majority of boycotters as their viewpoint has become far too entrenched over the years. At the end of the day regardless of who, what, when, where, why, SISU are still viewed as the true pantomime villain and to some they always will be. Even if Joy did an interview a day for the next year I still don't think it would change people's minds about 'punishing SISU'.
 
S

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
Liquid Gold said:
Sisu are unreasonable, we already know this. Despite this they managed to give London Wasps the assurances they demanded for talks to start. After the EC complaint was leaked talks either were or weren't called off but they said themselves that it had been moved past. From what we understand now they are looking to be indemnified against any potential losses. A completely unrealistic position for them to take and something the club or sisu could never agree to. Looking at the stance they are taking now screams of desperation, it looks as though they were doing anything they could to avoid the EC complaint in the first place and when discovering it was submitted asked to be covered against losses, threatening the club and eventually making it homeless. It looks as though they are concerned about what will come from this investigation and if that is the case I fully support it being submitted.
Click to expand...

Or a different angle...yet again, SISU tried to pull a fast one to get a deal but also get Wasps to a place of no return (fold or sell) & would hope to still get the Ricoh on the cheap.

I never fully believe nothing any of them say...mostly kids playground stuff. We are unlikely to ever get the real facts.

So all I can go on is the simplistic view of the facts that SISU saved us when nobody else appeared to want to. They embarrased our club by witholding rent & took us away from the Ricoh with ruthless disregard & clear lack of appreciation for what it would mean for the fanbase. They promised us a new stadium, they bought us back to the Ricoh, they missed out on buying the Ricoh, they have attempted to batter people in court & they seem to have got the finances on a steady course.

Future? All that is certain is that we are again playing all our games away from home this season. We are in fact homeless.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
SkyblueBazza said:
Or a different angle...yet again, SISU tried to pull a fast one to get a deal but also get Wasps to a place of no return (fold or sell) & would hope to still get the Ricoh on the cheap.

I never fully believe nothing any of them say...mostly kids playground stuff. We are unlikely to ever get the real facts.

So all I can go on is the simplistic view of the facts that SISU saved us when nobody else appeared to want to. They embarrased our club by witholding rent & took us away from the Ricoh with ruthless disregard & clear lack of appreciation for what it would mean for the fanbase. They promised us a new stadium, they bought us back to the Ricoh, they missed out on buying the Ricoh, they have attempted to batter people in court & they seem to have got the finances on a steady course.

Future? All that is certain is that we are again playing all our games away from home this season. We are in fact homeless.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

When were they offered the opportunity to buy the Ricoh?
 
S

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
Voice_of_Reason said:
As of today. Historically SISU must shoulder part of, but not all, of the blame. I am trying to show that having to groundshare again is something SISU had no other option.
Click to expand...
Yep...that is another fact. It appears they had no other option in the end.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
S

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
If they're considering the implications of an EC investigation taking place and the council and / or Wasps subsequently being found at fault it follows they have reason to believe the case is not the foregone conclusion we've all been led to believe.

Should that be the case then why should it be CCFC not CCC or Wasps who take the financial hit?

As far as I'm concerned attempting what basically amounts to blackmail to try and get action stopped and then, when it becomes clear action can't be stopped, expecting the potentially wronged party to cover all financial implications for the party found at fault is 100% wrong. The stance simply isn't justifiable.

If they want to plan for being found to be in the wrong they should be planning for sorting out their own mess not relying on us to do it for them, potentially at a cost of no longer having a football club.
Click to expand...
Suppose it is a bit like a yob causing damage & a witness reporting...they get caught & fined & the thug demands the witness pays the fine for grassing them up?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
M

Magwitch

Well-Known Member
SkyblueBazza said:
Or a different angle...yet again, SISU tried to pull a fast one to get a deal but also get Wasps to a place of no return (fold or sell) & would hope to still get the Ricoh on the cheap.

I never fully believe nothing any of them say...mostly kids playground stuff. We are unlikely to ever get the real facts.

So all I can go on is the simplistic view of the facts that SISU saved us when nobody else appeared to want to. They embarrased our club by witholding rent & took us away from the Ricoh with ruthless disregard & clear lack of appreciation for what it would mean for the fanbase. They promised us a new stadium, they bought us back to the Ricoh, they missed out on buying the Ricoh, they have attempted to batter people in court & they seem to have got the finances on a steady course.

Future? All that is certain is that we are again playing all our games away from home this season. We are in fact homeless.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Agree with most you say, but there is a possibility of change though, it’s come out in her interview that her co-partner, Dermot Coleman has left the business whether that’s for pastures new or been given the boot we don’t know. Don’t think I’ve heard any comment from him since sisu have been here. Maybe he was a ball and chain to the ccfc side of the business, but then again same could be said of JS. Now all the decisions will be hers so it’s could to be interesting which way it goes or if things change
 
S

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
usskyblue said:
Then, with this knowledge out there...why are people saying that SISU took the club to Brum to ‘distress’ Wasps ?
Click to expand...
Because history suggests that is what they do, by whatever means they can. They observed a new angle which is why they stepped back from their initial course & softened their attitude. They know that if the EU find wrongdoing - it could mean some financial difficulties for Wasps meaning they could get the Ricoh (on the cheap)

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
S

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
Jcap said:
That's fine, but I think most would agree that if Wasps are after indemnity, they're asking the wrong party - they should be demanding this from CCC. Why are they not doing this?
Click to expand...
Because CCC don't need to rent the Ricoh to play thier football matches?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
fatso

fatso

Well-Known Member
SkyblueBazza said:
Maybe cutting their risk of losses overall? Or maybe they just decided SISU are simply too difficult to work with & untrustworthy.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Exactly, who in their right mind would want to deal with sisu.
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
SkyblueBazza said:
Because CCC don't need to rent the Ricoh to play thier football matches?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So in effect then, they're attempting to extort an indemnity based on the football club's position of weakness.

Tie that together with an apparent interest in buying the club and it's hard to see Wasps as being any more trustworthy than SISU.

Let's turn the question around: Would you want to do business with someone who did that?
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
SkyblueBazza said:
Ok Mr Pendantic - they bid for a stake in it.

If I want to be pedantic - I wasn't offered the opportunity either!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

A stake that cost more than wasps paid for the lot. With an extra 200 year lease.

A stake wasps considered worthless

Oh dear
 
usskyblue

usskyblue

Well-Known Member
SkyblueBazza said:
Because history suggests that is what they do, by whatever means they can. They observed a new angle which is why they stepped back from their initial course & softened their attitude. They know that if the EU find wrongdoing - it could mean some financial difficulties for Wasps meaning they could get the Ricoh (on the cheap)

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Why is it so hard to choke down?

SISU aren’t distressing Wasps. They are refusing to indemnify Wasps from a financial penalty that Wasps may incur. A penalty of CCC and Wasps making.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
giphy.gif


"I am not a member of the consortium, you've got that from me. That's not someone giving it you third hand.

"I was a member of it, I am not a member of it now, or part of it, because I didn't agree with what was happening with the consortium.

"That's my personal opinion, other people would've stayed on the consortium because they could see the benefit of it.

"I personally couldn't, I didn't think it was right. I just don't agree with it, it's not the right thing for me, personally, to invest in."

"It's how you ask the question isn't it," he said. "Directly, they've [Wasps] never been involved, they've never been involved directly through Coventry City but certainly they were helping the consortium.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 32 (members: 0, guests: 32)
Top