My personal view is that the "groundwork", as you call it, was Joy and co. being wheeled out in front of the media. Why would she stick her head above the parapet otherwise? The EU complaint being submitted and the subterfuge around it even existing shows for me, that there was a plan and a set of reasoning around painting their actions in the best light possible. Clearly, the Council's response was amatuerish by putting up Duggins, but it surely isn't under dispute that the media presence of Joy, Richardson, Scope and Robins in the the timeframe of the EU submission coming to light was anything other than a coordinated campaign?
I can't say for certain, but I'd suggest the Wasps indemnity clause was a direct action to the EU submission. As far as I know, the indemnity clause didn't exist until this came to light as discussions were well underway about new rental deal, with the caveat of the end of legal action. The EU action was deliberately hidden and regardless of personal opinion as to whether is constitutes legal action or not, it was clearly viewed by the Wasps hierarchy as something that could impact them.
My view, as stated on my pinned twitter post, is that every action taken by the non-SISU parties in this saga is either retaliatory or defensive, based on something that SISU did first. There are no doubts that some will argue otherwise. If your interpretation of the known facts leads you to a different conclusion to what I've stated, I'll respect that, but cheerfully disagree.
