Update from Big Dave (1 Viewer)

[Nick]

Well quite. It’s not unreasonable to think that in two years the issues around the Ricoh won’t be sorted. Cleary further legal action is planned if it’s thrown out as the club want to retain that right, a decision could take longer than that anyway, and even if it’s quicker and positive for Sisu the council can and almost certainly will appeal.

So what happens at that point if Wasps are still solvent and refusing to let us do a deal while the action is ongoing? Do we fold? Surely we should have broken ground on a stadium by now if we were going to have it ready for that point? It’s a massive massive risk and as I say I’m still yet to be convinced of the actual benefit to CCFC of this route. It seems to have become mostly about spiting Wasps and CCC for most, the actual impacts on the club forgotten.

As previously reported, Wasps insisted SISU sign a legal undertaking before they would participate in discussions with CCFC. SISU signed this undertaking in April to irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh Arena. Wasps then entered into commercial discussions with CCFC to allow the Club to continue to play for a limited time; however, not the five years we wanted.

 

---

[Sky Blue Pete]

Yep if we’re at St. Andrews this season we need concrete movement on a new stadium beyond a desire

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I guess he could say that technically that didn’t rule out future legals.

 

[Nick]

I guess he could say that technically that didn’t rule out future legals.

Isn't that what the irrevocably bit is? Unless I am confusing what it means.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Isn't that what the irrevocably bit is? Unless I am confusing what it means.

I thought so as well but I suppose without ‘current and future’ then there could be a semantic argument to be had.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Yep if we’re at St. Andrews this season we need concrete movement on a new stadium beyond a desire

We do anyway if their stated aim is to own their own stadium (as it has been since, well, a time when social distancing among our crowds at Northampton wasn't a challenge!).

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

We do anyway if their stated aim is to own their own stadium (as it has been since, well, a time when social distancing among our crowds at Northampton wasn't a challenge!).

It got a bit busy on ‘Jimmy’s Hill’

 

[Grendel]

I suppose what we can all agree on is that nobody has to rent you a house.

It'd be lovely, just lovely, if our oft promised stadium progressed beyond half-arsed soundbytes...

Well I’ve just responded to someone comparing a rental agreement if two parties coming together with a divorce

 

[Liquid Gold]

I think we’d all absolutely love it if a stadium started to be built. I don’t think it’s going to happen because something would have moved by now but that would genuinely give us light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[Nick]

Well I’ve just responded to someone comparing a rental agreement if two parties coming together with a divorce

If they were both coming together I doubt they would be getting divorced.

 

[Grendel]

If they were both coming together I doubt they would be getting divorced.

Indeed

 

[mark82]

No idea, what’s that got to do with what we’re talking about?

It has everything to do with what we're talking about.

 

[Nick]

I suppose what we can all agree on is that nobody has to rent you a house.

It'd be lovely, just lovely, if our oft promised stadium progressed beyond half-arsed soundbytes...

Tim Fisher went to look for badgers though to be far, that's the logical step up from soundbytes only.

 

[mark82]

As previously reported, Wasps insisted SISU sign a legal undertaking before they would participate in discussions with CCFC. SISU signed this undertaking in April to irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh Arena. Wasps then entered into commercial discussions with CCFC to allow the Club to continue to play for a limited time; however, not the five years we wanted.

The important bit there is "relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh". I don't think there has ever been any issue from the CCFC side in agreeing not to take direct action against Wasps for that.

 

[Nick]

The important bit there is "relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh". I don't think there has ever been any issue from the CCFC side in agreeing not to take direct action against Wasps for that.

Yeah exactly and wasps were happy with that.

Then it seemed to increased to want to cover all legal action and cover costs and indemnity I think?

 

[Grendel]

Yeah exactly and wasps were happy with that.

Then it seemed to increased to want to cover all legal action and cover costs and indemnity I think?

Yes against all parties - wonder who engineered that

 

[shmmeee]

stuff

We’ve been over the silliness of this argument. Wasps clearly mean any action relating to reversing the Ricoh sale regardless of whether they specifically are named.

 

[shmmeee]

The important bit there is "relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh". I don't think there has ever been any issue from the CCFC side in agreeing not to take direct action against Wasps for that.

No, the important bit is “against Wasps”, it’s playing semantic games and not a serious attempt at engagement.

It’s playground stuff.

 

[GaryMabbuttsLeftKnee]

Seems to put at least an articulate well structured argument across with reasoning. I don’t agree with a lot of it but can at least debate without getting aggy

I'd agree with this, it's much more adult than the name and mud slinging, it's just the pedantic nature and then accusations of nuance and semantics that then get thrown the other way too. It's just really, really fucking boring and gets used on every thread where stadium/couincil/Wasps are mentioned. I think we all get it, his opinion differs from 80%+ of us, it doesn't require a jump back on every post he disagrees with. It's as tedious as Max/Grendel.

 

[GaryMabbuttsLeftKnee]

No, the important bit is “against Wasps”, it’s playing semantic games and not a serious attempt at engagement.

It’s playground stuff.

Oh I timed that well, use of semantics :emoji_heavy_check_mark:

 

[Nick]

No, the important bit is “against Wasps”, it’s playing semantic games and not a serious attempt at engagement.

It’s playground stuff.

It was enough for Wasps to start negotiations though until they moved the goalposts?

They were engaging with Wasps, hence they guaranteed no further legal action against Wasps to do with it.

It really isn't semantics, unless you think "No future legal action against anybody about anything" is going to end well?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

But and it’s important they are and were happy to agree a deal last season and this

We’ve been over the silliness of this argument. Wasps clearly mean any action relating to reversing the Ricoh sale regardless of whether they specifically are named.

 

[mark82]

No, the important bit is “against Wasps”, it’s playing semantic games and not a serious attempt at engagement.

It’s playground stuff.

Not quite sure what you're implying but I don't think Wasps have ever asked us to sign away any right to take legal action against any other party other than themselves.

 

[Nick]

Not quite sure what you're implying but I don't think Wasps have ever asked us to sign away any right to take legal action against any other party other than themselves.

Just indemnify against them

 

[mark82]

Just indemnify against them

Yeah, but that is trying to cover themselves and not the council.

 

[shmmeee]

But and it’s important they are and were happy to agree a deal last season and this

I mean clearly not as we didn’t get a deal last season (or have we not moved seasons yet, do you mean the last season at the Ricoh? If so then obviously things changed.).

Look I’m only taking both sides at their word.

Sisu:

“This agreement introduced conditions that would unreasonably restrict the Club and SISU’s basic legal rights and would commit the Club and SISU to underwrite Wasps’ costs and any future damages. ”

That right there is the request to stop all future legal action aimed at reversing the sale. How do we know? Because very rarely for this Wasps and Sisu agreed:

(From Wasps)

“Despite significant progress being made in the discussions, we have unfortunately been unable to reach an agreement with the owners which, putting aside the complaint to the European Commission, would deliver the fundamental principle that there would be no further proceedings about the ownership of the Ricoh Arena.”

Note the words fundamental principle. It’s the basic principle that they care about not who is named specifically.

“Ah!” You say “But Wasps entered negotiations so must have been fine! Sisu agreed to stop the legals!”

Well, no that’s not what is said. Sisu very carefully say

“ SISU signed this undertaking in April to irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh Arena.”

Wasps say:

“As everyone is aware, we made it a pre-requisite of talks that the owners would stop pursuing proceedings around the ownership of the Ricoh Arena. We understood the owners shared that desire based on the letter it sent to us.”

So what Sisu seemingly did is send a letter agreeing not to sue Wasps, fully intending to continue legal action designed to reverse the sale. Wasps clearly mistook this for meaning what they wanted and started talks. When it came to the details of the agreement Sisu refused to sign the wider ranging request Wasps wanted.

I honestly don’t see how any other reading is possible.

 

[shmmeee]

Not quite sure what you're implying but I don't think Wasps have ever asked us to sign away any right to take legal action against any other party other than themselves.

See above post. They very clearly did.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Hence the Question who put them up To it? Be nice for it to go away for who else?

Yeah, but that is trying to cover themselves and not the council.

 

[shmmeee]

Hence the Question who put them up To it? Be nice for it to go away for who else?

Oh dear.

 

[mark82]

Hence the Question who put them up To it? Be nice for it to go away for who else?

Wasps would have to pay up if the EC found against the council. Essentially it would be obliged to pay back the state aid it received. I can understand their concern as much as I don't necessarily agree with their stance.

 

[Nick]

Oh dear.

What's wrong with that statement?

 

[shmmeee]

What's wrong with that statement?

...

Wasps would have to pay up if the EC found against the council. Essentially it would be obliged to pay back the state aid it received. I can understand their concern as much as I don't necessarily agree with their stance.

On a wider point it’s more conspiratorial nonsense that really doesn’t help the debate here and I’d hoped Pete was above.

 

[Nick]

...

They would only have to pay up if the council were found to be in the wrong, wouldn't they?

You always seem to play the "conspiracy" stuff as well, even when things have actually happened it's a conspiracy when mentioned. It doesn't work when you say it about everything.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I mean clearly not as we didn’t get a deal last season (or have we not moved seasons yet, do you mean the last season at the Ricoh? If so then obviously things changed.).

Look I’m only taking both sides at their word.

Sisu:

“This agreement introduced conditions that would unreasonably restrict the Club and SISU’s basic legal rights and would commit the Club and SISU to underwrite Wasps’ costs and any future damages. ”

That right there is the request to stop all future legal action aimed at reversing the sale. How do we know? Because very rarely for this Wasps and Sisu agreed:

(From Wasps)

“Despite significant progress being made in the discussions, we have unfortunately been unable to reach an agreement with the owners which, putting aside the complaint to the European Commission, would deliver the fundamental principle that there would be no further proceedings about the ownership of the Ricoh Arena.”

Note the words fundamental principle. It’s the basic principle that they care about not who is named specifically.

“Ah!” You say “But Wasps entered negotiations so must have been fine! Sisu agreed to stop the legals!”

Well, no that’s not what is said. Sisu very carefully say

“ SISU signed this undertaking in April to irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh Arena.”

Wasps say:

“As everyone is aware, we made it a pre-requisite of talks that the owners would stop pursuing proceedings around the ownership of the Ricoh Arena. We understood the owners shared that desire based on the letter it sent to us.”

So what Sisu seemingly did is send a letter agreeing not to sue Wasps, fully intending to continue legal action designed to reverse the sale. Wasps clearly mistook this for meaning what they wanted and started talks. When it came to the details of the agreement Sisu refused to sign the wider ranging request Wasps wanted.

I honestly don’t see how any other reading is possible.

Without the exact wording of the agreement they actually signed then we’re in a semantic roundabout. What also remains is that there is no further legal action possible to challenge the sale unless anybody knows otherwise

 

[mark82]

See above post. They very clearly did.

Ok, fair enough, if they're asking them to also stop any action against the council then it looks doubly bad.

It's also important not to underestimate the bit about restricting the club and Sisu's basic legal rights. Could this imply that Wasps are wanting it to cover more than just action relating to the sale & lease?