Request to waive NDA - email to Wasps, CCFC & Sisu (15 Viewers)

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I agree we deserve answers. I'm just not convinced this will lead to us getting them. Just more counter claims and muddying of waters.

As you say things can be very carefully worded. For example:
“We did not require the football club or its owners to sign any indemnity around legal action over the Ricoh Arena"
could be taken as you suggest. It could also be taken that it incorporates future legal action based around the complaint.

Similarly the statement by Boddy:
"Coventry City and its Owners last year, during failed talks for the 2019-20 season, made a written undertaking to irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh Arena. No legal action against Wasps or its Owners exists, and Coventry City and its Owners have again made this same undertaking this year."
could also be said to be carefully worded legalese as it ceases all proceedings against Wasps, but not all proceedings which could have a material effect on Wasps. Similarly it could be pointed out it says legal proceedings relating to sale and lease of the Arena, not legal proceedings in their entirety. Also no legal action exists, but this does not explicitly rule out future legal action. So an agreement could have been signed and SISU start legal action the day after and no legal contract would have been broken.

This is why the legal system is so backed up because there are cases based around the tiniest little interpretations in the wording.

From the original statement, it alludes to the indemnity and the ‘restriction of basic legal rights‘. So there may be something to what you say. However -

Ultimately, I agree with the principle that the club should reserve its right to take legal action against Wasps and CCC if the EU complaint is successful. I do not know how this works exactly, but club should be able to claim some sort of damages caused if it is proven that the sale of the RICOH is indeed dodgy.

 

---

[djr8369]

Because being in Coventry benefits Coventry City.

I suspect Wasps won't agree to waive the NDA anyway but, if they do, documents can be independently checked to verify them. Aside from the forensic side there are 3rd parties who have been involved in discussions who will be able to confirm validity.

I’m sure they won’t waive it. Will just say something like “it’s a legal process and can’t just be disregarded blah blah” and tbf SISU probably know they won’t waive it so have nothing to lose by saying they are happy to waive.

It might mean wasps have something to hide but who knows.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Because being in Coventry benefits Coventry City.

I suspect Wasps won't agree to waive the NDA anyway but, if they do, documents can be independently checked to verify them. Aside from the forensic side there are 3rd parties who have been involved in discussions who will be able to confirm validity.

But why does Coventry City benefiting from being in Coventry allow pressure to be applied to Wasps to take us back when they'd be doing business with someone who had been proven to be untrustworthy?

People know how to cover their trail - they know it's a lot more than shredding documents and deleting/wiping files. So don't think any forensic examination etc would end the argument. Either would claim faults in the process or 'witnesses' were unreliable. It'd drag on for ages.

 

[Maupet]

It seems to me, that Wasps have already broken the NDA by releasing a statement saying we do not require ccfc to sign an indemnity, so Boddy can bring out his evidence.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

From the original statement, it alludes to the indemnity and the ‘restriction of basic legal rights‘. So there may be something to what you say. However -

Ultimately, I agree with the principle that the club should reserve its right to take legal action against Wasps and CCC if the EU complaint is successful. I do not know how this works exactly, but club should be able to claim some sort of damages caused if it is proven that the sale of the RICOH is indeed dodgy.

I agree that the club and SISU should be allowed to reserve the right to legal action if fault is found. But on the same lines I also believe CCC/Wasps should be allowed to take legal action against SISU/the club if no fault is found.

 

[eastwoodsdustman]

The majority on here seem to have changed their minds regarding Sisu, perhaps over the coming months/years they will about the Trust. Oh and by the way this includes me.

Not a chance. The trust are damaged goods. There is no way back for them as a True voice of the supporters

 

[mark82]

I agree that the club and SISU should be allowed to reserve the right to legal action if fault is found. But on the same lines I also believe CCC/Wasps should be allowed to take legal action against SISU/the club if no fault is found.

Absolutely.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

It seems to me, that Wasps have already broken the NDA by releasing a statement saying we do not require ccfc to sign an indemnity, so Boddy can bring out his evidence.

But didn't the club then break the NDA first in their initial statement announcing us staying in Birmingham by saying that Wasps required indemnity?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I agree that the club and SISU should be allowed to reserve the right to legal action if fault is found. But on the same lines I also believe CCC/Wasps should be allowed to take legal action against SISU/the club if no fault is found.

If you agree on that, then you can see why the club refuses to sign up to an indemnity and ceasing of legal action in 2019, and probably in 2020 also.

 

[Maupet]

But didn't the club then break the NDA first in their initial statement announcing us staying in Birmingham by saying that Wasps required indemnity?

 

[Maupet]

But the club have been careful not say anything about an indemnity

 

[mark82]

But why does Coventry City benefiting from being in Coventry allow pressure to be applied to Wasps to take us back when they'd be doing business with someone who had been proven to be untrustworthy?

People know how to cover their trail - they know it's a lot more than shredding documents and deleting/wiping files. So don't think any forensic examination etc would end the argument. Either would claim faults in the process or 'witnesses' were unreliable. It'd drag on for ages.

I'm not sure people do know how to cover their trail. For instance, if it's on an email unless they hack into the account of every recipient of that email there will be a trace and it can be forensically examined (and relatively easily). It's not the 60's where you could just shred everything.

Why would Wasps being shown up put pressure on them? Are you asking why a club who are new in a city would be put under pressure if they are shown to have deceived the people of that city? Do you think people wouldn't be bothered? Ok, some would still support but their chances of growing local support would be slim.

 

[mark82]

There are also loca

But didn't the club then break the NDA first in their initial statement announcing us staying in Birmingham by saying that Wasps required indemnity?

You'd assume there's a reason they are happy to do that. Maybe that it's outside the scope of the NDA or doesn't give enough detail to constitute a breach. Sure it would've been calculated.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

But the club have been careful not say anything about an indemnity

"Unfortunately we are unable to disclose full details due to the requirement to sign a non-disclosure agreement prior to negotiations taking place.

Last year the critical issue was Wasps’ insistence of indemnity clauses into the license agreement, with this indemnity for themselves and for a third-party."

It's a very careful way of mentioning the indemnity without specifically saying it was the problem this year, although this was confirmed in the second statement and thus the intent of it being mentioned is pretty much revealed.

“The principle and concept of an indemnity against Wasps and a third party was absolutely a requirement, and this indemnity would have put the Football Club at substantial risk and jeopardise its very future.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

If you agree on that, then you can see why the club refuses to sign up to an indemnity and ceasing of legal action in 2019, and probably in 2020 also.

I've never said I don't agree with the refusal to sign any contract with an indemnity clause.

 

[clint van damme]

the best thing the Trust can do now is push for more transparency from both sides and make it clear how what the support have been through and are going through is unacceptable.

 

[Nick]

But the club have been careful not say anything about an indemnity

Apart from directly mentioning it.

 

[Maupet]

Apart from directly mentioning it.

But that was in the Boddy statement in reply to the wasps statement

 

[Nick]

But that was in the Boddy statement in reply to the wasps statement

It was in articles last year as well

 

[tisza]

Because being in Coventry benefits Coventry City.

I suspect Wasps won't agree to waive the NDA anyway but, if they do, documents can be independently checked to verify them. Aside from the forensic side there are 3rd parties who have been involved in discussions who will be able to confirm validity.

what 3rd parties?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

But that was in the Boddy statement in reply to the wasps statement

It was mentioned in the original statement, but carefully worded saying 'last year'. His later response all but confirms that was what he was alluding to in that first statement.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

the best thing the Trust can do now is push for more transparency from both sides and make it clear how what the support have been through and are going through is unacceptable.

That’s what we thought

 

[Liquid Gold]

@mark82 @Sky Blue Pete

Any kind of response form the others yet?

 

[mark82]

@mark82 @Sky Blue Pete

Any kind of response form the others yet?

All quite on the Wasps front. There is someone else pushing them for a response too aside from us.

 

[BigadamL]

the best thing the Trust can do now is push for more transparency from both sides and make it clear how what the support have been through and are going through is unacceptable.

Best thing the trust could do is close up shop and stop thinking they represent fans when they only have themselves in mind

 

[mr_monkey]

All quite on the Wasps front. There is someone else pushing them for a response too aside from us.

The BBC have asked them as well

 

[Frostie]

the best thing the Trust can do now is push for more transparency from both sides and make it clear how what the support have been through and are going through is unacceptable.

Yes, you'd have thought they may have commented again since Boddy's statement to demand transparency as our guys have done.

Interesting that Linnell chose to Retweet the original announcement & then Wasps response but totally ignored Boddy's statement...

 

[mark82]

The BBC have asked them as well

Got a link?

 

[mr_monkey]

Got a link?

Coventry City deny Wasps claims they withdrew from Ricoh Arena negotiations

Coventry City reject Wasps' claims they withdrew from negotiations to play home games at the Ricoh Arena next season.

www.bbc.co.uk

Wasps have been contacted by BBC Sport for a response.

 

[shepardo01]

All quite on the Wasps front. There is someone else pushing them for a response too aside from us.

Any of the following?....
- Sport England?
- Financial Conduct Authority?
- BBC?
- EFL?
- also CCFC!!

 

[sw88]

Legal recourse: injunctions to stop you releasing more info, sued for any damages incurred.

Only be damages if what is said points at wrongdoing. Which I suspect will be the case! But surely worth the risk I say if it settles this shambles once’s and for all

 

[mark82]

Joy Seppala calls for NDA to be waived over stadium talks

EXCLUSIVE: In an email sent by the club's owner to CoventryLive, Joy Seppala says she is happy to waive the non-disclosure agreement over Ricoh Arena talks.

www.coventrytelegraph.net

 

[Frostie]

Joy Seppala calls for NDA to be waived over stadium talks

EXCLUSIVE: In an email sent by the club's owner to CoventryLive, Joy Seppala says she is happy to waive the non-disclosure agreement over Ricoh Arena talks.

www.coventrytelegraph.net

With just that @Tom Leach has done more journalism than anyone covering City for the Telegraph since Les Reid.

Fair play Tom, keep the pressure up!

 

[Ring Of Steel]

Knowing the truth, while it’d be ‘interesting’, isn’t going to get us back in Coventry is it?

And that’s ALL that anyone wants.

Muddying through brinkmanship and bollox will do absolutely zero to help that.

yes- I would say though that if the truth came out, assuming it’s as per Boddy’s version, then it would sway a lot of people who only know what they’re told in the CET, therefore a whole lot more pressure could be heaped upon Wasps/ council etc. At the moment its a minority view that Wasps/ CCC are playing games to keep us out of Cov, if that became a majority view then it’s a different proposition- and finally getting the facts on the table would be a good way of getting a lot more people to see the reality.

 

[ccfcchris]

TBH ..I don’t give a flyingfuck about the NDA anymore. It’s moot and so is the Ricoh. It’s history, has been for years.

The onus is on SISU now, more than ever.

Our energy needs to be directed firmly at them to follow through on tangible steps towards the new stadium.

It’s the only way forward.

So very true. We have to look to the future now.