Request to waive NDA - email to Wasps, CCFC & Sisu (4 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Ring Of Steel

Ring Of Steel

Well-Known Member
ccfcchris said:
So very true. We have to look to the future now.
Click to expand...

It is true, however if the future also involves making sure our fans know exactly what’s been happening to ensure that the divisions are at least partly fixed, then getting the truth now is important.

if it’s proved beyond doubt that Wasps/ CCC have been acting to deliberately try to force us out of business and/or stopping us play in the City, then that makes it a whole lot easier to tear down all the the constant pro-Wasps PR.
 
jordan210

jordan210

Well-Known Member
It’s a shame Cov live are trying to say in an email to them. When it’s Mark and Pete who have done the hard work
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Ring Of Steel said:
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.
Click to expand...
All I would say, at the beginning of this charade, the likes of Labovitch shared correspondence and the like which painted ACL/CCC in a bad light. It was of course only a partial thing, and spun in a certain way. When it came to a judicial review, although there were certain elements that still didn't look great for ACL/CCC, the review certainly didn't share the SISU perspective on it all.

I'm deeply uncomfortable on the he said / she said starting up again. That's what they all did all the way through this. As US said it ends up doing nothing really, other than providing perspectives for everybody to argue over.
 
T

theferret

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
All I would say, at the beginning of this charade, the likes of Labovitch shared correspondence and the like which painted ACL/CCC in a bad light. It was of course only a partial thing, and spun in a certain way. When it came to a judicial review, although there were certain elements that still didn't look great for ACL/CCC, the review certainly didn't share the SISU perspective on it all.

I'm deeply uncomfortable on the he said / she said starting up again. That's what they all did all the way through this. As US said it ends up doing nothing really, other than providing perspectives for everybody to argue over.
Click to expand...

I see the point you are making. When SISU released a number of documents a year or two ago, despite being quite damning, Wasps and the council came through it largely unscathed and were able to bat it away with a shitload of whataboutery.

This is different though. Here we have two very contradictory, very recent statements on an issue which is very raw. There are no complexities to hide behind here. All the club have to do is demonstrate that Wasps were lying about the indemnity, and it becomes a game changer.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
theferret said:
I see the point you are making. When SISU released a number of documents a year or two ago, despite being quite damning, Wasps and the council came through it largely unscathed and were able to bat it away with a shitload of whataboutery.

This is different though. He we have two very contradictory, very recent statements on an issue which is very raw. There are no complexities to hide behind here. All the club have to do here is demonstrate that Wasps were lying about the indemnity, and it becomes a game changer.
Click to expand...
OK, I'll give you one scenario.

Somebody pops in an email that really, wouldn't it be great if all court cases and the like went away and you know, Wasps really wouldn't want to cover anything, the risk is detrimental as it stands, what are SISU going to do about it? That, therefore, reads as 'indemnity'.

But further down the line, when it comes to a deal, that isn't mentioned... up to the point they reach before negotiations break down. Both SISU and Wasps are right, we all argue to death over which right is right. Meanwhile, stadium and Ricoh stagnate.

So, you muddy it with an endless arguing which means no targeted actions, nothing that forces the club and Wasps to do a deal, the status quo continues.

I won't even go into the fact that it seems a very odd way to do business to sign an NDA and then want it released too, doesn't it. Negotiating in bad faith, that and follows a SISU tradition of moving the goalposts, exactly the thing they criticise Wasps for doing. I'm really, really not sure you get anything but perspectives, and perspectives, and perspectives. Now often I'd be more than happy for all this to come out anyway as information is no bad thing but what, just what, if the point is to distract us from the fact that no deal is the SISU preferred option anyway? What if SISU manipulate the conditions to a no deal? What if then after manipulating them they can pluck an argument out to get both no deal, and no fault? Now, that would be admirable work on their part, and far more slick than they've managed before...

But doesn't help us.

Trust none of them, trust nobody. Let them fight it out among themselves but they need to stop this manipulation of fans - it's just what Hoffman was trying to do all through this. If they've really moved on from the Ricoh they don't need this he said / she said, they need to show tangible progress and movement on their stated plan A, instead of continuing to be obsessed over something they claim they have no interest in. Now, that progress would be enough for many / most to put up with Birmingham - let Wasps wither away and die, don't give them the attention, don't create a shitstorm to distract from the important thing of actually moving forward with plan A, and focussing on that and all it entails.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
Deleted member 5849 said:
OK, I'll give you one scenario.

Somebody pops in an email that really, wouldn't it be great if all court cases and the like went away and you know, Wasps really wouldn't want to cover anything, the risk is detrimental as it stands, what are SISU going to do about it? That, therefore, reads as 'indemnity'.

But further down the line, when it comes to a deal, that isn't mentioned... up to the point they reach before negotiations break down. Both SISU and Wasps are right, we all argue to death over which right is right. Meanwhile, stadium and Ricoh stagnate.

So, you muddy it with an endless arguing which means no targeted actions, nothing that forces the club and Wasps to do a deal, the status quo continues.

I won't even go into the fact that it seems a very odd way to do business to sign an NDA and then want it released too, doesn't it. Negotiating in bad faith, that and follows a SISU tradition of moving the goalposts, exactly the thing they criticise Wasps for doing. I'm really, really not sure you get anything but perspectives, and perspectives, and perspectives. Now often I'd be more than happy for all this to come out anyway as information is no bad thing but what, just what, if the point is to distract us from the fact that no deal is the SISU preferred option anyway? What if SISU manipulate the conditions to a no deal? What if then after manipulating them they can pluck an argument out to get both no deal, and no fault? Now, that would be admirable work on their part, and far more slick than they've managed before...

But doesn't help us.

Trust none of them, trust nobody. Let them fight it out among themselves but they need to stop this manipulation of fans - it's just what Hoffman was trying to do all through this. If they've really moved on from the Ricoh they don't need this he said / she said, they need to show tangible progress and movement on their stated plan A, instead of continuing to be obsessed over something they claim they have no interest in. Now, that progress would be enough for many / most to put up with Birmingham - let Wasps wither away and die, don't give them the attention, don't create a shitstorm to distract from the important thing of actually moving forward with plan A, and focussing on that and all it entails.
Click to expand...

Because seeing the conditions would surely get an idea of how it's been manipulated either way?
 
Ring Of Steel

Ring Of Steel

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
All I would say, at the beginning of this charade, the likes of Labovitch shared correspondence and the like which painted ACL/CCC in a bad light. It was of course only a partial thing, and spun in a certain way. When it came to a judicial review, although there were certain elements that still didn't look great for ACL/CCC, the review certainly didn't share the SISU perspective on it all.

I'm deeply uncomfortable on the he said / she said starting up again. That's what they all did all the way through this. As US said it ends up doing nothing really, other than providing perspectives for everybody to argue over.
Click to expand...

No perspective in it for me, I don’t want that either as it never ends & I don’t have a very good opinion of SISU, but I do want hard facts on what communication took place because that gives a lot of answers about the “here and now”, because I do also agree digging up the past is pointless now.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Ring Of Steel said:
No perspective in it for me, I don’t want that either as it never ends & I don’t have a very good opinion of SISU, but I do want hard facts on what communication took place because that gives a lot of answers about the “here and now”, because I do also agree digging up the past is pointless now.
Click to expand...
Do you want an endless release of emails like before? Mr. Labovitch in particular was quite good in releasing documentation to support one side.
 
T

theferret

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
I won't even go into the fact that it seems a very odd way to do business to sign an NDA and then want it released too, doesn't it.
Click to expand...

Not really, no. Ordinarily perhaps, but if it really in the case that Wasps have used the NDA as cover to blatantly lie about a clause central to why no deal was agreed and why we're playing in Birmingham again, simply to save face, then I can fully understand why they are spitting and why so many of us are keen to see the documents released.

You can come up with all sorts of hypothetical scenarios and make them as foggy and open to interpretation as you like, but they may not bear any resemblance to the truth. It could quite possibly be far more clear cut than that. Why wouldn't you want to know if that is the case?

It should also be noted that the club have not called directly for it to be lifted, they have simply acknowledged and responded to the requests of supporters and suggested they would agree to it and only then if all sides agree. It suggests they are keen, but they're not exactly foaming at the mouth making threats to release it in some dramatic wikileaks expose.
 
mr_monkey

mr_monkey

Well-Known Member
theferret said:
Not really, no. Ordinarily perhaps, but if it really in the case that Wasps have used the NDA as cover to blatantly lie about a clause central to why no deal was agreed and why we're playing in Birmingham again, simply to save face, then I can fully understand why they are spitting and why so many of us are keen to see the documents released.

You can come up with all sorts of hypothetical scenarios and make them as foggy and open to interpretation as you like, but they may not bear any resemblance to the truth. It could quite possibly be far more clear cut than that. Why wouldn't you want to know if that is the case?

It should also be noted that the club have not called directly for it to be lifted, they have simply acknowledged and responded to the requests of supporters and suggested they would agree to it and only then if all sides agree. It suggests they are keen, but they're not exactly foaming at the mouth making threats to release it in some dramatic wikileaks expose.
Click to expand...

Why would they? Let wasps make the next move. If they say fine make everything public then we get to know the truth, if they say no way then it looks like they have something to hide, either way wasps end up looking bad so it's win win for sisu
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
theferret said:
It should also be noted that the club have not called directly for it to be lifted, they have simply acknowledged and responded to the requests of supporters and suggested they would agree to it and only then if all sides agree. It suggests they are keen, but they're not exactly foaming at the mouth making threats to release it in some dramatic wikileaks expose.
Click to expand...
Doesn't that fit with the usual narrative of them not actually being up front, then? If they want b it lifted, say so directly! It doesn't exactly suggest they're anti fog, does it.
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
OK, I'll give you one scenario.

Somebody pops in an email that really, wouldn't it be great if all court cases and the like went away and you know, Wasps really wouldn't want to cover anything, the risk is detrimental as it stands, what are SISU going to do about it? That, therefore, reads as 'indemnity'.

But further down the line, when it comes to a deal, that isn't mentioned... up to the point they reach before negotiations break down. Both SISU and Wasps are right, we all argue to death over which right is right. Meanwhile, stadium and Ricoh stagnate.

So, you muddy it with an endless arguing which means no targeted actions, nothing that forces the club and Wasps to do a deal, the status quo continues.

I won't even go into the fact that it seems a very odd way to do business to sign an NDA and then want it released too, doesn't it. Negotiating in bad faith, that and follows a SISU tradition of moving the goalposts, exactly the thing they criticise Wasps for doing. I'm really, really not sure you get anything but perspectives, and perspectives, and perspectives. Now often I'd be more than happy for all this to come out anyway as information is no bad thing but what, just what, if the point is to distract us from the fact that no deal is the SISU preferred option anyway? What if SISU manipulate the conditions to a no deal? What if then after manipulating them they can pluck an argument out to get both no deal, and no fault? Now, that would be admirable work on their part, and far more slick than they've managed before...

But doesn't help us.

Trust none of them, trust nobody. Let them fight it out among themselves but they need to stop this manipulation of fans - it's just what Hoffman was trying to do all through this. If they've really moved on from the Ricoh they don't need this he said / she said, they need to show tangible progress and movement on their stated plan A, instead of continuing to be obsessed over something they claim they have no interest in. Now, that progress would be enough for many / most to put up with Birmingham - let Wasps wither away and die, don't give them the attention, don't create a shitstorm to distract from the important thing of actually moving forward with plan A, and focussing on that and all it entails.
Click to expand...
I think it’s important to show the fan base that they did all they could. That’s my play here. But then we move on and get on with the important tasks of staying in championship and progress on our own stadium
 
T

theferret

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
Doesn't that fit with the usual narrative of them not actually being up front, then? If they want b it lifted, say so directly! It doesn't exactly suggest they're anti fog, does it.
Click to expand...

Eh? I'm simply saying that they have been asked a direct question and have given a direct answer, that being they would agree to lift it if others did. It takes some incredible mental gymnastics to somehow spin this into some sort of 'typical SISU' take. What should she have said in response to the question? Would you have preferred no, or perhaps no reply.

I've no idea what you want here. I think what you're saying is, that even if the club have evidence that categorically proves Wasps are lying and negotiated in bad faith, even if it was beyond question, you'd still rather not see it. Well I would, so we'll just disagree
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Top