Request to waive NDA - email to Wasps, CCFC & Sisu (5 Viewers)

[Frostie]

The remedy is set by the member state not the EU so it’s up to the UK govt to implement the recommendations. While the council can’t ignore central gov (They control their funding after all), central gov can ignore the EU. Especially if lead by a Brexiter after a no deal exit.



So building on NWs point, my theory allows for all that to be true. CCC say to Wasps “hey, if Sisu sue us/insert legal thing here, that might stop you being at the Ricoh”. Wasps then enter negotiations with this knowledge and ask for the indemnity to include that scenario.

CCC aren’t in negotiations, haven’t signed an NDA, and haven’t asked Wasps to do anything. No lies told. Outcome is the same though.

This is my theory as well.

So morally CCFC are correct & Wasps & CCC are deliberately misleading but have worded their statements to also be true...

 

---

[letsallsingtogether]

Who gives a fuck build the new ground and move on.
Gone on long enough now all fucking liars hate them all.

 

[Grendel]

Who gives a fuck build the new ground and move on.
Gone on long enough now all fucking liars hate them all.

There is zero chance of a new ground being built. This whole scenario has reached a new level of farce

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

The best double speak is the allegation that Ms Seppalla is only happy to waive the ndas because she knows no one else will agree!!!!!

Double speak is the perfect expression.

SISU are bad for calling for the NDA to be dropped, yet we will not drop it because there’s other parties involved...

SISU’s track record is cause for scepticism, yet they seem to be the only party here who is willing to back up their bullshit.

 

[oldfiver]

But the entire point of the remedy is to return the market to its pre intervention state. The scenario you describe would leave it as it is, so not remedied.

I’ll admit it’s not my most solid argument. That’s the fact that both parties have said it’s not about the state aid case. I’m just saying logically I can’t see how it were possible even if anyone was saying it (which they’re not, it’s entirely an invention of fans).

My understanding is less complicated- I thought the purchaser had to make good any shortfall between approved value and the amount paid.

However I have nothing to support this.

 

[Grendel]

Double speak is the perfect expression.

SISU are bad for calling for the NDA to be dropped, yet we will not drop it because there’s other parties involved...

SISU’s track record is cause for scepticism, yet they seem to be the only party here who is willing to back up their bullshit.

I accept its a shocking analogy but when the uk government revoked Jahadi Jack of his citizenship they knew they’d pulled a fast one and left Canada with the problem

Seppala knows full well no one would actually allow disclosure to that level so by going first the other party is backed into a corner and she knows full well if the shoe was on the other foot she’d not play ball

 

[duffer]

The remedy is set by the member state not the EU so it’s up to the UK govt to implement the recommendations. While the council can’t ignore central gov (They control their funding after all), central gov can ignore the EU. Especially if lead by a Brexiter after a no deal exit.



So building on NWs point, my theory allows for all that to be true. CCC say to Wasps “hey, if Sisu sue us/insert legal thing here, that might stop you being at the Ricoh”. Wasps then enter negotiations with this knowledge and ask for the indemnity to include that scenario.

CCC aren’t in negotiations, haven’t signed an NDA, and haven’t asked Wasps to do anything. No lies told. Outcome is the same though.

This is pretty close to how I see it, but to me that reads very much as an 'indemnity' requested by Wasps to prevent SISU taking further action against the Council in the event that the EU complaint is found to be valid.

That action could be along the lines of a judicial review (yippee!) to compel the government/council to uphold the remedy requested by the EU. Or the action could more simply be SISU suing the council for losses based on the improper conduct of the sale to Wasps (as proven by the acceptance of the complaint by the EU).

Either way, to me at least, that's not an acceptable clause for Wasps to put in the contract.

I still remain of the opinion that the only way to really know the truth is for the NDA to be dropped by all parties. If the third-party isn't the Council (or an arms-length version of the council under the guise of a separate company) then the parts of the contract that are commercially sensitive to that party could be redacted.

The key to knowing the truth about this though, is for us to see this indemnity or lack thereof. Wasps flat refusal to even contemplate removing the NDA speaks volumes, imho.

 

[shmmeee]

My understanding is less complicated- I thought the purchaser had to make good any shortfall between approved value and the amount paid.

However I have nothing to support this.

From what I can tell it’s up to the EU/EC/ECJ (I never know which does what) to make recommendations and that can include all kinds of things.

Ah you know what? I’ve just found the thing I was reading and maybe I misread. For curative remedies recovery is the most likely, see:

https://www.coleurope.eu/system/tdf/uploads/event/gclc_-_j._derenne_-_31.01.2019.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=47689&force=

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I accept its a shocking analogy but when the uk government revoked Jahadi Jack of his citizenship they knew they’d pulled a fast one and left Canada with the problem

Seppala knows full well no one would actually allow disclosure to that level so by going first the other party is backed into a corner and she knows full well if the shoe was on the other foot she’d not play ball

Why would people sign up to it in the first place if it didn't have worth, after all.

 

[shmmeee]

This is pretty close to how I see it, but to me that reads very much as an 'indemnity' requested by Wasps to prevent SISU taking further action against the Council in the event that the EU complaint is found to be valid.

That action could be along the lines of a judicial review (yippee!) to compel the government/council to uphold the remedy requested by the EU. Or the action could more simply be SISU suing the council for losses based on the improper conduct of the sale to Wasps (as proven by the acceptance of the complaint by the EU).

Either way, to me at least, that's not an acceptable clause for Wasps to put in the contract.

I still remain of the opinion that the only way to really know the truth is for the NDA to be dropped by all parties. If the third-party isn't the Council (or an arms-length version of the council under the guise of a separate company) then the parts of the contract that are commercially sensitive to that party could be redacted.

The key to knowing the truth about this though, is for us to see this indemnity or lack thereof. Wasps flat refusal to even contemplate removing the NDA speaks volumes, imho.

Yep agree with all of that. Differ on opinion of whether it’s worth pursuing for CCFC, but that’s a personal call. Everyone will have their own take.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I accept its a shocking analogy but when the uk government revoked Jahadi Jack of his citizenship they knew they’d pulled a fast one and left Canada with the problem

Seppala knows full well no one would actually allow disclosure to that level so by going first the other party is backed into a corner and she knows full well if the shoe was on the other foot she’d not play ball

You’ve got a point.

This wouldn’t stop Wasps also turning around and saying ‘we’ll drop the the NDA too if all parties agree’.

Then you’re in a position where each third party has to agree. Since it’s not clear how many third parties there actually are, like Sepalla, Wasps could also be ‘pulling a fast one’ too.

In short, we’re in a proper shitty position. As much as I want this new stadium to be a reality, I’m doubtful until bricks are being laid.

 

[shmmeee]

This is my theory as well.

So morally CCFC are correct & Wasps & CCC are deliberately misleading but have worded their statements to also be true...
View attachment 16142

I think everyone is being very careful with words here. Let’s see this indemnity, that’s what really matters here for us to judge if it’s reasonable or not. Frankly the rest can go hang IMO (I mean it won’t, argument will just shift back to whether it’s reasonable to ask CCFC to stop Pershing the Ricoh/indemnify losses from state aid, but still).

 

[skybluetony176]

There is zero chance of a new ground being built. This whole scenario has reached a new level of farce

Fucking hell. The worm has turned.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Why would people sign up to it in the first place if it didn't have worth, after all.

Whether this true or not, the first of our statements made the claim that the NDA was signed ‘at the insistence of Wasps’. Presumably, as a precondition of entering negotiations.

Maybe I’ve misread, but I can’t recall Wasps challenging that specific claim.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Whether this true or not, the first of our statements made the claim that the NDA was signed ‘at the insistence of Wasps’. Presumably, as a precondition of entering negotiations.

Maybe I’ve misread, but I can’t recall Wasps challenging that specific claim.

As far as I was aware, such things were pretty standard.

 

[Kingokings204]

There is zero chance of a new ground being built. This whole scenario has reached a new level of farce

my views entirely.

I don’t really see a way out now. Before when we were at Northampton, wasps weren't here and crowds were 1-2k. It forced the issue now we have landlords who now hate us and no need to have us back any time soon.

just depressing.

 

[oldfiver]

I think this case is to correct an error in an ongoing situation where the Company is getting continuing benefits in the market from the error

In the Ricoh case it is a one off identifiable and the remedy could be simply to correct the undervalue plus interest?

 

[oldfiver]

Yep agree with all of that. Differ on opinion of whether it’s worth pursuing for CCFC, but that’s a personal call. Everyone will have their own take.

I am not sure SISU can use the complaint process to claim damages from WASPS. Surely the restitution is from WASPS to CCC

What damages could SISU claim if the full price has been paid?

 

[BornSlippySkyBlue]

I'm also guessing as it's been mentioned before that the clause about taking legal action, means any legal action full stop. This then puts the club at risk of being wrongly treated in the future without being able to contest it. For example putting rent up, kicking them out, adding new costs, etc.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

My belief is that it is this that is the “threat to the future of the club”. They are being asked to waiver any future right to legal action — full stop. I have no idea if that is even legally possible? I mean, you can’t stop the CPS from prosecuting you for murder just because of a legal contract, but as seems to be the phrase at present IANAL.

If the indemnity (whatever that’s is) is about potential costs, and the deal breaker was the potential future threat of all legal action being stopped, that could explain the disconnect in statements and how they re both (kind of) telling their version of the truth.

If that is the case, there’s no way on this planet we can sign up to having zero legal recourse should wasps choose to break the terms of a contract, for example.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Boddy didn't say there was an actual indemnity request, he said "the principle and concept of an indemnity", if it was an indemnity it would have been easier just to say it, so maybe Wasps wanted all the rent money up front, maybe a large bond, this could then possibly "put the Football Club at substantial risk and jeopardise its very future".

 

[shmmeee]

I am not sure SISU can use the complaint process to claim damages from WASPS. Surely the restitution is from WASPS to CCC

What damages could SISU claim if the full price has been paid?

Honestly? Don’t know. That seems to be the assumption, but AFAIK no one on here is any kind of legal expert. We could really do with one.

What’s your working theory? That Wasps are lying about setting the state aid case aside and don’t need to request a halt to future legal action? CCFCs statement talks about “future damages”, which implies they think there’s something there.

I do wish we weren’t reduced to trying to read between the lines of vague statements, makes all this so much harder. What’s intentional careful language and what’s clumsy misspeaking? Who knows?

I think on all sides Sisus carefully cultivated image of “battering people in court” has probably worked against them as the general feeling seems to be “they’ll find some legal avenue”. Wasps say as much in their statement.

 

[Nick]

Which then begs the question.

If signing an agreement for no more action against Wasps was enough to start discussions, why was that then not enough and it had to be a third party?

 

[Kingokings204]

One question of anyone can Answer please is

if the same issues exist to last year then why have months of decent negotiations been had for? Surely it’s the first thing you ask to save yourself the bother

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

One question of anyone can Answer please is

if the same issues exist to last year then why have months of decent negotiations been had for? Surely it’s the first thing you ask to save yourself the bother

Context - only a few people know the truth and I have only been told what they want to tell me

All parties want coventry city fc to play in coventry. The only ground available is the Ricoh

Or do they?

Tim Fisher said it was complicated and not just how much rent per year or each match. I get that

Dave and Joy told Mark and I that this was a bug priority so I can believe they were genuine

Wasps have not spoken to us - they don’t need relationships with ccfc fans like Ccfc and Sisu do but it’s not good that they have been dismissive of us, not said they’d waive the nda and tried to make our genuine attempts as fans to move things forward into some political football (pun intended)

Ccc have always been quick to reply, agreeable to meetings and consistent in their offer to do the bare minimum. They are democratically elected and accountable to the population of coventry. We don’t use this enough.

They should be independent arbiters but are too involved so this is difficult. They may even be actively against ccfc playing at the Ricoh only time will tell.

My analogy is Israel and Palestine. If you’ve seen the west wing episodes on it. You talk about the things that can be progressed and agreed to build trust and respect. You can then tackle the most important issue. Ongoing Eu complaint and financial consequences to this. Shmmee has said on numerous occasions that we may not understand

I personally think that dB statement is very telling. It makes me question whether wasps / ccc do genuinely want Ccfc at the Ricoh ever. I’m pretty happy others would say do ccfc / Sisu genuinely want to play at Ricoh?

The other thing shmmee and others have said and I’m happy it could be a key question is as agreements were pretty close to agreement (Wasps and ccfc and Sisu have said this) why the artificial deadline to the efl? We could ask efl - any of us why the pressure? We don’t even know the final make up of the championship next season why the rush?

Could probably have just put the Israel Palestine analogy and left it there. You sort what you can, build respect and trust, and then deal with the More tricky parts.

 

[Nick]

The thing that gets missed every time, no media want to challenge is that Wasps were involved with Hoffman and his takeover plans.

Surely that plays a fairly big part and says a fair bit about intentions?

 

[djr8369]

One thing we need to drop as fans looking on is the conflicting idea that wasps are skint and need us at the Ricoh yet are hampering our ability to do so. People seem to concoct their theories believing both. Pick one or accept the issue is less black and white and the two sides are just falling out over complex negotiations.

 

[oldfiver]

The thing that gets missed every time, no media want to challenge is that Wasps were involved with Hoffman and his takeover plans.

Surely that plays a fairly big part and says a fair bit about intentions?

And the Trust !

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

The thing that gets missed every time, no media want to challenge is that Wasps were involved with Hoffman and his takeover plans.

Surely that plays a fairly big part and says a fair bit about intentions?

I suppose it’s in the past and not relevant to current discussions or helps to move things forward.

When mark and I met with Dave and joy it was clear there were some issues that were personal and it would take significant shifts in the situation to move on from them.

Doesn’t stop me thinking what daft apes not being able to make an agreement that would be financially beneficial for both parties.

I suppose this next season we may play all games behind closed doors and so for Ccfc not paying lots of money is the most important whereas any normal season we could be nudging 20000 average when we compete in the championship. I suppose if the announcement saying St. Andrews had said we’ve decided to play at St. Andrews as the up front costs are much cheaper than the deal on offer from wasps at the Ricoh and we don’t think fans will be in many matches so we’ve decided to continue discussions and look to take advantage of playing in coventry when fans are allowed back in large numbers.

This would have allowed ongoing conversations but if wasps never intended to agree anything then why keep talking. That’s me assuming not fact

 

[oldfiver]

One thing we need to drop as fans looking on is the conflicting idea that wasps are skint and need us at the Ricoh yet are hampering our ability to do so. People seem to concoct their theories believing both. Pick one or accept the issue is less black and white and the two sides are just falling out over complex negotiations.

Perhaps both are true

They are certainly not flush with cash and laden with real 3rd Party Debt

Perhaps other parties connected to WASPS are affecting the discussions - for whatever reasons?

 

[Nick]

I suppose it’s in the past and not relevant to current discussions or helps to move things forward.

When mark and I met with Dave and joy it was clear there were some issues that were personal and it would take significant shifts in the situation to move on from them.

Doesn’t stop me thinking what daft apes not being able to make an agreement that would be financially beneficial for both parties.

I suppose this next season we may play all games behind closed doors and so for Ccfc not paying lots of money is the most important whereas any normal season we could be nudging 20000 average when we compete in the championship. I suppose if the announcement saying St. Andrews had said we’ve decided to play at St. Andrews as the up front costs are much cheaper than the deal on offer from wasps at the Ricoh and we don’t think fans will be in many matches so we’ve decided to continue discussions and look to take advantage of playing in coventry when fans are allowed back in large numbers.

Is it in the past though?

It is very relevant that Wasps were involved in a Consortium trying to take over the club. Previously, why did Hoffman always popup when discussions of rent were stalling or having issues? It was like clockwork.

When you have the local media shitting themselves to go near it, it also adds that there might just be something about it.

I wouldn't overlook that, just rewind to the Haskell situation.

 

[djr8369]

The thing that gets missed every time, no media want to challenge is that Wasps were involved with Hoffman and his takeover plans.

Surely that plays a fairly big part and says a fair bit about intentions?

It does and probably means we’re stuck in a game of chicken to see which club gets distressed enough they need the other. In the mean time we both get dragged down.

 

[djr8369]

Perhaps both are true

They are certainly not flush with cash and laden with real 3rd Party Debt

Perhaps other parties connected to WASPS are affecting the discussions - for whatever reasons?

If both are true then as I say it’s not as black and white as people sometimes make out and calls Boddys statement about wasps running down the clock into question. It would suggest, as I say in a reply to Nick above, a game of chicken with both sides trying to make the other blink to get more favourable terms. If that’s the case this could go on for years again yet.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Is it in the past though?

It is very relevant that Wasps were involved in a Consortium trying to take over the club. Previously, why did Hoffman always popup when discussions of rent were stalling or having issues? It was like clockwork.

When you have the local media shitting themselves to go near it, it also adds that there might just be something about it.

I wouldn't overlook that, just rewind to the Haskell situation.

I’m not saying I think it’s in the past or not relevant just suggesting why others might.

In the church we have a phrase about change that goes something like this

Honouring the past
Navigate change in the present
Building for the future

It’s where we are!

The parties need reconciliation to move forward but are too entrenched

My wife works in reconciliation and movement and change is possible when not only discussion takes place but listening and ultimately when your enemy can understand your story well enough to explain it. Not necessarily agree but can tell your story.

Business is different of course

 

[Nick]

I’m not saying I think it’s in the past or not relevant just suggesting why others might.

In the church we have a phrase about change that goes something like this

Honouring the past
Navigate change in the present
Building for the future

It’s where we are!

The parties need reconciliation to move forward but are too entrenched

My wife works in reconciliation and movement and change is possible when not only discussion takes place but listening and ultimately when your enemy can understand your story well enough to explain it. Not necessarily agree but can tell your story.

Business is different of course

I get that but if Wasps still have Hoffman in mind when negotiating things like this then it will impact it.

It was exactly the same during previous discussions when it was easy to predict Hoffman popping up every now and then.

"CCFC struggling to get a deal at the Ricoh, may need to move"
"Don't worry, Hoffman and Co have a lovely deal agreed"
Local Media: "SELL THE CLUB"
Fans: "THERES ONLY ONE, GARY HOFFMAN"

City fans mostly seem obsessed about ACL being distressed but not as many seem to have been concerned when it's their football club.

I think it is very important to quiz them if they still have other involvement. The fact the investigation last time was:

"Are wasps involved Gary".
"No Comment".
"OK Cheers lets leave it as that"

Tells you a lot.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I get that but if Wasps still have Hoffman in mind when negotiating things like this then it will impact it.

tbh the inevitability of all this (and it has been since ACL days) is that getting a deal that suits both interests, without one party taking advantage to an inordinate degree, is easier said than done.

It's why (philosophically!) can't help but agree we need a new ground.