So just to get this straight.
The council want to be indemnified by the football clubs owners from any consequential outcome relating to the EU complaint, still to be decided?
That was the eleventh hour stumbling block? But was that not always there?
Didn't WASP drop their request for the same indemnity, so talks on a Ricoh return could take place?
So what we are talking about here is the council is still concerned that the EU complaint could go against them, and legal proceedings could follow quickly by SISU resulting in possible astronomical fines, and a re-examination of the deal granted WASP?
I would assume that puts WASP tenure in jeopardy. But if SISU indemnified the council (promising no legal actions against them as a result of the EU decision, and paying any fines etc imposed) then WASP would have no reason for their own indemnity.
In summary then the council have effectively made it impossible for the football club to get a return to the Ricoh. To indemnify the council actions for what may well be decided as illegal state aid would be madness, and financial stupidity to agree such an indemnity.
It's can't blame WASP entirely to allow the council to insist on it, as they are looking at the possibility of any EU decision going against the council which will directly effect their tenure, and may be forced to pay back monies or worse have the lease null and void. While happy to have no indemnity themselves, so long as one exist with the council that would fall on SISU to indemnify all outcomes (which would cover all outcomes effecting WASP that the council would be forced to follow through on) makes sense on their part or is it necessarily?
Clearly in my mind WASP were unable to get such an indemnity with the council themselves to protect them...and niether are CCFC/SISU rightly not willing to do so.
But what is stopping WASP from an agreement to bring the football club back in the interim period regardless of the EU outcome? If it goes against the council and WASP tenure is ultimately in question, so what? They could break that lease at any time and kick us out with just several months notice. Becasue SISU will go after the council anyway if the decision is favourable. I really find it objectionable that WASP are not acting in their own interest short term at least, unless the council have some form of arrangement with WASP that effects the lease they have. I can't imagine any legal justification for such an arrangement. This should have been a negotiation to return to the Ricoh between WASP and their ancillary contractors with no bearing on what the council required. Seems like WASP are being played, manipulated.
In these circumstances WASP are the ones being disingenious unless they come out and tell us differently, and are shooting themselves in the foot. I agree SISU turned down the deal for now, but again nothing stopping WASP from having a rethink.
If the EU decision favours the council, then that's the end of that. WASP will look for a long term deal with CCFC for sure. The council will wipe their brow and breath a sigh of relief, and life will go on until we do actually build our own stadium, or find a deal for the Ricoh that is more sustainable long term, perhaps even buying out a failing WASP model.
