CCC may even have offered a long lease? We have no knowledge in either direction. But what we do know is that Sepalla had the stance she did - it's on record, and CCC had a stance.
You can't say CCC may have offered the lease, with absolutely zero evidence and then assert with total authority that Sepalla wouldn't be interested in a lease. How do you know if what was being said in private was the same as was being said in public? And of course SISU did state they wanted a 125 year, that was apparently an outrageous demand and SISU making demands they knew would be rejected if I remember the response correctly.
If after this impasse, and SISU's continued insistence they were moving on, Wasps come along and offer the 250-year lease - which gives the council the 'out' it needs; then CCC are not best served by breaking a confidentiality agreement by hawking those terms back to SISU
Maybe Wasps - understandably - didn't want to be the make-weight in a deal between SISU and CCC; to invest all that time and money in Due Diligence merely for CCC to offer a SISU a 'better Wasps offer and it's yours deal'. As a businessman, I'd have sought the same.
You're confusing confidentiality with exclusivity. I have seen nothing to suggest Wasps had exercised exclusivity, something for which a payment would normally be made. So unless you are saying there was exclusivity it was absolutely within the power of CCC to suggest to the club they may want to make an offer for an extended lease. Perfectly acceptable behaviour and not a breach of any confidentiality agreement unless they tell SISU exact deals of the deal with Wasps.
And again, what if CCC had turned down Wasps overtures and they'd have gone elsewhere and stated publicly that CCC turned them down? The 95%+ of the city's population who don't go regularly to football games would be up in arms; if SISU's CEO had done what had been claimed and built fresh, leaving The Ricoh as a disused piece of grass - and a potential tenant spurned
I don't for a second believe Wasps would walk away if the council had said they would not agree to any confidentiality clause. The clause serves the interests of CCC much more than Wasps.
But we are all talking about this as if it was a normal business transaction, it involved local politicians, it had got very personal, both sides had been to court.
True but that's how the big bad world of business works. People are at each others throats one minute and working together the next. People move past things and get on with doing the job that needs doing. And of course you could expect that a local council should hold the fortunes of the likes of CCFC and CRFC closer to their heart than a team from London and would do their best to ensure a bright future for teams that have been here for over 100 years.
Because after that stupid statement, Fisher continued his 'we're still building a new stadium' crap. Which maybe was the last straw for CCC, who decided no bridges were being built
So you're saying when CCC were saying us coming back was a first step in rebuilding the relationship and the first step towards the club owning the stadium that was the truth? You really think it was only when Fisher said we were still building a new ground that they thought we'd better look for someone else to sell to? How incredibly lucky that Wasps happened to turn up at just the right time. Very impressive that they went from first contact to completing the deal in a matter of days :facepalm:
Yes. Being given something for nothing is always the rough end of the deal.
Who got something for nothing? At the point at which CCC decided they were having 100% of the freehold and 50% of ACL for themselves the amount of their own money they had put in wasn't too dissimilar to the amount the club had put in. And thats before you even consider things such as the club agreeing the Tesco deal. It was a smash and grab from CCC. Look at the actions of other councils and compare to ours, they have not saved the club by any stretch of the imagination.
