Boddy Update (9 Viewers)

clint van damme said:

I agree they're trying to mitigate a potential huge loss but you'd still be concerned if you were a bond holder, especially as the official line has always been that sisus actions are frivolous.

You keep saying the feelings of football supporters won't affect the bonds performance and I agree, but wasps recent actions and the noise around this saga definitely will. In the middle of the pandemic when most companies incomes have taken a hit including theirs they've just turned away what I'd imagine (and I think it's safe to say), a decent income stream.

Click to expand...

There’s so many moving parts though, they don’t get rent but they do get more chance to book conferences and whatever. I honesty don’t know how it all works out. It could be that by the time everything’s accounted for it’s not a massive revenue stream.

It all depends on so much. That’s why I’m basing it off the assumption the Wasps money men A) aren’t idiots and B) have access to better information than us so must have made the decision for financial reasons.

Just as I don’t believe it’s about “justice” for Joy and that she must have a serious financial settlement in mind to justify all this. Generally rich people get and stay rich by worrying about money first and feelings second.

Sky Blue Pete said:

And that’s the unanswerable question

Click to expand...

We’re all just staring at shadows on the wall mate.

djr8369 said:

So the risk of having us as tenants is greater, whether due to the EU action or something else.

Click to expand...

how?
I think it's fairly established that the EU complaint can't be dropped but could take years to play out.
In the here and now they're denying themselves an income stream, one that may be limited while football is BCDs.

clint van damme said:

I agree they're trying to mitigate a potential huge loss but you'd still be concerned if you were a bond holder, especially as the official line has always been that sisus actions are frivolous.

You keep saying the feelings of football supporters won't affect the bonds performance and I agree, but wasps recent actions and the noise around this saga definitely will. In the middle of the pandemic when most companies incomes have taken a hit including theirs they've just turned away what I'd imagine (and I think it's safe to say), a decent income stream.

Click to expand...

Question is how much the actions lose you, anyway. Even if frivolous, you'd lose stadium sponsorship etc because any potential suitor would be worried about the just in case bit, the smoke and fire element. We had similar in the runup to the judicial reviews - that the fact they were allowing the case to be heard meant SISU could be right after all... couldn't they?

They weren't.

tbh, I'd be amazed if the Wasps deal wasn't AOK, as much because by that point, the parties involved knew they were dealing with a litigious opponent. I could see a case where maybe the original ACL deal had flaws, as there wasn't that issue then, but it turned out nope, there weren't. And if SISU did win this complaint, or any further ones, you'd be suing your lawyers in turn, and trying to make them homeless in vengeance for their inept advice!

If the income stream was decent, you'd take it, wouldn't you? Altough I've always thought it's better for Wasps if they can drive us out and not have us there, not much competition for the floating fan in the city then. Now, that's where PR comes in handy. It's interesting at work though, SISU's actions, for better or worse, have alienated some sufficiently that there's no smoking gun you could fire - all the more so as they can (rightfully, in many respects) point out that to a degree it's be careful what you wish for, as SISU started this chain off (we can argue the nuance there, too, of course!).

As you say, the noise around this saga might have an effect around bond price. If you were wanting to continue your strategy of distressing companies so there ends up a vacant stadium, a bit of noise is no bad thing. In which case, where to the Warwick Uni football ground and, aren't we in the same circles we've been in before?

I'd really, really love to break those circles tbh. Now, one way is SISU actually win a case,,, but then we'd have an appeal or two to follow, so not the end of it! The faster option is probably building a new ground(!) But we have to actually start that, of course. Be great if we could break that circle and actually get one moving. Then, we don't have to worry about Wasps shouting drop the legals, we can legal away with little consequence to us as a club, or fanbase! Until we get an alternative, though, there's a *massive* consequence.

clint van damme said:

how?
I think it's fairly established that the EU complaint can't be dropped but could take years to play out.
In the here and now they're denying themselves an income stream, one that may be limited while football is BCDs.

Click to expand...

The theory is that the EU complaint itself isn’t the issue (Wasps said this on their statement last year), but that a successful judgement for Sisu opens up other actions against Wasps.

So while Sisu can’t drop the EU complaint, they can promise not to follow it up with other actions.

shmmeee said:

There’s so many moving parts though, they don’t get rent but they do get more chance to book conferences and whatever. I honesty don’t know how it all works out. It could be that by the time everything’s accounted for it’s not a massive revenue stream.

It all depends on so much. That’s why I’m basing it off the assumption the Wasps money men A) aren’t idiots and B) have access to better information than us so must have made the decision for financial reasons.

Just as I don’t believe it’s about “justice” for Joy and that she must have a serious financial settlement in mind to justify all this. Generally rich people get and stay rich by worrying about money first and feelings second.

Click to expand...

i agree, the money men aren't idiots. But that still doesn't mean that wasps that they aren't in trouble and they're not faced with two poor options.

shmmeee said:

The theory is that the EU complaint itself isn’t the issue (Wasps said this on their statement last year), but that a successful judgement for Sisu opens up other actions against Wasps.

So while Sisu can’t drop the EU complaint, they can promise not to follow it up with other actions.

Click to expand...

Why should they?

If the EU complaint is proven then a business that has been unduly damaged by the unlawful actions of another has every right to compensation etc.

Frostie said:

Why should they?

If the EU complaint is proven then a business that has been unduly damaged by the unlawful actions of another has every right to compensation etc.

Click to expand...

Now we’re having a proper discussion!

For me, a simple CCFC fan who wants to watch his team play Championship football in Coventry the answer is simple: There’s only one game in town for Championship stadia right now and all available evidence and logic suggests the action won’t be successful. And even if it is we’re talking year of appeals and stuff and probably a fudge that enables CCC and Wasps to carry on with some minor damages to Sisu. And that’s not worth risking our first shot in a decade at solidifying us in a decent league.

You may think differently and think “justice must be done and hang the consequences!”, or you may think “On balance I think they have a case and they payoff is worth five years in Brum”, and those are valid viewpoints. Just not ones I hold.

Frostie said:

Why should they?

If the EU complaint is proven then a business that has been unduly damaged by the unlawful actions of another has every right to compensation etc.

Click to expand...

Morally and ethically yes. Doesn’t mean wasps don’t want to prevent that.

shmmeee said:

The theory is that the EU complaint itself isn’t the issue (Wasps said this on their statement last year), but that a successful judgement for Sisu opens up other actions against Wasps.

So while Sisu can’t drop the EU complaint, they can promise not to follow it up with other actions.

Click to expand...

Didn't Sisu sign something to say that was the end of the legals with Wasps?

shmmeee said:

(and obviously IANAL)

Click to expand...

I anal, too

Skyblueweeman said:

Didn't Sisu sign something to say that was the end of the legals with Wasps?

Click to expand...

Yes they did. However clearly Wasps wanted something wider, end of legals around the Ricoh.

Wasps statement last year says this. They call the agreement a “letter” and Sisu call it an “undertaking” I’m not down with legalese enough to know the difference but they both accept Sisu signed something.

Sisu are very careful to say they aren’t doing anything *against Wasps* and now mention a third party. My best guess is that someone at Wasps or maybe CCC spotted a legal loophole that would allow the action to be taken against someone other than Wasps (maybe ACL, Maybe CCC, again IANAL) and wanted that loophole closing and that’s where Sisu refused. That’s my working theory based on the communication we’ve had.

Skyblueweeman said:

Didn't Sisu sign something to say that was the end of the legals with Wasps?

Click to expand...

Yes but essentially wasps want to be guaranteed from any future harm from any case. SISU, understandably, consider this unreasonable. However, as Boddy said, that’s the same situation as last year so maybe the pertinent question is how we ended up in talks again. I’m sure we’ll never know.

olderskyblue said:

I was talking specifically about Boddy, and what’s changed this time.

Click to expand...

The club and Boddy did make statements last year, maybe it happening a second time may have pissed him off? Especially with Wasps saying there was no indemnity?

shmmeee said:

Yes they did. However clearly Wasps wanted something wider, end of legals around the Ricoh.

Wasps statement last year says this. They call the agreement a “letter” and Sisu call it an “undertaking” I’m not down with legalese enough to know the difference but they both accept Sisu signed something.

Sisu are very careful to say they aren’t doing anything *against Wasps* and now mention a third party. My best guess is that someone at Wasps or maybe CCC spotted a legal loophole that would allow the action to be taken against someone other than Wasps (maybe ACL, Maybe CCC, again IANAL) and wanted that loophole closing and that’s where Sisu refused. That’s my working theory based on the communication we’ve had.

Click to expand...

Is this like when you kept going on about the EU stuff being dropped?

There is no action against Wasps and the only way they will have to give money to CCC is if CCC are in the wrong.

shmmeee said:

Now we’re having a proper discussion!

For me, a simple CCFC fan who wants to watch his team play Championship football in Coventry the answer is simple: There’s only one game in town for Championship stadia right now and all available evidence and logic suggests the action won’t be successful. And even if it is we’re talking year of appeals and stuff and probably a fudge that enables CCC and Wasps to carry on with some minor damages to Sisu. And that’s not worth risking our first shot in a decade at solidifying us in a decent league.

You may think differently and think “justice must be done and hang the consequences!”, or you may think “On balance I think they have a case and they payoff is worth five years in Brum”, and those are valid viewpoints. Just not ones I hold.

Click to expand...

And I’m pretty sure a deal was done so who wasn’t really playing ball? Be nice to know but only if it meant we could play in coventry. Or we can’t play in coventry and that’s the plan now all get behind the stadium project and supply the team in person when we can outside of coventry

Sisu said wasps, wasps said Sisu, Ccfc said wasps and then Sisu said I’m certain of what I said to everyone and said are Wasps. Hence where we are now

Nick said:

The club and Boddy did make statements last year, maybe it happening a second time may have pissed him off? Especially with Wasps saying there was no indemnity?

Click to expand...

Maybe. Tbh, he was more pissed off with Sisu last time, as he knew nothing about the EU issue happening.

olderskyblue said:

Maybe. Tbh, he was more pissed off with Sisu last time, as he knew nothing about the EU issue happening.

Click to expand...

Have you got a link to that one?

shmmeee said:

Yes they did. However clearly Wasps wanted something wider, end of legals around the Ricoh.

Wasps statement last year says this. They call the agreement a “letter” and Sisu call it an “undertaking” I’m not down with legalese enough to know the difference but they both accept Sisu signed something.

Sisu are very careful to say they aren’t doing anything *against Wasps* and now mention a third party. My best guess is that someone at Wasps or maybe CCC spotted a legal loophole that would allow the action to be taken against someone other than Wasps (maybe ACL, Maybe CCC, again IANAL) and wanted that loophole closing and that’s where Sisu refused. That’s my working theory based on the communication we’ve had.

Click to expand...

Why didn't they say that then when Sisu signed that agreement? If they wanted something wider...why not say it or put an additional clause into whatever was signed, to that point? It would seem from the outside (granted, I know less than a number on here) that Sisu have signed something that Wasps wanted and now things have changed.

Surely if Wasps were decent with their due diligence, they would've thought that 'ok, Sisu have signed this agreement with us...doesn't stop them from going after anyone else though'. Would just seem a little inept if they hadn't considered that...and as I think you pointed out elsewhere...those working for Wasps aren't stupid. Something doesn't add up.

For what it's worth btw, I can't say I agree with everything you say shmmeee...I can't be bothered to get into the you vs Nick/others stuff. You handle yourself well though despite the critcism so well done.

Nick said:

There is no action against Wasps and the only way they will have to give money to CCC is if CCC are in the wrong.

Click to expand...

Correct. And they don’t want that to happen so will keep asking to be protected against it. I assume that they expect SISU to cover the cost and anything they’d have to pay back.

djr8369 said:

Correct. And they don’t want that to happen so will keep asking to be protected against it. I assume that they expect SISU to cover the cost and anything they’d have to pay back.

Click to expand...

That is the point that keeps being missed when it is "SISU trying to bankrupt Wasps".

If that WAS to happen (I don't think it will, personally) then it would be CCC bankrupting Wasps.

djr8369 said:

Yes but essentially wasps want to be guaranteed from any future harm from any case. SISU, understandably, consider this unreasonable. However, as Boddy said, that’s the same situation as last year so maybe the pertinent question is how we ended up in talks again. I’m sure we’ll never know.

Click to expand...

So to my point above, why get Sisu to sign something saying 'no more legals', only to change their tune further down the line? Surely Sisu signing that is them saying 'no more legals against Wasps'. That would, as you put it, guarantee them from future harm as a direct consequence of legal action from Sisu.

Nick said:

That is the point that keeps being missed when it is "SISU trying to bankrupt Wasps".

If that WAS to happen (I don't think it will, personally) then it would be CCC bankrupting Wasps.

Click to expand...

Well the councils actions, yes, but SISU dogged pursuit of the situation that would have brought it about.
To me the fact the council are so behind wasps suggests there is something to find or at least they are worried it could be perceived that way.

shmmeee said:

Yes they did. However clearly Wasps wanted something wider, end of legals around the Ricoh.

Wasps statement last year says this. They call the agreement a “letter” and Sisu call it an “undertaking” I’m not down with legalese enough to know the difference but they both accept Sisu signed something.

Sisu are very careful to say they aren’t doing anything *against Wasps* and now mention a third party. My best guess is that someone at Wasps or maybe CCC spotted a legal loophole that would allow the action to be taken against someone other than Wasps (maybe ACL, Maybe CCC, again IANAL) and wanted that loophole closing and that’s where Sisu refused. That’s my working theory based on the communication we’ve had.

Click to expand...

The EU complaint also came as news to everybody. That's definitely negotiating in bad faith, saying we've stopped everything, but then coming up with that (and the timing of the reveal was... interesting!).

I'll bow out now before I get the 'aha, but that's not a legal action' back at me

Sky Blue Pete said:

And I’m pretty sure a deal was done so who wasn’t really playing ball? Be nice to know but only if it meant we could play in coventry. Or we can’t play in coventry and that’s the plan now all get behind the stadium project and supply the team in person when we can outside of coventry

Sisu said wasps, wasps said Sisu, Ccfc said wasps and then Sisu said I’m certain of what I said to everyone and said are Wasps. Hence where we are now

Click to expand...

From what I can gather the commercial deal itself has never been an issue. It’s always come down to disagreement on “dropping the legals”/“unreasonably restricting the clubs legal rights”.

What I’d like an answer to is why did talks stop just because the EFL deadline passed? Surely Sixfields proved you can change back halfway through a season so why not carry on talks?

As for the he said she said. It’s all PR. The club know if they call it “an indemnity” the fans will be up in arms. Wasps know if they call it “drop the legals” people will say “just fucking do it I don’t care”. We need to see exactly what’s being asked really. It may not change many minds but it might change some. Ultimately I remain of the belief that none of it changes the fundamental economics of the issue until Sisu are satisfied they can’t win.

I’d have a lot more faith in both sides if they stopped the silly rhetorical games that are so transparent mind.

shmmeee said:

From what I can gather the commercial deal itself has never been an issue. It’s always come down to disagreement on “dropping the legals”/“unreasonably restricting the clubs legal rights”.

What I’d like an answer to is why did talks stop just because the EFL deadline passed? Surely Sixfields proved you can change back halfway through a season so why not carry on talks?

As for the he said she said. It’s all PR. The club know if they call it “an indemnity” the fans will be up in arms. Wasps know if they call it “drop the legals” people will say “just fucking do it I don’t care”. We need to see exactly what’s being asked really. It may not change many minds but it might change some. Ultimately I remain of the belief that none of it changes the fundamental economics of the issue until Sisu are satisfied they can’t win.

I’d have a lot more faith in both sides if they stopped the silly rhetorical games that are so transparent mind.

Click to expand...

You need to be more credulous

shmmeee said:

I’d have a lot more faith in both sides if they stopped the silly rhetorical games that are so transparent mind.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

djr8369 said:

Well the councils actions, yes, but SISU dogged pursuit of the situation that would have brought it about.
To me the fact the council are so behind wasps suggests there is something to find or at least they are worried it could be perceived that way.

Click to expand...

No, it would happen because CCC were found to be in the wrong surely?

Skyblueweeman said:

So to my point above, why get Sisu to sign something saying 'no more legals', only to change their tune further down the line? Surely Sisu signing that is them saying 'no more legals against Wasps'. That would, as you put it, guarantee them from future harm as a direct consequence of legal action from Sisu.

Click to expand...

I think that convo probably takes us back to when people knew about the EU complaint. Wasn’t the accusation that all legal action was dropped then the EU case turned up? Then there was/is all the stuff about the EU case being legal action etc...
....and eventually to shmeeeees point earlier that arguing over the technicalities is fruitless.

Do we think Simon Gilbert found out about it before Wasps / CCC?

Nick said:

No, it would happen because CCC were found to be in the wrong surely?

Click to expand...

Yes. Nobody is really disputing that are they? But it’s SISU bringing the case and SISU getting the blame for doing so.
There’s a difference between being in the right, morally or legally, and all parties being on-board with the result.

shmmeee said:

It's a game of poker isn't it? While Wasps believe Sisu might be bluffing they won't fold. If you get two sides who both think the other is bluffing, you get a fat pot and someone goes bust usually.

Click to expand...

Poker analogy is a good one.
We've seen it since the "rent holiday/strike".
All these various issues have the relevant parties assuming the other will fold - but they don't.
Now SISU think Wasps need the cash, Wasps think SISU can't stay in Brum. Both sides misreading their hands - Wasps do need the cash. CCFC do need to be back In Cov. Same as CCC never thought CCFC would move to Sixfields or that SISU would meekly accept being Wasps' tenants at The Ricoh.
So much ego/face involved that none of the players know when it is best to fold or split the pot

djr8369 said:

Yes. Nobody is really disputing that are they? But it’s SISU bringing the case and SISU getting the blame for doing so.
There’s a difference between being in the right, morally or legally, and all parties being on-board with the result.

Click to expand...

I get that. It's a massive IF it would go against CCC anyway.

If it does, it's their fault.

Looks like it’s somebody else’s fault that they won’t waive it, again.

shmmeee said:

Now we’re having a proper discussion!

For me, a simple CCFC fan who wants to watch his team play Championship football in Coventry the answer is simple: There’s only one game in town for Championship stadia right now and all available evidence and logic suggests the action won’t be successful. And even if it is we’re talking year of appeals and stuff and probably a fudge that enables CCC and Wasps to carry on with some minor damages to Sisu. And that’s not worth risking our first shot in a decade at solidifying us in a decent league.

You may think differently and think “justice must be done and hang the consequences!”, or you may think “On balance I think they have a case and they payoff is worth five years in Brum”, and those are valid viewpoints. Just not ones I hold.

Click to expand...

So you think that they should waive any right to any further legal action against the Council for the sake of a short term rent deal (that's all Wasps would offer remember)?

There's every possibility that at the end of said deal Wasps move the goalposts (again) & we're once again homeless but now with no cards to play.

And should they also stump up any costs if CCC have been found to be in the wrong as Wasps are apparently insisting?