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.
They've got TV money to worry about as well. Plus they've taken the money up front from CVC who potentially get 27% of future TV income now.Wasps have got to be worried about attendances next season. How many of their fans from the south east will want to make a journey across country while COVID is still an issue and they’re increasingly alienating the people of Coventry. Even PSB man who loves the taste of Eastwood’s bollocks thinks they’re wronguns at the moment.
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.
Wasps find that CCFC breach NDA, do they pursue that through the courts?
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
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?
Wasps have got to be worried about attendances next season. How many of their fans from the south east will want to make a journey across country while COVID is still an issue and they’re increasingly alienating the people of Coventry. Even PSB man who loves the taste of Eastwood’s bollocks thinks they’re wronguns at the moment.
Not saying it's no legal action etc, but it was directed at CCC, not Wasps. I know is semantics but why did that change for Wasps when the EU complaint is an investigation into whether CCC committed any wrongdoing?
Well Wasps carried on negotiations when they found out. This was part of Eastwood's statement in June last year -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
Just checked no. Joy said she was happy to waive the ndas if all other parties were too.Did the owners or ccfc say wasps have something to hide?
Is that the best they can do? Say nothing it is then.
We have been consistently clear that we would like to see Coventry City (CCFC) return to the Ricoh Arena. Everyone agrees that it is in the best interests of the supporters, the city and the local community. We have done everything in our power to make this happen and were very close to having an agreement in place which allowed the club to return – and on terms which were attractive to both parties.
The decision of CCFC’s owners not to return the club to the Ricoh is disappointing and we understand the reaction from their fans who were hoping for a different outcome. We share the fans' frustration.
We have read the comments made by representatives of CCFC in recent days and debated whether we wished to lend them any credibility by responding or to get drawn into a public war of words. However, we believe it is important to defend ourselves against the accusations levied at us, and to address and clarify certain points.
No “Indemnity clause”
One point we have remained firm on throughout negotiations is the need to protect ourselves from future further litigious behaviour, directly or indirectly, by CCFC's owners. The fundamental principle being that there should be no further proceedings about the ownership of the Ricoh Arena. The rationale for this is obvious given CCFC owners’ long history of legal action and their publicly stated intent to pursue all legal channels to reverse Wasps’ acquisition of the Ricoh.
However, Wasps did not insist on an indemnity clause as has been claimed – this claim is simply false. In addition, nothing in the agreement would have put CCFC at substantial risk, as has also been claimed.
Wasps have incurred tens of thousands in legal costs in attempting to achieve the best possible outcome for all parties, including Sky Blue fans, which again underlines our keenness to do a deal.
This is not the outcome Wasps were hoping for.
NDA
We believe CCFC owner’s call to waive the NDA is nothing more than a tactic to distract fans. Their implication, that Wasps has something to hide, is defamatory. As they are more than aware, the NDA was signed by several parties who trusted in the enduring integrity and spirit of the agreement for the protection of their commercially sensitive data and of the independent individuals involved. It is misleading to suggest that it is simply up to Wasps to waive the NDA. We see this as nothing more than an attempt to publicly pass on the blame.
Where do we go from here
CCFC's owners have made their decision. Wasps were (and remain) surprised that CCFC owner’s withdrew from negotiations. They have never communicated to us why they withdrew – and we now have to get on with our business. We are only clarifying these points after recent articles in the press and online. We do not propose to give credibility to any other claims or distraction tactics by commenting further at this stage.
As ever, we remain ready and willing to welcome CCFC back to the Ricoh Arena.
We have been consistently clear that we would like to see Coventry City (CCFC) return to the Ricoh Arena. Everyone agrees that it is in the best interests of the supporters, the city and the local community. We have done everything in our power to make this happen and were very close to having an agreement in place which allowed the club to return – and on terms which were attractive to both parties.
The decision of CCFC’s owners not to return the club to the Ricoh is disappointing and we understand the reaction from their fans who were hoping for a different outcome. We share the fans' frustration.
We have read the comments made by representatives of CCFC in recent days and debated whether we wished to lend them any credibility by responding or to get drawn into a public war of words. However, we believe it is important to defend ourselves against the accusations levied at us, and to address and clarify certain points.
No “Indemnity clause”
One point we have remained firm on throughout negotiations is the need to protect ourselves from future further litigious behaviour, directly or indirectly, by CCFC's owners. The fundamental principle being that there should be no further proceedings about the ownership of the Ricoh Arena. The rationale for this is obvious given CCFC owners’ long history of legal action and their publicly stated intent to pursue all legal channels to reverse Wasps’ acquisition of the Ricoh.
However, Wasps did not insist on an indemnity clause as has been claimed – this claim is simply false. In addition, nothing in the agreement would have put CCFC at substantial risk, as has also been claimed.
Wasps have incurred tens of thousands in legal costs in attempting to achieve the best possible outcome for all parties, including Sky Blue fans, which again underlines our keenness to do a deal.
This is not the outcome Wasps were hoping for.
NDA
We believe CCFC owner’s call to waive the NDA is nothing more than a tactic to distract fans. Their implication, that Wasps has something to hide, is defamatory. As they are more than aware, the NDA was signed by several parties who trusted in the enduring integrity and spirit of the agreement for the protection of their commercially sensitive data and of the independent individuals involved. It is misleading to suggest that it is simply up to Wasps to waive the NDA. We see this as nothing more than an attempt to publicly pass on the blame.
Where do we go from here
CCFC's owners have made their decision. Wasps were (and remain) surprised that CCFC owner’s withdrew from negotiations. They have never communicated to us why they withdrew – and we now have to get on with our business. We are only clarifying these points after recent articles in the press and online. We do not propose to give credibility to any other claims or distraction tactics by commenting further at this stage.
As ever, we remain ready and willing to welcome CCFC back to the Ricoh Arena.
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.
Not saying it's no legal action etc, but it was directed at CCC, not Wasps. I know is semantics but why did that change for Wasps when the EU complaint is an investigation into whether CCC committed any wrongdoing?
Its like stolen good innit? Yeah you didn’t Nick the car, you just bought it off me, but me being proven to have nicked it will have an impact on your ownership of the car.
Put it this way: the alternative theory is that Wasps are allowing CCC to force them into bad business decisions when a quick call to the Local Authority Ombudsman would stop it all.
Yeah, but it's the potential impact to their business as a consequence, the potential risk, and the uncertainty probably / possibly putting sponsors etc. off. We'd need OSB here to explain if the last accounts showed any money set aside (don't think it did) but, depending on how big a risk it was deemed to be, they might have to ringfence some funds they'd otherwise use elsewhere. Plus the fact that as a point of principle, if you'd been negotiating something with a no legals caveat, you'd have thought at that point SISU would have said well there is this complaint, thought you'd better just know about it, rather than hide it away until just as the deal was set to be signed.Not saying it's no legal action etc, but it was directed at CCC, not Wasps. I know is semantics but why did that change for Wasps when the EU complaint is an investigation into whether CCC committed any wrongdoing?
You have to say that if ever there's a season to be away from our home city, we've lucked into the right one next season!My position for some time has been to build our own ground. Given that, yeah I’d take a short term deal right now. Because I think we’re in a unique situation on the pitch with Robins and being promoted and everything that it’s a vital time to be able to build a fan base again and start establishing ourselves as a Championship club. And I don’t think you can do thatat St Andrews (though obviously if Joy
fancies making up the shortfall that second part is less of an issue).
Is that the best they can do? Say nothing it is then.
Dropping the NDA isn’t a sisu tactic, Mark and Pete asked all involved and Sisu said yes.
wasn't Friday the deadline given by the EFL, (which was an extension from the initial deadline of last Monday)?
Are wasps saying they were unaware of that?
Also, did any of us really believe we'd actually kick off at Sixfields, until right on kick off time itself?Either that or they didn’t think it’d end negotiations. I assume the negotiations at Sixfields carried on past the EFL deadline as we started the season there then moved back.
We have been consistently clear that we would like to see Coventry City (CCFC) return to the Ricoh Arena. Everyone agrees that it is in the best interests of the supporters, the city and the local community. We have done everything in our power to make this happen and were very close to having an agreement in place which allowed the club to return – and on terms which were attractive to both parties.
The decision of CCFC’s owners not to return the club to the Ricoh is disappointing and we understand the reaction from their fans who were hoping for a different outcome. We share the fans' frustration.
We have read the comments made by representatives of CCFC in recent days and debated whether we wished to lend them any credibility by responding or to get drawn into a public war of words. However, we believe it is important to defend ourselves against the accusations levied at us, and to address and clarify certain points.
No “Indemnity clause”
One point we have remained firm on throughout negotiations is the need to protect ourselves from future further litigious behaviour, directly or indirectly, by CCFC's owners. The fundamental principle being that there should be no further proceedings about the ownership of the Ricoh Arena. The rationale for this is obvious given CCFC owners’ long history of legal action and their publicly stated intent to pursue all legal channels to reverse Wasps’ acquisition of the Ricoh.
However, Wasps did not insist on an indemnity clause as has been claimed – this claim is simply false. In addition, nothing in the agreement would have put CCFC at substantial risk, as has also been claimed.
Wasps have incurred tens of thousands in legal costs in attempting to achieve the best possible outcome for all parties, including Sky Blue fans, which again underlines our keenness to do a deal.
This is not the outcome Wasps were hoping for.
NDA
We believe CCFC owner’s call to waive the NDA is nothing more than a tactic to distract fans. Their implication, that Wasps has something to hide, is defamatory. As they are more than aware, the NDA was signed by several parties who trusted in the enduring integrity and spirit of the agreement for the protection of their commercially sensitive data and of the independent individuals involved. It is misleading to suggest that it is simply up to Wasps to waive the NDA. We see this as nothing more than an attempt to publicly pass on the blame.
Where do we go from here
CCFC's owners have made their decision. Wasps were (and remain) surprised that CCFC owner’s withdrew from negotiations. They have never communicated to us why they withdrew – and we now have to get on with our business. We are only clarifying these points after recent articles in the press and online. We do not propose to give credibility to any other claims or distraction tactics by commenting further at this stage.
As ever, we remain ready and willing to welcome CCFC back to the Ricoh Arena.
wasn't Friday the deadline given by the EFL, (which was an extension from the initial deadline of last Monday)?
Are wasps saying they were unaware of that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?