Council meeting for Mark and I (18 Viewers)

Sky Blue Pete · Aug 19, 2020

shmmeee said:
What about the current deal do you think makes it impossible to sign from your conversations so far? What is it Wasps need to change about it?

Did you ask about CCC not just not asking for indemnity but not needing it at all?

I see no reason all parties cannot agree a deal in Ricoh. I really don’t I think it’s absolutely bizarre the situation we find ourselves in as Ccfc supporters. Understandable but bizarre

My note is only my opinion of course.

Wasps need to decide and stop sitting on the fence. They are either unable to do a deal and should say so or they are able to and will forgive and forget things that have happened in the last 7 years. And maybe contingent on certain things not happening. Further legal action for instance.

Don’t get me wrong I know what I want them to do but totally understand if they don’t want to or don’t feel they can!

I have to make it clear I am not party to nda etc and don’t know these things as facts. All parties have refused to answer some questions due to nda and all have said things that they’ve asked us not to repeat apart from the council who are happy for mark and I to share everything they said to us. This was a little easier for them as not a party on the nda

Sky Blue Pete · Aug 19, 2020

Nick said:
Which is what is meant by Duggins and Lucas publicly bullshitting about it and not being held to account.

Reeves has been involved all the way hasn't he? Did he expand on why he thought CCFC had preferential treatment and some examples?

Being charged all year round for business rates instead of a company he was a director of gives you an idea of that.

Not throwing them out of the Ricoh seemed to be the main thing. Other than that I’m more interested in sorting the future than raking over the past

mark82 · Aug 19, 2020

shmmeee said:
What about the current deal do you think makes it impossible to sign from your conversations so far? What is it Wasps need to change about it?

Did you ask about CCC not just not asking for indemnity but not needing it at all?

Not sure if Pete has answered this already, but yes. We made sure there was no room for semantics. They didn't ask for any indemnity (or anything else you could call it) or play any part in the deal. They say the deal is between Wasps and CCFC only. We asked a couple of times to clarify this and confirm there was no request of any sort.

It does seem like there are regular conversations with Wasps though (not a surprise) but Martin Reeves hasn't spoken with Joy Seppala since 2014. 6 years. Was staggered by that. There's clearly some very deep rooted animosity.

mark82 · Aug 19, 2020

Nick said:
Yeah but saying "They wanted it to be true" isn't the same as it being true.

Martin Reeves thought CCFC was treated better than any other business? Jesus Christ.

Fair play to you for not bursting out laughing and walking out at that point.

I think, basically, there's nothing contractual with Wasps to that end.

Skyblueweeman · Aug 19, 2020

mark82 said:
Not sure if Pete has answered this already, but yes. We made sure there was no room for semantics. They didn't ask for any indemnity (or anything else you could call it) or play any part in the deal. They say the deal is between Wasps and CCFC only. We asked a couple of times to clarify this and confirm there was no request of any sort.

It does seem like there are regular conversations with Wasps though (not a surprise) but Martin Reeves hasn't spoken with Joy Seppala since 2014. 6 years. Was staggered by that. There's clearly some very deep rooted animosity.

So who is the indemnity been requested from and it indemnifys who? Confused.

mark82 · Aug 19, 2020

mark82 said:
Not sure if Pete has answered this already, but yes. We made sure there was no room for semantics. They didn't ask for any indemnity (or anything else you could call it) or play any part in the deal. They say the deal is between Wasps and CCFC only. We asked a couple of times to clarify this and confirm there was no request of any sort.

It does seem like there are regular conversations with Wasps though (not a surprise) but Martin Reeves hasn't spoken with Joy Seppala since 2014. 6 years. Was staggered by that. There's clearly some very deep rooted animosity.

With regards the "indemnity" my reading of it is that Wasps may be asking CCFC not to pursue the EU complaint any further if it's not successful. The CCC legal representative confirmed there are 2 further routes of appeal that can be taken if the case is unsuccessful, 1 is an appeal to the European Court of Justice and then something else (which I can't remember at the moment). Those would impact Wasps in a similar way to the EU complaint in that they'd have to pay back the difference. This is just my reading of what the indemnity could be. I may be putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5.

Sky Blue Pete · Aug 19, 2020

Skyblueweeman said:
So who is the indemnity been requested from and it indemnifys who? Confused.

The only people that know for definite are parties on the nda. I think it’s about ongoing legal action as others have mused about. Be nice to know for definite but we won’t without a waiving of the nda which two parties are happy to and one isn’t and there is potentially at least one other we don’t know about

mark82 · Aug 19, 2020

Skyblueweeman said:
So who is the indemnity been requested from and it indemnifys who? Confused.

Does my last post answer this? Not sure we'll be able to get confirmation from any party on if that is actually the case but I think Wasps will be asking CCFC/Sisu not to take any action against CCC in terms of future appeals as it would impact them financially. Again, just my reading of the situation.

Skyblueweeman · Aug 19, 2020

Sky Blue Pete said:
We pushed this a little around regretting the impact on the fans and didn’t ccfc deserve special treatment as it Martin Reeves did make what to me seemed a genuine claim that since his involvement since about 2008 that ccfc has been treated better than other businesses because it is the football club.

**Insert Nelson from the Simpson laughing gif**

If CCFC have been treated better than other businesses because of being a football club, how does Wasps rate on the scale? Staggered that he admitted that...if I was a business in Coventry I'd be fuming that an out of town franchised club who parachuted in to the detriment of a 131 year old football club (at the time) and a 140 year old rugby club (at the time) have received beneficial treatment, especially when they've created so much division.

Incredible.

Skyblueweeman · Aug 19, 2020

mark82 said:
Does my last post answer this? Not sure we'll be able to get confirmation from any party on if that is actually the case but I think Wasps will be asking CCFC/Sisu not to take any action against CCC in terms of future appeals as it would impact them financially. Again, just my reading of the situation.

Yep, got ya. Thanks again to Pete and yourself for taking time out of your personal lives to do all this in terms of the meetings, speaking to all parties, representing the SBTalk community etc.

I hope for both your sakes that it helps all parties get round the table again to a positive outcome. Maybe you might get free tickets and scarves from the club if this comes off ;-)

Sky Blue Pete · Aug 19, 2020

mark82 said:
Does my last post answer this? Not sure we'll be able to get confirmation from any party on if that is actually the case but I think Wasps will be asking CCFC/Sisu not to take any action against CCC in terms of future appeals as it would impact them financially. Again, just my reading of the situation.

And my reading too

mark82 · Aug 19, 2020

Skyblueweeman said:
**Insert Nelson from the Simpson laughing gif**

If CCFC have been treated better than other businesses because of being a football club, how does Wasps rate on the scale? Staggered that he admitted that...if I was a business in Coventry I'd be fuming that an out of town franchised club who parachuted in to the detriment of a 131 year old football club (at the time) and a 140 year old rugby club (at the time) have received beneficial treatment, especially when they've created so much division.

Incredible.

They very much stand by their decision to sell ACL to Wasps. Also said the valuation was fair on the basis that the asset was devalued by the football club not being there. To me, the decision to move to Northampton played right into their hands with wanting to bring Wasps in (again, my opinion as they'd never admit something like that). They do believe they maximised the valuation, and say that the courts agree too. I disagree personally but I don't get much of a say.

BornSlippySkyBlue · Aug 19, 2020

mark82 said:
With regards the "indemnity" my reading of it is that Wasps may be asking CCFC not to pursue the EU complaint any further if it's not successful. The CCC legal representative confirmed there are 2 further routes of appeal that can be taken if the case is unsuccessful, 1 is an appeal to the European Court of Justice and then something else (which I can't remember at the moment). Those would impact Wasps in a similar way to the EU complaint in that they'd have to pay back the difference. This is just my reading of what the indemnity could be. I may be putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5.

I’m not arguing with you here, but how does that fit with SISU’s assertion that “it would threaten the very existence of the club”? And their statement that they’ve signed an agreement not to take future legal action? Or are we back to the semantics of what constitutes legal action?

mark82 · Aug 19, 2020

Skyblueweeman said:
Yep, got ya. Thanks again to Pete and yourself for taking time out of your personal lives to do all this in terms of the meetings, speaking to all parties, representing the SBTalk community etc.

I hope for both your sakes that it helps all parties get round the table again to a positive outcome. Maybe you might get free tickets and scarves from the club if this comes off ;-)

But which club?

oldfiver · Aug 19, 2020

mark82 said:
With regards the "indemnity" my reading of it is that Wasps may be asking CCFC not to pursue the EU complaint any further if it's not successful. The CCC legal representative confirmed there are 2 further routes of appeal that can be taken if the case is unsuccessful, 1 is an appeal to the European Court of Justice and then something else (which I can't remember at the moment). Those would impact Wasps in a similar way to the EU complaint in that they'd have to pay back the difference. This is just my reading of what the indemnity could be. I may be putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5.

So at the time the deal was struck WASPS and CCC were aware of a possibility the EU could come back and challenge it. This could have been without CCFC intervention ?
If that was the case WASPS were aware they may be obliged to make a top up payment. They basically relied on no one picking this up and pursuing it?
Also at the time, CCC expected WASPS to be in a position to pay any "shortfall" if demanded. What was the contingency plan should WASPS not have the funds to do that?

Must be worth CCFC saying "how much for us to withdraw"?

win9nut · Aug 19, 2020

Skyblueweeman said:
**Insert Nelson from the Simpson laughing gif**

If CCFC have been treated better than other businesses because of being a football club, how does Wasps rate on the scale? Staggered that he admitted that...if I was a business in Coventry I'd be fuming that an out of town franchised club who parachuted in to the detriment of a 131 year old football club (at the time) and a 140 year old rugby club (at the time) have received beneficial treatment, especially when they've created so much division.

Incredible.

There you go

Sky Blue Pete · Aug 19, 2020

Skyblueweeman said:
**Insert Nelson from the Simpson laughing gif**

If CCFC have been treated better than other businesses because of being a football club, how does Wasps rate on the scale? Staggered that he admitted that...if I was a business in Coventry I'd be fuming that an out of town franchised club who parachuted in to the detriment of a 131 year old football club (at the time) and a 140 year old rugby club (at the time) have received beneficial treatment, especially when they've created so much division.

Incredible.

Absolutely valid opinion and anyone is entitled to see it that way. I think that’s closer to my opinion than Martin Reeves opinion but I’m not party to all the ins and outs over the last 12 years.

And I strongly feel that all parties have been wronged and have legitimate grievances and none are going anywhere soon so the status quo will remain the status quo and that gets us fucxxn nowhere!!!!!

mark82 · Aug 19, 2020

BornSlippySkyBlue said:
I’m not arguing with you here, but how does that fit with SISU’s assertion that “it would threaten the very existence of the club”? And their statement that they’ve signed an agreement not to take future legal action? Or are we back to the semantics of what constitutes legal action?

I think there's probably a bit more to it in terms of implications with regards taking action against Wasps. That's just my reading of the bits around indemnity against CCC. Unfortunately I doubt we'll ever find the exact terms.

shmmeee · Aug 19, 2020

Sky Blue Pete said:
And my reading too

Hi Pete, can you answer my post? What do you feel needs to change about the offer from Wasps to make it not “impossible to agree to”?

mark82 · Aug 19, 2020

BornSlippySkyBlue said:
I’m not arguing with you here, but how does that fit with SISU’s assertion that “it would threaten the very existence of the club”? And their statement that they’ve signed an agreement not to take future legal action? Or are we back to the semantics of what constitutes legal action?

I think they signed last year to say they wouldn't take action against Wasps with regards the sale of the Ricoh. What Wasps now seem to be asking is for them not to take action against CCC as this would impact them financially should anyone rule against CCC.

I think some of the impacting CCFCs future could be around writing in clauses that would essentially break the lease and kick CCFC out at the drop of a hat if they did something Wasps didn't like.

rhino1002 · Aug 19, 2020

if Wasps are frightened that a further claim to the European courts will cause them a problem and are trying to stop Sisu making this further claim then what is to stop any other interested party ( e.g .a local rate payers association)
If this community asset was significantly undersold then this must be a concern to all Coventry residents. What is to stop someone else taking up this claim. Wasps cant ask for indemnity from everyone in the city.
The only obstacle to anyone else furthering this claim would be money
just a thought

shmmeee · Aug 19, 2020

rhino1002 said:
if Wasps are frightened that a further claim to the European courts will cause them a problem and are trying to stop Sisu making this further claim then what is to stop any other interested party ( e.g .a local rate payers association)
If this community asset was significantly undersold then this must be a concern to all Coventry residents. What is to stop someone else taking up this claim. Wasps cant ask for indemnity from everyone in the city.
The only obstacle to anyone else furthering this claim would be money
just a thought

There are no further claims to European courts if this fails. Best guess is it would be civil action which would need to be brought by Sisu as the “injured party”.

djr8369 · Aug 19, 2020

mark82 said:
With regards the "indemnity" my reading of it is that Wasps may be asking CCFC not to pursue the EU complaint any further if it's not successful. The CCC legal representative confirmed there are 2 further routes of appeal that can be taken if the case is unsuccessful, 1 is an appeal to the European Court of Justice and then something else (which I can't remember at the moment). Those would impact Wasps in a similar way to the EU complaint in that they'd have to pay back the difference. This is just my reading of what the indemnity could be. I may be putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5.

Wait, so you think the indemnity is to protect wasps and not a 3rd party as the journalists have been saying?

oldfiver · Aug 19, 2020

djr8369 said:
Wait, so you think the indemnity is to protect wasps and not a 3rd party as the journalists have been saying?

But WASPS appear to be in a position they may have to indemnify CCC?

mark82 · Aug 19, 2020

shmmeee said:
There are no further claims to European courts if this fails. Best guess is it would be civil action which would need to be brought by Sisu as the “injured party”.

Council lawyer said they can appeal to ECJ and somewhere else that I forget.

Macca1987 · Aug 19, 2020

Pete and Mark, may I first say thanks for all that the two of you are doing in this saga. It was never going to be easy going up against 3 different closed shops, SISU, WASPS, CCC all have their own agendas, but at least with the prodding and the questioning from yourselves we are not completely in the dark. Hopefully you are breaking that guarded wall down piece by piece, and one day all three parties can see there is an opening without losing face, and we can move forward back in the city where we belong

shmmeee · Aug 19, 2020

mark82 said:
Council lawyer said they can appeal to ECJ and somewhere else that I forget.

Did you ask about the new ground at all?

Everything I’m hearing is we aren’t coming back any time soon.

mark82 · Aug 19, 2020

djr8369 said:
Wait, so you think the indemnity is to protect wasps and not a 3rd party as the journalists have been saying?

Well, I think they're acting in self interest. The indemnity would be to stop action against CCC so that could be read as protecting a 3rd party, but in reality if courts find against CCC the result of this would be Wasps repaying the difference in valuations to CCC.

rhino1002 · Aug 19, 2020

mark82 said:
Well, I think they're acting in self interest. The indemnity would be to stop action against CCC so that could be read as protecting a 3rd party, but in reality if courts find against CCC the result of this would be Wasps repaying the difference in valuations to CCC.

Does anybody know a time scale yet for this action by the EU
i thought they would give an initial assessment within 12 months
that was 18 months ago

mark82 · Aug 19, 2020

shmmeee said:
Did you ask about the new ground at all?

Everything I’m hearing is we aren’t coming back any time soon.

Yes. They know nothing more than any of us. Wouldn't commit to a particular position on it as didn't know details but I think in theory they would support it. With anything around planning as a local authority it's quite prescriptive what they can do as it's regulated. They certainly didn't seem against it, but like the rest of us want to see more detail. Certainly didn't seem to be any bad blood with UoW side.

mark82 · Aug 19, 2020

rhino1002 said:
Does anybody know a time scale yet for this action by the EU
i thought they would give an initial assessment within 12 months
that was 18 months ago

CCC seemed to think there'd be an update September/October but that's subject to change. Sounds like ECC don't see it as a priority case as it's been through UK courts (CCC opinion). Don't know how end of transition period will impact things.

tisza · Aug 19, 2020

mark82 said:
They very much stand by their decision to sell ACL to Wasps. Also said the valuation was fair on the basis that the asset was devalued by the football club not being there. To me, the decision to move to Northampton played right into their hands with wanting to bring Wasps in (again, my opinion as they'd never admit something like that). They do believe they maximised the valuation, and say that the courts agree too. I disagree personally but I don't get much of a say.

But when the Council agreed to sell we had returned to the Ricoh if memory serves me right?

Sky Blue Pete · Aug 19, 2020

shmmeee said:
Hi Pete, can you answer my post? What do you feel needs to change about the offer from Wasps to make it not “impossible to agree to”?

I see no reason all parties cannot agree a deal in Ricoh. I really don’t I think it’s absolutely bizarre the situation we find ourselves in as Ccfc supporters. Understandable but bizarre

My note is only my opinion of course.

Wasps need to decide and stop sitting on the fence. They are either unable to do a deal and should say so or they are able to and will forgive and forget things that have happened in the last 7 years. And maybe contingent on certain things not happening. Further legal action for instance.

Don’t get me wrong I know what I want them to do but totally understand if they don’t want to or don’t feel they can!

I have to make it clear I am not party to nda etc and don’t know these things as facts. All parties have refused to answer some questions due to nda and all have said things that they’ve asked us not to repeat apart from the council who are happy for mark and I to share everything they said to us. This was a little easier for them as not a party on the nda

Sky Blue Pete · Aug 19, 2020

mark82 said:
They very much stand by their decision to sell ACL to Wasps. Also said the valuation was fair on the basis that the asset was devalued by the football club not being there. To me, the decision to move to Northampton played right into their hands with wanting to bring Wasps in (again, my opinion as they'd never admit something like that). They do believe they maximised the valuation, and say that the courts agree too. I disagree personally but I don't get much of a say.

My opinion too

Esoterica · Aug 19, 2020

mark82 said:
Well, I think they're acting in self interest. The indemnity would be to stop action against CCC so that could be read as protecting a 3rd party, but in reality if courts find against CCC the result of this would be Wasps repaying the difference in valuations to CCC.

It does look increasingly that way. Either to stop action against CCC (because of the implications of that to Wasps) or perhaps drop *any* pursuit of action over the Ricoh?

Which means SISU were telling the truth about signing up to not pursuing any further legal action against Wasps
CCC were telling the truth that they did not request any clause in the Wasps-CCFC Ricoh rent negotiations.

Which boils the topic down to:

1) is it reasonable for Wasps to restrict a company's legal rights as part of a commercial contract?
2) How does that 'threaten the existence of CCFC'* which was part of SISU's justification for walking away from the negotiations.

* please correct my wording on that, couldn't quickly find the exact quote from the time

Council meeting for Mark and I (18 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency