Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
If it was genuine it appears ccfc and Dave Boddy’s statement would say they weren’t ever going to agree to something that ccfc could agree to
If it was genuine it appears ccfc and Dave Boddy’s statement would say they weren’t ever going to agree to something that ccfc could agree toI'd suggest what they're trying to do is indeed 2. Very possibly the reason talks would re-start at all?
We are only signed to Birmingham for 2 more years. I doubt we will get an extension beyond that.
I don’t see how the club can sustain a 5 year absence anyway and that’s assuming a ground is built and in time on current projections - both unlikely
Liquidation I don’t see as it’s losing all funds tied up in the master funds - at some point if the case fails she’s going to have to admit defeat
Think is... if we're serious about a new ground, we'll be signing NDAs with all manner of partners.If the council have stated they haven't asked for an indemnity and Wasps are saying they haven't asked for an indemnity then what is holding up the talks
Are CCFC lying or are wasps lying
heres an idea why not scrap the NDA and talk openly
oh wait Wasps wont do that
If the council have stated they haven't asked for an indemnity and Wasps are saying they haven't asked for an indemnity then what is holding up the talks
Are CCFC lying or are wasps lying
heres an idea why not scrap the NDA and talk openly
oh wait Wasps wont do that
but all parties bar wasps have said they will waive the NDAThink is... if we're serious about a new ground, we'll be signing NDAs with all manner of partners.
It's not an unusual thing to sign up to. It is an unusual thing to break, and probably wouldn't go down well with future partners either.
but all parties bar wasps have said they will waive the NDA
No request was made to wasps to indemnify any future legal action
They're saying that no request was made by CCC to WaspsSomeone's already asked about the meaning of future legal action and if the ECJ thing is classed as future or current?
Given that so many have said the investigation is not "legal action" then it would suggest that anything linked to that investigation would have to be considered future legal action, but we all know what these people are like with their semantics.
But the other thing I wanted to question was you've written "no request was made TO Wasps". Is that meant to be BY Wasps? Because the issue has never been a suggestion that Wasps were being asked to indemnify, it was whether Wasps were asking the club to do so.
While we're at it with requests, can we have a training ground that can also incorporate a speedway track for Coventry Bees...?
Someone's already asked about the meaning of future legal action and if the ECJ thing is classed as future or current?
Given that so many have said the investigation is not "legal action" then it would suggest that anything linked to that investigation would have to be considered future legal action, but we all know what these people are like with their semantics.
But the other thing I wanted to question was you've written "no request was made TO Wasps". Is that meant to be BY Wasps? Because the issue has never been a suggestion that Wasps were being asked to indemnify, it was whether Wasps were asking the club to do so.
Someone's already asked about the meaning of future legal action and if the ECJ thing is classed as future or current?
Given that so many have said the investigation is not "legal action" then it would suggest that anything linked to that investigation would have to be considered future legal action, but we all know what these people are like with their semantics.
But the other thing I wanted to question was you've written "no request was made TO Wasps". Is that meant to be BY Wasps? Because the issue has never been a suggestion that Wasps were being asked to indemnify, it was whether Wasps were asking the club to do so.
so there are two points of solution it would seem
1 wasps bite the bullet accept the risk to their business and no longer require the indemnity on all future legal actions from now against ccc
Or
2 sisu confirm in a legally binding document that they will take as of today no future legal action against any and all of the parties in respect of the ricoh sale and lease.
Either permits a deal at the ricoh.
No hope and Bob hope I am afraid
I really don't think that offers hope. Surely history has shown there's always a new and surprising avenue we can take?Yep, pretty much. Maybe the best hope is that we hear something from the EU complaint quickly.
We are allowed to shmmee!!! Of course we are but we have to do it being aware ofAnd we’re back at square one. Sisu don’t have to go anywhere, just give up the wild goose chase. Wasps have to ignore the wild goose chase and accept the costs of defending it will happen anyway.
Either would remove the logjam. Only one side is responsible for CCFC over Wasps though and in theory only one side has to listen to us.
But we aren’t allowed to ask the owners of the club to do what’s best for the club apparently that’s the job of everyone else
(Not aimed at you, just general frustration)
Mark mentioned CCC legal representative outlined 2 possible routes of further action in the case that the current enquiry is rejected.We are allowed to shmmee!!! Of course we are but we have to do it being aware of
1 - who the hell are we. Well we are the generations who’ve invested our lives into the club and will continue to do so. I think joy and Sisu have understood this more and more over the last few years
2 - what are the facts and what are our assumptions?
3 - can we move assumptions into facts?
4 - how and when is the right time to push - I think we are at the stage of mark and I asking to catch up again on the record
5 - understand the limitations of being fans but using any leverage we have
Don’t get frustrated keep hoping and pushing and articulating and we can change things
just my opinion but I have never thought ccfc were coming back to the Ricoh whilst wasps owned it. Too many hurdles deliberately placed in the way
As ccfc fans we now have focus and put pressure on ensuring sisu follow through on a new stadium ...... and quickly no more smoke and mirrors
Mark mentioned CCC legal representative outlined 2 possible routes of further action in the case that the current enquiry is rejected.
Has Joy ever given you any indication of what she feels are her next steps in the same scenario and whether she intends to pursue them?
There’s always hope!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!so there are two points of solution it would seem
1 wasps bite the bullet accept the risk to their business and no longer require the indemnity on all future legal actions from now against ccc
Or
2 sisu confirm in a legally binding document that they will take as of today no future legal action against any and all of the parties in respect of the ricoh sale and lease.
Either permits a deal at the ricoh.
No hope and Bob hope I am afraid
No but was very clear that the deal was unfair and gave them an unfair financial advantage.Mark mentioned CCC legal representative outlined 2 possible routes of further action in the case that the current enquiry is rejected.
Has Joy ever given you any indication of what she feels are her next steps in the same scenario and whether she intends to pursue them?
Categorically deniedLots of people on here believe the council is making Wasps ask for the indemnity.
There’s always hope!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What about mixing the two!!! And bringing in ccc to!
Ccc / Wasps / Sisu agree to abide by the decision of the Eu complaint and will not appeal
Wasps accept that if the Eu complaint goes against ccc then Sisu have the right to pursue financial recompense for the damage to ccfc
Sisu accept that if the Eu complaint is not upheld that they will cease legal action In relation to the sale of acl to wasps against ccc or wasps
Wasps agree a deal in spite of the Eu complaint but put a clause that says if Sisu take legal action in relation to the sale of acl to wasps against ccc or wasps following the Eu decision going against them then the contract is null and void from the end of that season.
Well?
With regards the Alexander Stadium I believe the legacy planning is more about athletics / community stuff than any prospect of it ever being a football stadium. Birmingham City University have been signed up as anchor tenants, and they are moving sports science stuff there. It is planned to be a ‘community asset’, but not for football.Unlikely for a ground (esp in five years) I agree, but do think the club could survive if a ground was a realistic prospect. If a ground was realistic, and happening, does the Butts (and buying Cov Utd out of their deal?) come back into play as our Withdean? Is there some mileage to be had with the Alexander Stadium refurbishment? Either with it being our Don Valley, or allowing Birmingham to move there? At some stage, there could even be movement on the Ricoh if legal action really is exhausted... although I expect hell to freeze over first.
We're 'blessed' to be in an area with plenty of grounds, so we'll always find a home. What level that home can sustain us at is another question entirely, however.
(Liquidation gets them Ryton as a get-out. It gets them something back. I know we've had this argument many times before but then, which discussion haven't we... but I'd suggest the benefit in context to her business as a whole needs her to play hardball, even at a small immediate cost)
What about agreeing the other side has the right to appeal then? But that’s it and still making the deal?Can't see either the council or Wasps being happy with that, given this is the fifth time SISU have brought action regarding the stadium in some way or another and lost the first four they would feel why should they be made to accept the first decision that has gone against them? Like a game of Wembley where next goal wins even if you're 4-0 up. They would not forego the right to 'appeal'.
Also can't see SISU giving it up - they seem almost addicted to court action. Even if they agreed and lost they'd find another reason to continue with some spurious reason as to why it doesn't come under the agreement.
Our Don Valley thenWith regards the Alexander Stadium I believe the legacy planning is more about athletics / community stuff than any prospect of it ever being a football stadium. Birmingham City University have been signed up as anchor remnants, and they are moving sports science stuff there. It is planned to be a ‘community asset’, but not for football.
Further details if anybody’s struggling to sleep:
Redevelopment of Alexander Stadium - Birmingham City Council - Citizen Space
This site contains consultations that are run by Birmingham City Council.www.birminghambeheard.org.uk
so there are two points of solution it would seem
1 wasps bite the bullet accept the risk to their business and no longer require the indemnity on all future legal actions from now against ccc
Or
2 sisu confirm in a legally binding document that they will take as of today no future legal action against any and all of the parties in respect of the ricoh sale and lease.
Either permits a deal at the ricoh.
No hope and Bob hope I am afraid
There’s always hope!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What about mixing the two!!! And bringing in ccc to!
Ccc / Wasps / Sisu agree to abide by the decision of the Eu complaint and will not appeal
Wasps accept that if the Eu complaint goes against ccc then Sisu have the right to pursue financial recompense for the damage to ccfc
Sisu accept that if the Eu complaint is not upheld that they will cease legal action In relation to the sale of acl to wasps against ccc or wasps
Wasps agree a deal in spite of the Eu complaint but put a clause that says if Sisu take legal action in relation to the sale of acl to wasps against ccc or wasps following the Eu decision going against them then the contract is null and void from the end of that season.
Well?
Don’t know if you’ve been to don valley, and I’ve no idea how much it’s changed since I lived in Sheffield, but you really wouldn’t want to be playing football there for any length of time. Went to a ‘rave’ there once, ha.Our Don Valley thenRock up, play a game, move out.
That assumes the "indemnity" is the only stumbling block ?
BTW - have you now recovered from your ills?
So how come it's only Wasps that want to continue with the NDA? What do they want to hide?Im half joking. I think it’s just emotive language designed to do exactly what it did which is get people up in arms and create a lot of heat and no light.
Look at how this place reacted, believing that Wasps were asking Sisu to pay the costs of the state aid case, which was clearly never true but exactly what Sisu wanted us to believe so we’d spend a year ranting about “the indemnity” and not asking why we as CCFC fans should care about her legal efforts.
Can't see either the council or Wasps being happy with that, given this is the fifth time SISU have brought action regarding the stadium in some way or another and lost the first four they would feel why should they be made to accept the first decision that has gone against them? Like a game of Wembley where next goal wins even if you're 4-0 up. They would not forego the right to 'appeal'.
Also can't see SISU giving it up - they seem almost addicted to court action. Even if they agreed and lost they'd find another reason to continue with some spurious reason as to why it doesn't come under the agreement.
It doesn't exist anymore.Don’t know if you’ve been to don valley, and I’ve no idea how much it’s changed since I lived in Sheffield, but you really wouldn’t want to be playing football there for any length of time. Went to a ‘rave’ there once, ha.
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?