Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Bugger!!!! Most of its ok and clear it’s just at the end I got carried away lol
Bugger!!!! Most of its ok and clear it’s just at the end I got carried away lolAfternoons on BBC CWR - 18/08/2020: Trish Adudu - BBC Sounds
Trish has all the music you love, news, and Make A Difference updates.www.bbc.co.uk
3:40 for Pete
Liquidate! as you say we are the company stuck between a rock and a hardplace, I should think Joy is looking forward to getting a shot at a £100 million game at the end of the season (me being an optomist LOL)
Bugger!!!! Most of its ok and clear it’s just at the end I got carried away lol
See I would say there always has been. Ultimately, we're competitors for floating fans, fairweather flag wavers, people who want a day out. The only way it is of benefit to Wasps is if any deal is to their benefit, then, to mitigate that, and therefore be of lower value to the club, as they don't do as well as they maybe should do out of such a deal.I can't see what's in it for CCFC/Sisu to change approach. From Wasps perspective it's a little more cloudy for me. Sisu will pursue the legal action either way, CCFC not being there doesn't change that. They're trying to leverage discussions to mitigate future risk. It's a decision they're taking that they'd rather leverage that in the future at the expense of now. There's no real benefit to Wasps of CCFC not playing at the Ricoh.
If Sisu are intent on pursuing things beyond the EU ruling, whenever it is given, City playing at the Ricoh can only still be a positive for all concerned. Sisu, it seems clear, will do what they will do irrespective of what happens to our club. Our return to the Ricoh would see Wasps make money from us. Gates increase so the club costs Sisu less money. Obviously all the associated businesses at the Ricoh benefit.
The solution therefore is perhaps for Wasps to see that Sisu and CCFC are two seperate entities. They can't stop the first pursuing the path they want to go down, but allowing the latter to play at the Ricoh is to everyone's benefit.
It really comes down to Wasps making that choice. What is the point of them losing the money from a deal with CCFC when Sisu are a juggernaut with no intention of changing course? It could also show them in a more positive light, the party that chose to take the moral high ground.
(This is not excusing Sisu. It is simply a recognition that they have no intention of doing what is best for the club, only their investors). Wasps stance seems to be one where everyone, including themselves, suffer for no obvious gain. Why would they want to do this?
Bugger!!!! Most of its ok and clear it’s just at the end I got carried away lol
It appears there is!
Appeal and potentially a further stage in Europe. Even the ccc legal brain wasn’t certain but thought the possibility was thereWhat else is there?
Sorry to answer with a question but what do you think the indemnity / clause is and do you think each of the parties mean the same thing when they use the same term?I think I've missed something in the rush of posts on this thread today. Can someone explain how nobody is lying as I can't see how all statements can be true.
CCFC said in their statement "the same issues that prevented a deal last season have again prevented a deal for the upcoming season." and "Last year the critical issue was Wasps’ insistence of indemnity clauses into the license agreement, with this indemnity for themselves and for a third-party." Simon Gilbert conformed that indemnity was the issue "Multiple sources directly involved in talks (and from different organisations) have said talks failed because Wasps were seeking indemnity / protection not for themselves - but for Coventry City Council.".
Wasps said they didn't request indemnity "We did not require the football club or its owners to sign any indemnity around legal action over the Ricoh Arena." and "Wasps did not insist on an indemnity clause as has been claimed – this claim is simply false."
And now the council say they have not requested, nor do they require, indemnity.
How can all of those statements be true?
I agree thank youWould be good for any meeting with Wasps to go into depth on what risks they see from letting CCFC play on a short term deal or is it purely leverage?
Shmmee made this point and he’s right we should be able to ask our owners to stop but as it seems unlikely Derek Richardson holds all the cards. Will he? Let’s askIf Sisu are intent on pursuing things beyond the EU ruling, whenever it is given, City playing at the Ricoh can only still be a positive for all concerned. Sisu, it seems clear, will do what they will do irrespective of what happens to our club. Our return to the Ricoh would see Wasps make money from us. Gates increase so the club costs Sisu less money. Obviously all the associated businesses at the Ricoh benefit.
The solution therefore is perhaps for Wasps to see that Sisu and CCFC are two seperate entities. They can't stop the first pursuing the path they want to go down, but allowing the latter to play at the Ricoh is to everyone's benefit.
It really comes down to Wasps making that choice. What is the point of them losing the money from a deal with CCFC when Sisu are a juggernaut with no intention of changing course? It could also show them in a more positive light, the party that chose to take the moral high ground.
(This is not excusing Sisu. It is simply a recognition that they have no intention of doing what is best for the club, only their investors). Wasps stance seems to be one where everyone, including themselves, suffer for no obvious gain. Why would they want to do this?
Appeal and potentially a further stage in Europe. Even the ccc legal brain wasn’t certain but thought the possibility was there
So she didn't really know but told you there was
Standard route from here would be appeal to ECJ if initial complaint fails.
Did you ask if they’ve had any communication at all since the complaint was raised?
No it was a bit of clarity from her really. Wasps had said it to me too. Nothing from Ccfc or Sisu and I’m not an expert but shmmee and northern wisdom and Others on here have said something similarSo she didn't really know but told you there was
It was offered wasn’t it mark. They knew of our meeting and so asked what was happening which I thought was usefulFrom the EU? Didn't ask directly but it was fairly clear they had as they were expecting an update September/October time.
No it was a bit of clarity from her really. Wasps had said it to me too. Nothing from Ccfc or Sisu and I’m not an expert but shmmee and northern wisdom and Others on here have said something similar
We need something to change and no agreement isn’t a solution
What about agreeing both have the right to appeal and the right to pursue damages?
I need a solution help me
Here's an idea. Likely pie in the sky, so feel free to shoot as many holes in it as you like.
Let's say SISU win the EU judgement and Wasps are told they have to stump up the difference. Could SISU not agree to pay this difference, in return for the equivalent percentage ownership of ACL?
Benefits. Stops Wasps putting their potential losses in the way of a CCFC return. Gets SISU a stake in ACL. Increases the profitability of ACL. Gets us home.
Disadvantages. Wasps feel they've paid market value for ACL, and wouldn't want to give any of it up without a fight. They'd also likely require the right to appeal if CCC did provide state aid. SISU are unlikely to want to pay market value, so will likely want a greater percentage than the amount would suggest pro-rata. Probably loads more
Absolutely fair commentSee I would say there always has been. Ultimately, we're competitors for floating fans, fairweather flag wavers, people who want a day out. The only way it is of benefit to Wasps is if any deal is to their benefit, then, to mitigate that, and therefore be of lower value to the club, as they don't do as well as they maybe should do out of such a deal.
It's (although maybe not as stark) the same issue ACL v CCFC had - for both entities to profit is very, very hard. On a purely commercial basis, one will probably lose out.
Throw a court case or seven into the mix as well...
If Sisu are intent on pursuing things beyond the EU ruling, whenever it is given, City playing at the Ricoh can only still be a positive for all concerned. Sisu, it seems clear, will do what they will do irrespective of what happens to our club. Our return to the Ricoh would see Wasps make money from us. Gates increase so the club costs Sisu less money. Obviously all the associated businesses at the Ricoh benefit.
The solution therefore is perhaps for Wasps to see that Sisu and CCFC are two seperate entities. They can't stop the first pursuing the path they want to go down, but allowing the latter to play at the Ricoh is to everyone's benefit.
It really comes down to Wasps making that choice. What is the point of them losing the money from a deal with CCFC when Sisu are a juggernaut with no intention of changing course? It could also show them in a more positive light, the party that chose to take the moral high ground.
(This is not excusing Sisu. It is simply a recognition that they have no intention of doing what is best for the club, only their investors). Wasps stance seems to be one where everyone, including themselves, suffer for no obvious gain. Why would they want to do this?
What did you wear?
Bold print polo, full home kit with trainers ?
What happens if the difference is way more than 50%?
Wasps only potential losses are if there's wrongdoing with the deal, surely?
Also now complicated by the fact that we'd have to compensate BCFC if we moved back now, which is not an insignificant sum.
tbf they've all said that at various times in this, since 2013.As Pete says Boddy seemed to imply that's it negotiations finished.
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?