LAtest lagal action (that can't be halted) (1 Viewer)

[chiefdave]

Factually correct at present Dave yes, but further down the line? And yes, again The complaint is made against CCC, but who would be the ones coughing up if found to be in breach? Certainly not our chums in the council house.

How are the EC going to fine Wasps if they find CCC to be in the wrong?

I think the reality is they wouldn't even fine CCC, doesn't any fine go to central government?

 

---

[OffenhamSkyBlue]

Wasps then changed their requirements to no action being taken by anyone against Wasps or third parties regarding the Ricoh. That is a condition it is literally impossible for SISU / CCFC to meet.

I'd missed that particular aspect. When did this come out, Chief?

 

[skybluepm2]

How are the EC going to fine Wasps if they find CCC to be in the wrong?

I think the reality is they wouldn't even fine CCC, doesn't any fine go to central government?

I haven't delved into the intricacies of the potential outcomes, but had assumed that Wasps would be forced to pay a substantial and inevitably crippling level of money to CCC? If what you’re suggesting above is the case, what would be SISU’s motive for going to the EC (genuine question, not being facetious)?

You’d have thought the ‘political expert’ Gilbert would’ve made this clear when he was busy spouting his mouth off!

 

[Nick]

I haven't delved into the intricacies of the potential outcomes, but had assumed that Wasps would be forced to pay a substantial and inevitably crippling level of money to CCC? If what you’re suggesting above is the case, what would be SISU’s motive for going to the EC (genuine question, not being facetious)?

You’d have thought the ‘political expert’ Gilbert would’ve made this clear when he was busy spouting his mouth off!

He had no interest in making things clear, he was on a mission to paint a particular picture.

 

[olderskyblue]

Not really. The original requirement of Wasps was that SISU / CCFC stop all legal action against them. That was agreed to and SISU signed the undertaking.

Wasps then changed their requirements to no action being taken by anyone against Wasps or third parties regarding the Ricoh. That is a condition it is literally impossible for SISU / CCFC to meet.

Chief, have you got a link to that original agreement that SISU signed up to? Couldn't find it online

 

[skybluepm2]

He had no interest in making things clear, he was on a mission to paint a particular picture.

I wonder if he’d have kept his mouth shut whether we’d have signed the new lease deal in the end?

 

[chiefdave]

Chief, have you got a link to that original agreement that SISU signed up to? Couldn't find it online

I've posted one example in this thread "the condition that the club’s owners permanently and unconditionally cease their legal action" taken from a Wasps statement. All you need to do is look at any statement from Wasps / Eastwood prior to the last couple of weeks. They all talk of legal action ending.

SISU have stated, and it hasn't been disputed by Wasps or the council, that they signed an agreement to do that in April. Now look at Wasps statements from the last couple of weeks, they talk of stopping all proceedings around the ownership of the Ricoh Arena.

Its a clear shift, not really sure how they could make it more obvious.

 

[chinamans view]

its past, what does it matter start to look forward and be positive, it does not matter anymore who fault it is or was.

 

[olderskyblue]

I've posted one example in this thread "the condition that the club’s owners permanently and unconditionally cease their legal action" taken from a Wasps statement. All you need to do is look at any statement from Wasps / Eastwood prior to the last couple of weeks. They all talk of legal action ending.

SISU have stated, and it hasn't been disputed by Wasps or the council, that they signed an agreement to do that in April. Now look at Wasps statements from the last couple of weeks, they talk of stopping all proceedings around the ownership of the Ricoh Arena.

Its a clear shift, not really sure how they could make it more obvious.

Yes, I had seen that one, but that's what Wasps were asking for. I saw another one where SISU said they would agree, but with caveats about the council supporting them on a development, and wasps agreeing a medium term arrangement.

Has a definitive agreement that SISU signed been published? Just interested in the wording, and why the shift.

 

[Nick]

Yes, I had seen that one, but that's what Wasps were asking for. I saw another one where SISU said they would agree, but with caveats about the council supporting them on a development, and wasps agreeing a medium term arrangement.

Has a definitive agreement that SISU signed been published? Just interested in the wording, and why the shift.

Think it was just said that agreement to stop legal action was signed to commence talks with Wasps. Talks then commenced with Wasps who had that as a pre-requisite.

 

[chiefdave]

Has a definitive agreement that SISU signed been published? Just interested in the wording, and why the shift.

Are you expecting SISU to publish the legal document they signed? Can't see that happening.

 

[olderskyblue]

Are you expecting SISU to publish the legal document they signed? Can't see that happening.

No, i'm not, which is why I was asking if anything had come out about it. thought maybe one side may have leaked it if it helped their cause...

 

[olderskyblue]

Think it was just said that agreement to stop legal action was signed to commence talks with Wasps. Talks then commenced with Wasps who had that as a pre-requisite.

Probably right.

Although didn't Wasps have that same clause last year, and talked anyway?

 

[chiefdave]

I haven't delved into the intricacies of the potential outcomes, but had assumed that Wasps would be forced to pay a substantial and inevitably crippling level of money to CCC? If what you’re suggesting above is the case, what would be SISU’s motive for going to the EC (genuine question, not being facetious)?

If CCC are found to be in the wrong that could lead to a civil case in which SISU claim lost earnings from CCC.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

A spanner in the works........ if this drags beyond end of October when we "leave" the EU, will that court have any jurisdiction in the UK?

I believe as long as the case is filed while still a member it will still be binding. Hence why it was filed when it was, as the UK were due to leave the EU a few weeks later so they had to get it in.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Factually correct at present Dave yes, but further down the line? And yes, again The complaint is made against CCC, but who would be the ones coughing up if found to be in breach? Certainly not our chums in the council house.

So what? That's between Wasps and the Council. You don't want that risk then don't buy assets off a public body.

 

[Nick]

Factually correct at present Dave yes, but further down the line? And yes, again The complaint is made against CCC, but who would be the ones coughing up if found to be in breach? Certainly not our chums in the council house.

So that's when you take issue with the people at fault for the breach if it happens

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Not many are mentioning that they signed to say no more legals going forward from them.

With this you really have to see exactly what was agreed to. With a lot of legal stuff it's all about one-upmanship in how carefully you word the document (basically creating loopholes)

So while we're talking about moving goalposts etc, chances are that in fact both sides were using completely different goalposts and the change in wording is Wasps saying "we didn't mean those goalposts, we meant these" or SISU saying "we don't consider this to be legal action". The change in wording is reflecting their original intention, which they realised what SISU had signed up to didn't do. Basically SISU got one over them and when they realised they said "we're not having that" and wanted the agreement rewritten more carefully to encompass what they actually meant.

I was playing pool once with a mate and was completely snookered and he said "if you pot anything here I'll give you a fiver", so I turned around and potted one of his balls over a pocket and demanded a fiver. He never said I had to pot one of my balls......

Wasps may have meant originally they wanted all legal action regarding the Ricoh to stop and none more to be begun. SISU agreed they would stop all legal action against Wasps, which isn't the same thing. Wasps legal representatives should've spotted this, but didn't and when they did they wanted the document rewritten. It all adds to the animosity and distrust and at that point talks were almost certainly irretrievable.

Some would see it as Wasps moving the goalposts and reneging, others would see it as SISU deliberately not playing in the spirit of the game.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

What’s the civil cases going to be based on? Certainly no JR result, certainly not the finding of any EU investigation if no wrongdoing is found to have been done. If anything you would think it be the council or wasps would have a case for spurious litigation against the club, ARVO and SISU. There is a president for doing that, it is recognised in a court of law.

Civil cases don't require the same level of evidence as criminal. Criminal requires definite evidence of wrongdoing, civil just requires "reasonable doubt"

 

[Nick]

With this you really have to see exactly what was agreed to. With a lot of legal stuff it's all about one-upmanship in how carefully you word the document (basically creating loopholes)

So while we're talking about moving goalposts etc, chances are that in fact both sides were using completely different goalposts and the change in wording is Wasps saying "we didn't mean those goalposts, we meant these" or SISU saying "we don't consider this to be legal action". The change in wording is reflecting their original intention, which they realised what SISU had signed up to didn't do. Basically SISU got one over them and when they realised they said "we're not having that" and wanted the agreement rewritten more carefully to encompass what they actually meant.

I was playing pool once with a mate and was completely snookered and he said "if you pot anything here I'll give you a fiver", so I turned around and potted one of his balls over a pocket and demanded a fiver. He never said I had to pot one of my balls......

Wasps may have meant originally they wanted all legal action regarding the Ricoh to stop and none more to be begun. SISU agreed they would stop all legal action against Wasps, which isn't the same thing. Wasps legal representatives should've spotted this, but didn't and when they did they wanted the document rewritten. It all adds to the animosity and distrust and at that point talks were almost certainly irretrievable.

Some would see it as Wasps moving the goalposts and reneging, others would see it as SISU deliberately not playing in the spirit of the game.

So why did wasps enter talks if sisu hadn't signed the right thing?

They must have been happy with that to enter the talks.

 

[skybluetony176]

Civil cases don't require the same level of evidence as criminal. Criminal requires definite evidence of wrongdoing, civil just requires "reasonable doubt"

There hasn’t been a criminal case.

 

[skybluepm2]

So what? That's between Wasps and the Council. You don't want that risk then don't buy assets off a public body.

I didn’t say it wasn’t. Read the earlier discussion.

 

[olderskyblue]

So why did wasps enter talks if sisu hadn't signed the right thing?

They must have been happy with that to enter the talks.

nick, you've told us ad infinitum that they did this last year without an agreement. However, i think his point is that when it came to the discussions, the understanding of the agreement (that no-one has seen btw) may have been different. It's a possibility, that's all

 

[Ricketts]

With this you really have to see exactly what was agreed to. With a lot of legal stuff it's all about one-upmanship in how carefully you word the document (basically creating loopholes)

So while we're talking about moving goalposts etc, chances are that in fact both sides were using completely different goalposts and the change in wording is Wasps saying "we didn't mean those goalposts, we meant these" or SISU saying "we don't consider this to be legal action". The change in wording is reflecting their original intention, which they realised what SISU had signed up to didn't do. Basically SISU got one over them and when they realised they said "we're not having that" and wanted the agreement rewritten more carefully to encompass what they actually meant.

I was playing pool once with a mate and was completely snookered and he said "if you pot anything here I'll give you a fiver", so I turned around and potted one of his balls over a pocket and demanded a fiver. He never said I had to pot one of my balls......

Wasps may have meant originally they wanted all legal action regarding the Ricoh to stop and none more to be begun. SISU agreed they would stop all legal action against Wasps, which isn't the same thing. Wasps legal representatives should've spotted this, but didn't and when they did they wanted the document rewritten. It all adds to the animosity and distrust and at that point talks were almost certainly irretrievable.

Some would see it as Wasps moving the goalposts and reneging, others would see it as SISU deliberately not playing in the spirit of the game.

How did it end up? Did he pay up?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

So why did wasps enter talks if sisu hadn't signed the right thing?

They must have been happy with that to enter the talks.

Wasps were happy with it enough to enter talks until they realised/had it pointed out to them that the agreement didn't actually agree to what they wanted/thought it did. Hence they then tried to change it.

As I said SISU got one over them.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

There hasn’t been a criminal case.

But there has been reviews etc to see if there was a case to answer.

 

[chiefdave]

However, i think his point is that when it came to the discussions, the understanding of the agreement (that no-one has seen btw) may have been different.

I'm confused. Are you suggesting wasps didn't know what was in the agreement SISU signed? That it wasn't examined by them and their lawyers, they instead just relied on SISUs word with their trackrecord for being so trustworthy?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

How did it end up? Did he pay up?

We came to a compromise and he bought me a drink.

I was actually a bit annoyed after cos by potting his ball I'd helped him, when I could've just whacked the white in the pocket and fulfilled the requirements.

 

[Nick]

nick, you've told us ad infinitum that they did this last year without an agreement. However, i think his point is that when it came to the discussions, the understanding of the agreement (that no-one has seen btw) may have been different. It's a possibility, that's all

Where did I say last year? So you think they gave wasps a bit of paper they didn't read before starting talks?

 

[fernandopartridge]

nick, you've told us ad infinitum that they did this last year without an agreement. However, i think his point is that when it came to the discussions, the understanding of the agreement (that no-one has seen btw) may have been different. It's a possibility, that's all

Yep, as I said above it's all down to definitions really. How you try and define legal action considering the array of direct and indirect routes is difficult.

 

[olderskyblue]

I'm confused. Are you suggesting wasps didn't know what was in the agreement SISU signed? That it wasn't examined by them and their lawyers, they instead just relied on SISUs word with their trackrecord for being so trustworthy?

An intent to cease legals may have been enough for Wasps to commence talks, and climb down from their previous position of "no talks" and then find out exactly what everyone is prepared to do, re a deal. That's when the real "meanings" of what everyone wants or can agree to kick in. That's when the lawyers have their fine toothcombs ready.

 

[skybluetony176]

But there has been reviews etc to see if there was a case to answer.

There’s been 1 Judicial Review, appeals to have a second JR heard, a commercial dispute between Higgs and the club/SISU. They’re all legal proceedings not criminal proceedings. If the EU having investigated the complaint deem no action is required as all was above board then there has neither been a legal or criminal proceeding.

 

[Chipfat]

If no trust is shown around the table a deal will be very hard to find. When lies and deist are also in play nobody will place themselves in harms way. This is a very tough place for all to be in and threats or demands above whats realistic will be made so not to enter into any such agreement's. Its very obvious these do not trust each other, its also very obvious that powers above both parties are very strong in deciding which path each take.

So where and how does it end? its anyone's guess, as nobody on here has the details discussed or what was demanded, just opinions on what we think. Or what we are being fed by all sides to push the spot light or misdirect the fans away from blame, it might be none of the parties really wanted a deal for whatever reason, again who knows. Its just sad and will end up effecting the players here and potential signings and no doubt its the fans that are punished for caring and supporting a club we have done for all if not most of our lives.

 

[Hobo]

So if it wasn't met, why did they enter discussions after they said they wouldn't?

You are making them sound reasonable and open to compromise.

People are too hung up on reading media statements and not allowing for what is going on behind the scenes.

Then of course it all comes down to legal interpretations rather than how much smoke each side can blow up each others ass.

 

[Hobo]

Civil cases don't require the same level of evidence as criminal. Criminal requires definite evidence of wrongdoing, civil just requires "reasonable doubt"

But still need proof and evidence of an offence. Still a high bar.