New Stadium Announcement!!!!!! (3 Viewers)

shmmeee · Jul 22, 2020

robbiekeane said:
Where have you got this from shmmeee? Like where do you get the bit about taking into account existing legal agreements? Have you just made that up or read it somewhere?

Also you say rightfully be appealed. Not sure how you've got there either. If Wasps were the recipient of illegal state aid, correcting the market would be for Wasps to pay coventry city council the sum which is determined to have been left out of any deal. Alternatively, reverse the sale and then Coventry City council would own the stadium again and I imagine would have to put it for sale again and include everyone offering equal opportunity.

Common sense for the first bit. Any remedy will exist within the existing legal framework, so firstly I don’t see how the indemnity as it’s put across on here is legally workable. It would basically nullify any remedy that requires Wasps to pay back anything. Which wouldn’t leave the market as it was.

For the second but reading up on state aid remedies, a straight “reverse it” doesn’t actually seem that common. Usually it’s about opening up a market or promises to change in the future from what I can see. They explicitly mention fines aren’t a thing. So I reckon more likely than “Wasps pay loads back and go bust and everyone gets ice cream”, it would be “Wasps offer CCFC access at a certain level of rent that’s competitive”. I also can’t see the U.K. Gov getting that involved considering it’s Boris Johnson and rugger buggers and doing what the EU tell them. That’s opinion obviously. But it’s the U.K. gov that put in place any remedies from what I can tell and I can’t see them making a top level rugby team bust and homeless.

So if the remedy isn’t where the honey is for Sisu, it must be the chance for future legals (IANAL so don’t know exactly term). Both statements mention future legals and not the state aid case, ergo that’s the most likely scenario.

fernandopartridge · Jul 22, 2020

shmmeee said:
Common sense for the first bit. Any remedy will exist within the existing legal framework, so firstly I don’t see how the indemnity as it’s put across on here is legally workable. It would basically nullify any remedy that requires Wasps to pay back anything. Which wouldn’t leave the market as it was.

For the second but reading up on state aid remedies, a straight “reverse it” doesn’t actually seem that common. Usually it’s about opening up a market or promises to change in the future from what I can see. They explicitly mention fines aren’t a thing. So I reckon more likely than “Wasps pay loads back and go bust and everyone gets ice cream”, it would be “Wasps offer CCFC access at a certain level of rent that’s competitive”. I also can’t see the U.K. Gov getting that involved considering it’s Boris Johnson and rugger buggers and doing what the EU tell them. That’s opinion obviously. But it’s the U.K. gov that put in place any remedies from what I can tell and I can’t see them making a top level rugby team bust and homeless.

So if the remedy isn’t where the honey is for Sisu, it must be the chance for future legals (IANAL so don’t know exactly term). Both statements mention future legals and not the state aid case, ergo that’s the most likely scenario.

Ianal, is that Apples new kinky electronic sex doll?

robbiekeane · Jul 22, 2020

shmmeee said:
Common sense for the first bit. Any remedy will exist within the existing legal framework, so firstly I don’t see how the indemnity as it’s put across on here is legally workable. It would basically nullify any remedy that requires Wasps to pay back anything. Which wouldn’t leave the market as it was.

I think that's the whole point isn't it...that it's a ridiculous thing to suggest and make a condition. I also don't think the EC can stop that private agreement between two individual entities. You can agree to indemnify whatever you want.

shmmeee said:
For the second but reading up on state aid remedies, a straight “reverse it” doesn’t actually seem that common. Usually it’s about opening up a market or promises to change in the future from what I can see. They explicitly mention fines aren’t a thing. So I reckon more likely than “Wasps pay loads back and go bust and everyone gets ice cream”, it would be “Wasps offer CCFC access at a certain level of rent that’s competitive”.

I am not sure how many similar kinds of situations are available to make it seem "common", but the Real Madrid case I referenced on another resulted in exactly that:
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/251155/251155_1773683_350_2.pdf

Link to the post with a screenshot for the relevant part is here

A key part of that document which explains the protocol is here:

According to the Treaty and the Court’s established case-law, the Commission is competent to decide that the Member State concerned must abolish or alter aid when it has found that it is incompatible with the internal market33. The Court has also consistently held that the obligation on a Member State to abolish aid regarded by the Commission as being incompatible with the internal market is designed to reestablish the previously existing situation34. In this context, the Court has established that this objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid is restored35

Key pieces for me here are "obligation of the member state to abolish aid", and the latter bit where the court established this is done once the "recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market".

Not really sure how you can conclude it unlikely they'd need to pay this back?

robbiekeane · Jul 22, 2020

tisza said:
Would imagine the other possibility would be Wasps bond holders looking for legal redress (particularly with the current price) as the information attached to the bond sale wouldn't be correct.

Yeah I mean in summary it'd be a fucking shit show. Clearly they are worried about it being a possibility otherwise they wouldn't be asking the club to indemnify them for it. Clearly the club won't agree to that because they think they have a case also.

Regardless of who we think is right or wrong it's a stalemate. No Ricoh until it's over, need to move on.

shmmeee · Jul 22, 2020

robbiekeane said:
I think that's the whole point isn't it...that it's a ridiculous thing to suggest and make a condition. I also don't think the EC can stop that private agreement between two individual entities. You can agree to indemnify whatever you want.

I am not sure how many similar kinds of situations are available to make it seem "common", but the Real Madrid case I referenced on another resulted in exactly that:
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/251155/251155_1773683_350_2.pdf

Link to the post with a screenshot for the relevant part is here

A key part of that document which explains the protocol is here:

Key pieces for me here are "obligation of the member state to abolish aid", and the latter bit where the court established this is done once the "recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market".

Not really sure how you can conclude it unlikely they'd need to pay this back?

Fair enough, I’d been reading general stuff hadn’t come across that case. But that was a cash transfer that was reversed. Nice and neat. Undoing the sale of the Ricoh isn’t that simple. In that case Real has extra cash, then lost extra cash, back where they were.

As people on here say, the hope is that this measure would make Wasps go bust. That’s not the same thing. I don’t think the EC would request a measure that makes one party go bust.

As for the indemnity. That’s kinda my point. I tend to work from a basic assumption that other people aren’t evil and aren’t morons and work from there. The way it’s stated is patently ridiculous, which is why I believe it’s incorrectly stated. What better fits both logic and both statements is that it was about indemnity from future legal action. Wasps view this as part and parcel of “legals around reversing the sale of the Ricoh” or whatever. Sisu view it as an egregious infringement on their rights.

clint van damme · Jul 22, 2020

shmmeee said:
Common sense for the first bit. Any remedy will exist within the existing legal framework, so firstly I don’t see how the indemnity as it’s put across on here is legally workable. It would basically nullify any remedy that requires Wasps to pay back anything. Which wouldn’t leave the market as it was.

For the second but reading up on state aid remedies, a straight “reverse it” doesn’t actually seem that common. Usually it’s about opening up a market or promises to change in the future from what I can see. They explicitly mention fines aren’t a thing. So I reckon more likely than “Wasps pay loads back and go bust and everyone gets ice cream”, it would be “Wasps offer CCFC access at a certain level of rent that’s competitive”. I also can’t see the U.K. Gov getting that involved considering it’s Boris Johnson and rugger buggers and doing what the EU tell them. That’s opinion obviously. But it’s the U.K. gov that put in place any remedies from what I can tell and I can’t see them making a top level rugby team bust and homeless.

So if the remedy isn’t where the honey is for Sisu, it must be the chance for future legals (IANAL so don’t know exactly term). Both statements mention future legals and not the state aid case, ergo that’s the most likely scenario.

I thought if the complaint is upheld it got pushed back to the government of the country concerned and they deal with it. I can't remember which department it gets pushed back to.

shmmeee · Jul 22, 2020

clint van damme said:
I thought if the complaint is upheld it got pushed back to the government of the country concerned and they deal with it. I can't remember which department it gets pushed back to.

Yeah that’s my understanding. And I assume national especially in the case of an LA being the giver of aid. Part of me wonders is Johnson would use it as a chance to stick two fingers up at the EU without any real recourse, and if not would he let an action be taken that puts a top flight rugby club out of business at the behest of the EU? The optics aren’t great.

I just suspect and remedy would be milder, like giving CCFC fair access rights, or some other changes to the arrangement short of stopping Wasps playing there.

clint van damme · Jul 22, 2020

shmmeee said:
Yeah that’s my understanding. And I assume national especially in the case of an LA being the giver of aid. Part of me wonders is Johnson would use it as a chance to stick two fingers up at the EU without any real recourse, and if not would he let an action be taken that puts a top flight rugby club out of business at the behest of the EU? The optics aren’t great.

I just suspect and remedy would be milder, like giving CCFC fair access rights, or some other changes to the arrangement short of stopping Wasps playing there.

does Cummings prefer football or rugby?

wingy · Jul 22, 2020

clint van damme said:
does Cummings prefer football or rugby?

Haha.

Quidditch?

Liquid Gold · Jul 22, 2020

Can we have a behind the goal end like this but safe standing and a roof on it

shmmeee · Jul 22, 2020

clint van damme said:
does Cummings prefer football or rugby?

He’ll say football cos man of the people innit? He doesn’t exactly strike me as the sporty type though.

Liquid Gold said:
Can we have a behind the goal end like this but safe standing and a roof on it

View attachment 15990

Love that, where’s that?

Deleted member 4439 · Jul 22, 2020

A Dominic Cummings cardboard cutout at Sydney Roosters’ match against South Sydney Rabbitohs

Travs · Jul 22, 2020

Sbarcher said:
As I said in a previous comment, Warwick Uni could replace Loughborough as being the English Centre of Excellence for sports.

I race against a number of very strong university teams in athletics. I would say that (in athletics anyway) Birmingham Uni are as strong as Loughborough, and likely to surpass them (in terms of performance, if not official status). Warwick are still a way behind.

Liquid Gold · Jul 22, 2020

shmmeee said:
He’ll say football cos man of the people innit? He doesn’t exactly strike me as the sporty type though.

Love that, where’s that?

SK Sigma Olomouc, Czech Republic

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 22, 2020

Liquid Gold said:
Can we have a behind the goal end like this but safe standing and a roof on it

View attachment 15990

Boavista's is quite steep too.

Ring Of Steel · Jul 22, 2020

Deleted member 5849 said:
Boavista's is quite steep too.

If we had a stand like that then we’d only need two ends & a few benches down the side to get to 18k..

win9nut · Jul 22, 2020

Deleted member 5849 said:
Boavista's is quite steep too.

Is climbing tackle included in the ticket price?

Nick · Jul 23, 2020

Deleted member 5849 said:
Boavista's is quite steep too.

Jesus, after a couple of beers that would be scary.

At what point does health and safety step in?

shmmeee · Jul 23, 2020

Nick said:
Jesus, after a couple of beers that would be scary.

At what point does health and safety step in?

Once the SAG get a hold of it only the front row would be open anyway.

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 23, 2020

Nick said:
Jesus, after a couple of beers that would be scary.

At what point does health and safety step in?

Even some of the established grounds, like the Mestella, would induce vertigo!

Ring Of Steel · Jul 23, 2020

Have a few pre match scoops then stagger up to your spot at the back of this stand

Liquid Gold · Jul 23, 2020

They look great, much prefer a steep stand with the fans on top of the players, really intimidating atmosphere. That Boavista one especially would work as a modular design, start with the bottom tiers, add the top tiers when they're needed then fill the corners if you need that.

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 23, 2020

Ring Of Steel said:
Have a few pre match scoops then stagger up to your spot at the back of this stand

View attachment 15996

That’s terrifying

Ring Of Steel · Jul 23, 2020

Liquid Gold said:
They look great, much prefer a steep stand with the fans on top of the players, really intimidating atmosphere. That Boavista one especially would work as a modular design, start with the bottom tiers, add the top tiers when they're needed then fill the corners if you need that.

Its a legal thing, I think the maximum steepness for stands in the UK is 30 degrees, and for standing its 25 degrees. Those rules don't apply anywhere else so you get much steeper stands.

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 23, 2020

Ring Of Steel said:
Its a legal thing, I think the maximum steepness for stands in the UK is 30 degrees, and for standing its 25 degrees. Those rules don't apply anywhere else so you get much steeper stands.

As I get older I get vertigo anyway, so I'd be stuck at the bottom regardless!

GaryMabbuttsLeftKnee · Jul 23, 2020

I've been to both the Mestalla and La Bombonera and can confirm it's tough on the old quads, and if you/your other half are afraid of heights, I wouldn't recommend sitting near the top! At the Mestalla we sat very top row, and you can lean over the back wall and see down to the street however many feet below you. Anxiety inducing to say the least. However, it does give you an incredible view of team shape and the action in general.

Joy Division · Jul 23, 2020

Ring Of Steel said:
Its a legal thing, I think the maximum steepness for stands in the UK is 30 degrees, and for standing its 25 degrees. Those rules don't apply anywhere else so you get much steeper stands.

I think UK is actually 35 degrees, unless guidelines have changed since

Ring Of Steel · Jul 23, 2020

Joy Division said:
I think UK is actually 35 degrees, unless guidelines have changed since

No you're probably right, I knew it was either 30 or 35 but couldn't remember for sure.

Skybluemichael · Jul 23, 2020

A little bit about the stadium at 17:05

The Price of Football

Sport Podcast · 570 Episodes · Updated twice weekly

podcasts.apple.com

Hadji's_Goatee · Jul 23, 2020

win9nut said:
It was...

Wow – The whole construction was done in 7 months!!

fernandopartridge · Jul 23, 2020

Hadji's_Goatee said:
Wow – The whole construction was done in 7 months!!

17 months

shmmeee · Jul 23, 2020

Skybluemichael said:
A little bit about the stadium at 17:05

The Price of Football

Sport Podcast · 570 Episodes · Updated twice weekly

podcasts.apple.com

Interesting they say 30-35k needed if were looking at the Prem.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Jul 23, 2020

shmmeee said:
Interesting they say 30-35k needed if were looking at the Prem.

This will be where the positioning on the site will be crucial ensuring there's space around it to expand as and when necessary. If we had an initial one tier stadium which could then have second tier modular expansions attached to you could pretty double the capacity reasonably quickly over time.

chiefdave · Jul 23, 2020

shmmeee said:
Interesting they say 30-35k needed if were looking at the Prem.

Do they give any reasoning or have they just pulled a number out of thin air? 10 current PL teams have stadiums under 35K. In the Championship there's only 2 over 35K.

I'm all for planning ahead so its easy to expand but equally I don't want to be sat in a stadium that's well below capacity every week with stands closed as we can't fill them.

shmmeee · Jul 23, 2020

chiefdave said:
Do they give any reasoning or have they just pulled a number out of thin air? 10 current PL teams have stadiums under 35K. In the Championship there's only 2 over 35K.

I'm all for planning ahead so its easy to expand but equally I don't want to be sat in a stadium that's well below capacity every week with stands closed as we can't fill them.

No not really. Was part of his point about finance and how the club already owe a Sisu £37m or something so building a 35k stadium would add loads to that so probably picking a high number to bolster his point.

New Stadium Announcement!!!!!! (3 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 4439

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency