Request to waive NDA - email to Wasps, CCFC & Sisu (4 Viewers)

[RegTheDonk]

Do we actually believe the Council?
Biggest liars of the lot.
If they aren't the 3rd names party, they will have certainly twisted Wasps arm around a deal.....

Who on earth would be worried about being indemnified if the Ricoh had been undersold?
Who would lose out?
HAS to be someone/some party associated with Wasps or CCC.
These buggers can tart it up with technicalities - doubletalk of subsidaries of parent related branches of partner agencies and it's not the left arm but the right arm ... but it'll come down to one of those gits with their fingers in the pie.

 

---

[3generations skyblue]

We all accept that SISU / Wasps / Coventry City Council have all employed smoke & mirrors throughout this long running saga.

Would I trust any of them with the contents of my wheelie bin, probably not.

Okay so the latest set of press release statements are as usual contradictions, are the various parties telling lies or garnishing the truth.

In fairness it is usually a hint of truth accompanied by a dirty great dollop of misleading information.

SISU say Indemnity and Wasps say No.

How about it's a play on words as per usual... And it's somewhere in the middle ?

An Escrow account ? We are all familiar with those we have seen them used in this dispute before !

So money is deposited in the Escrow account pending the outcome of the EU complainant.

That way both are actually hinting at the truth, play on words as usual, but allows denial in the press by Wasps because it's not actually Indemnity, but allows SISU to suggest it is because it's a financial risk/Insurance.

 

[shmmeee]

I maintain that the indemnity as understood on here (Sisu pay whatever Wasps have to pay extra) both doesn’t match the statements given by both sides and doesn’t make any sense legally as it would effectively nullify the complaint and the remedy could be non financial.

It’s got to be indemnity from future legal action IMO, though that makes CCFCs statement funny about it threatening the clubs future. Unless they’re arguing that without the ability to sue people the club doesn’t have a future?

 

[robbiekeane]

doesn’t make any sense legally as it would effectively nullify the complaint and the remedy could be non financial.

huh?

 

[shmmeee]

huh?

So Sisu sign a thing saying “whatever you pay, we’ll pay” yes? Then the government (I think it’s the U.K. gov) has to come up with a remedy that will return the market to its original state, yes?

Well how would levying a fine at Wasps that was then paid by Sisu do that? It wouldn’t, that’s the point of the indemnity, right?

So why would they order that remedy? Wouldn’t they then choose a non-financial remedy like forcing Wasps to offer access or sell off half of ACL orwhatever? Making the indemnity null and void.

Makes no sense.

Add in the “there is no indemnity” stuff and assume no one is outright lying but playing with language as usual, and for me it’s more likely Sisu see the promise not to sue afterwards as the indemnity and Wasps see it as “drop the legals”. Only sticking point is how can Sisu legitimately claim this would cripple the club. Still working on that.

Im still unconvinced that the likely remedy is “pay lots of money” anyway. I was sent a case where Real I think had to, but the aid they’d received was cash. But EU law man. Phew. Not easy to get a handle on. But practically how do you value the Ricoh and what do you do if Wasps can’t afford it? I’m trusting government to generally find a fudge that saves face all round.

The other thing is Wasps have repeatedly stated they’re willing to put aside the state aid case itself. Which also makes me think the indemnity isn’t about that directly. CCFC have never actually said that’s what it’s about. That’s our assumption.

See, talks about “future damages”:

Following agreement on commercials, Wasps demanded a further agreement to be signed both by the Football Club and SISU. This agreement introduced conditions that would unreasonably restrict the Club and SISU’s basic legal rights and would commit the Club and SISU to underwrite Wasps’ costs and any future damages.

 

[Nick]

Have I missed something?

Has Gilbert actually said sources close to the situation have said it is CCC?

Interesting. I wonder who....

 

[CovInEssex]

Has Gilbert actually said sources close to the situation have said it is CCC?

Interesting. I wonder who....

Probably no one, he's read it on here and used the journalistic approach of "sources close by"

 

[3generations skyblue]

Now, the matter of NDA and third party.

Clearly SISU are intimating that a third party are involved and Wasps are not prepared to state who that may be and indeed waive the NDA agreement.

Coventry Council have said (in my best scooby do voice) Not me, not me.

So... CCC not the third party, how about "Coventry North Regeneration Limited" being the third party, the three directors of which are, wait for it... Finance manager CCC - Strategic Lead Planning - CCC - Property Services.

But it allows the wriggle room for CCC to say it's not directly the Council ?

It all seems churlish and quite simply ridiculous to suggest these potential(s) however, I am only following the lead of those mentioned.

 

[clint van damme]

Have I missed something?

Has Gilbert actually said sources close to the situation have said it is CCC?

Interesting. I wonder who....

With in a tweet 2hich was a bit sarcastic he said he understands CCC were the 3rd party but I couldn't tell if he was serious or not given the rest of the tweet.

 

[stupot07]

So Sisu sign a thing saying “whatever you pay, we’ll pay” yes? Then the government (I think it’s the U.K. gov) has to come up with a remedy that will return the market to its original state, yes?

Well how would levying a fine at Wasps that was then paid by Sisu do that? It wouldn’t, that’s the point of the indemnity, right?

So why would they order that remedy? Wouldn’t they then choose a non-financial remedy like forcing Wasps to offer access or sell off half of ACL orwhatever? Making the indemnity null and void.

Makes no sense.

Add in the “there is no indemnity” stuff and assume no one is outright lying but playing with language as usual, and for me it’s more likely Sisu see the promise not to sue afterwards as the indemnity and Wasps see it as “drop the legals”. Only sticking point is how can Sisu legitimately claim this would cripple the club. Still working on that.

Im still unconvinced that the likely remedy is “pay lots of money” anyway. I was sent a case where Real I think had to, but the aid they’d received was cash. But EU law man. Phew. Not easy to get a handle on. But practically how do you value the Ricoh and what do you do if Wasps can’t afford it? I’m trusting government to generally find a fudge that saves face all round.

The other thing is Wasps have repeatedly stated they’re willing to put aside the state aid case itself. Which also makes me think the indemnity isn’t about that directly. CCFC have never actually said that’s what it’s about. That’s our assumption.

See, talks about “future damages”:

For me it's clear that the indemnity is about the EU complaint, and on top of that they want the club sign a waiver that they cannot take any legal action against Wasps or the Council in the future.

The EU investigation is about whether the Ricoh was undersold and illegal state aid. I.e. The public purse is out of money. If they believe of is illegal state aid they could fine or make wasps pay market rate minus the £2.77m that they already paid. I assume this money gets paid back into the public purse/council.

It is therefore entirely reasonable to assume that wasps want the club to indemnify this potential cost plus any legal costs. The EU arent going to say, "ill tell you what as wasps arent paying we won't bother".

I'm also guessing as it's been mentioned before that the clause about taking legal action, means any legal action full stop. This then puts the club at risk of being wrongly treated in the future without being able to contest it. For example putting rent up, kicking them out, adding new costs, etc.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[fernandopartridge]

I maintain that the indemnity as understood on here (Sisu pay whatever Wasps have to pay extra) both doesn’t match the statements given by both sides and doesn’t make any sense legally as it would effectively nullify the complaint and the remedy could be non financial.

It’s got to be indemnity from future legal action IMO, though that makes CCFCs statement funny about it threatening the clubs future. Unless they’re arguing that without the ability to sue people the club doesn’t have a future?

I don't think it is an indemnity, like you say it does not fit with the comments from the club, my assumption is that it's an undertaking not to take any action on CCFC's part

 

[Nick]

Ah yeah



I think it is pretty much odds on to be the Council, so why are they lying?

After all, it has been agreed that there won't be any action towards Wasps. So they want the Council's arses covered too.

 

[CovInEssex]

If the council are found guilty, do they have to listen to the punishment? Or can they ignore it?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Has Gilbert actually said sources close to the situation have said it is CCC?

Interesting. I wonder who....

I'd reckon whoever broke the EU complaint to him. And I have my suspicions.

I think it is pretty much odds on to be the Council, so why are they lying?

Alright. By the time it comes to formal statements, the process from a council will not allow for lying, the consequences would be very serious. There can be sins of omission, and a councillor shooting their mouth off can say all kinds of bollocks, but when it comes to a formal statement issued through the council, they can't, really... lie. There are consequences unlike if Wasps and / or SISU lie.

So in the statement wars, the council one is most likely to be accurate. it may miss things out of interest, but what they deny will in all likelihood be the case.

 

[rhino1002]

If the council are found guilty, do they have to listen to the punishment? Or can they ignore it?

Im certainly not a legal expert but I would suggest that if the EU complaint was in anyway upheld then that would give the green light to sisu to pursue a civil claim for losses
The level of justification to the evidence is far less in a civil court than a criminal court
I wonder if this what any indemnity is trying to avoid in the future

 

[usskyblue]

This NDA is fast becoming a bullshit detector, whoever doesn’t want it exposed is looking like.....

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

The best double speak is the allegation that Ms Seppalla is only happy to waive the ndas because she knows no one else will agree!!!!!

 

[RegTheDonk]

If ever we needed the Rev and his ambulance, this is it.

 

[Hobo]

Wasps and CCFC will never form a working relationship. Especially with CCC meddling in the background. If it was gking to happen we would have crossed that line.

So SiSU have to fund or find financial backers to fund our own stadium in Coventry or just outside (the reason for the later should be obvious).

If SISU cant do that then they should just sell up and take advantage of the teams upward curve.

 

[shmmeee]

For me it's clear that the indemnity is about the EU complaint, and on top of that they want the club sign a waiver that they cannot take any legal action against Wasps or the Council in the future.

The EU investigation is about whether the Ricoh was undersold and illegal state aid. I.e. The public purse is out of money. If they believe of is illegal state aid they could fine or make wasps pay market rate minus the £2.77m that they already paid. I assume this money gets paid back into the public purse/council.

It is therefore entirely reasonable to assume that wasps want the club to indemnify this potential cost plus any legal costs. The EU arent going to say, "ill tell you what as wasps arent paying we won't bother".

I'm also guessing as it's been mentioned before that the clause about taking legal action, means any legal action full stop. This then puts the club at risk of being wrongly treated in the future without being able to contest it. For example putting rent up, kicking them out, adding new costs, etc.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

No fines for state aid. Just remedies.

Its not designed to punish but to but right market interference.

 

[David O'Day]

No fines for state aid. Just remedies.

Its not designed to punish but to but right market interference.

It's effectively a fine for Wasps though as they would have to pay more money for the Ricoh

 

[oldfiver]

Wasps and CCFC will never form a working relationship. Especially with CCC meddling in the background. If it was gking to happen we would have crossed that line.

So SiSU have to fund or find financial backers to fund our own stadium in Coventry or just outside (the reason for the later should be obvious).

If SISU cant do that then they should just sell up and take advantage of the teams upward curve.

WASPS found financial backers in CCC and the Bond Holders so it is possible to build a stadium without using own monies

 

[shmmeee]

If the council are found guilty, do they have to listen to the punishment? Or can they ignore it?

The remedy is set by the member state not the EU so it’s up to the UK govt to implement the recommendations. While the council can’t ignore central gov (They control their funding after all), central gov can ignore the EU. Especially if lead by a Brexiter after a no deal exit.

Ah yeah



I think it is pretty much odds on to be the Council, so why are they lying?

After all, it has been agreed that there won't be any action towards Wasps. So they want the Council's arses covered too.

So building on NWs point, my theory allows for all that to be true. CCC say to Wasps “hey, if Sisu sue us/insert legal thing here, that might stop you being at the Ricoh”. Wasps then enter negotiations with this knowledge and ask for the indemnity to include that scenario.

CCC aren’t in negotiations, haven’t signed an NDA, and haven’t asked Wasps to do anything. No lies told. Outcome is the same though.

 

[oldfiver]

It's effectively a fine for Wasps though as they would have to pay more money for the Ricoh

Its not a fine, it is an order to pay the shortfall in true value and amount paid

 

[shmmeee]

It's effectively a fine for Wasps though as they would have to pay more money for the Ricoh

Possibly. There are other remedies other than financial and I've explained that I can’t see the legal system taking kindly to an indemnity that means you can’t remedy the state aid. So would probably look for another remedy. Again, no one has ever said the indemnity is against the state aid outcome, Wasps have explicitly said it’s not, Sisu said its against “future damages”. Damages aren’t awarded in a state aid case, that would be a future civil suit it seems.

That’s my reasoning anyway. IANAL, just googling shit and trying to figure things out. Could be way off the mark.

 

[David O'Day]

Its not a fine, it is an order to pay the shortfall in true value and amount paid

I did not say it was a fine, I said it was effectively a fine.

Can't people fucking read these days.

 

[oldfiver]

I did not say it was a fine, I said it was effectively a fine.

Can't people fucking read these days.

I can read perfectly well, it seems you cannot

I said it is not a fine which is what you are saying you said

 

[shmmeee]

WASPS found financial backers in CCC and the Bond Holders so it is possible to build a stadium without using own monies

In the words of my property developer boss “capital is easy to come by, if you can prove the returns”

 

[ccfcway]

Surely SISU wouldn't be breaking the NDA if the council was the 3rd party and they called them out on it based on the above ?

 

[oldfiver]

In the words of my property developer boss “capital is easy to come by, if you can prove the returns”

I doubt he gets many deals where the vendor also puts up the funding and then assists it trebling the value of the asset

 

[shmmeee]

Surely SISU wouldn't be breaking the NDA if the council was the 3rd party and they called them out on it based on the above ?

I think it’s fairly obvious the council aren’t the NDA third party.

The more interesting route is to ask why can’t details of the indemnity be released as it will only concern Sisu and Wasps and Wasps can’t hide behind the caterer or whatever.

Surely if both agree to release just that it falls outside of the NDA? And no one else would have a say?

Time for another email @mark82?

 

[fernandopartridge]

I'd reckon whoever broke the EU complaint to him. And I have my suspicions.

Alright. By the time it comes to formal statements, the process from a council will not allow for lying, the consequences would be very serious. There can be sins of omission, and a councillor shooting their mouth off can say all kinds of bollocks, but when it comes to a formal statement issued through the council, they can't, really... lie. There are consequences unlike if Wasps and / or SISU lie.

So in the statement wars, the council one is most likely to be accurate. it may miss things out of interest, but what they deny will in all likelihood be the case.

As somebody pointed out it could be a council controlled entity like CNRL. It's a bit like where they commissioned Weber Shandwick via ACL yet the court docs showed WS engaging directly with coventry.gov.uk email addresses.

 

[MalcSB]

Possibly. There are other remedies other than financial and I've explained that I can’t see the legal system taking kindly to an indemnity that means you can’t remedy the state aid. So would probably look for another remedy. Again, no one has ever said the indemnity is against the state aid outcome, Wasps have explicitly said it’s not, Sisu said its against “future damages”. Damages aren’t awarded in a state aid case, that would be a future civil suit it seems.

That’s my reasoning anyway. IANAL, just googling shit and trying to figure things out. Could be way off the mark.

How would an indemnity mean you can’t remedy the state aid? If the remedy was an order requiring wasps to pay the value of the state aid given (e.g. a sum equalling an undervaluation of the Ricoh), then wasps would pay it. Remedy accomplished, state repaid. If an indemnity was in place, wasps recover the cost of the remedy from SISU. Remedy achieved, wasps have the Ricoh, SISU shafted unless they can successfully pursue a civil action against CCC, wasps or both.

The only indemnity that would mean state aid couldn’t be remedied would be an indemnity from CCC.

 

[shmmeee]

How would an indemnity mean you can’t remedy the state aid? If the remedy was an order requiring wasps to pay the value of the state aid given (e.g. a sum equalling an undervaluation of the Ricoh), then wasps would pay it. Remedy accomplished, state repaid. If an indemnity was in place, wasps recover the cost of the remedy from SISU. Remedy achieved, wasps have the Ricoh, SISU shafted unless they can successfully pursue a civil action against CCC, wasps or both.

The only indemnity that would mean state aid couldn’t be remedied would be an indemnity from CCC.

But the entire point of the remedy is to return the market to its pre intervention state. The scenario you describe would leave it as it is, so not remedied.

I’ll admit it’s not my most solid argument. That’s the fact that both parties have said it’s not about the state aid case. I’m just saying logically I can’t see how it were possible even if anyone was saying it (which they’re not, it’s entirely an invention of fans).

 

[MalcSB]

But the entire point of the remedy is to return the market to its pre intervention state. The scenario you describe would tee leave it as it is, so not remedied.

I’ll admit it’s not my most solid argument. That’s the fact that both parties have said it’s not about the state aid case. I’m just saying logically I can’t see how it were possible even if anyone was saying it (which they’re not, it’s entirely an invention of fans).

So is the only way to return to pre intervention state a process returning the Ricoh to CCC and for them to re-market it, selling to highest bidder? If an agreement to indemnify wasps in place, Sisu win the bid and have to reimburse wasps for their associated losses, sisu lose the bid and have to reimburse wasps their additional acquisition costs. That would be a heads I win, tails you lose scenario.

Of course, we are all just guessing. All it needs is for wasps and the mysterious third parties, to agree to drop the NDA. Bit like asking sisu to drop legals in a way, certainly just as reasonable a request.