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.
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.
Who gives a fuck build the new ground and move on.
Gone on long enough now all fucking liars hate them all.
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!!!!!
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).
Double speak is the perfect expression.
SISU are bad for calling for the NDA to be dropped, yet we will not drop it because there’s other parties involved...
SISU’s track record is cause for scepticism, yet they seem to be the only party here who is willing to back up their bullshit.
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.
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.
My understanding is less complicated- I thought the purchaser had to make good any shortfall between approved value and the amount paid.
However I have nothing to support this.
Why would people sign up to it in the first place if it didn't have worth, after all.I accept its a shocking analogy but when the uk government revoked Jahadi Jack of his citizenship they knew they’d pulled a fast one and left Canada with the problem
Seppala knows full well no one would actually allow disclosure to that level so by going first the other party is backed into a corner and she knows full well if the shoe was on the other foot she’d not play ball
This is pretty close to how I see it, but to me that reads very much as an 'indemnity' requested by Wasps to prevent SISU taking further action against the Council in the event that the EU complaint is found to be valid.
That action could be along the lines of a judicial review (yippee!) to compel the government/council to uphold the remedy requested by the EU. Or the action could more simply be SISU suing the council for losses based on the improper conduct of the sale to Wasps (as proven by the acceptance of the complaint by the EU).
Either way, to me at least, that's not an acceptable clause for Wasps to put in the contract.
I still remain of the opinion that the only way to really know the truth is for the NDA to be dropped by all parties. If the third-party isn't the Council (or an arms-length version of the council under the guise of a separate company) then the parts of the contract that are commercially sensitive to that party could be redacted.
The key to knowing the truth about this though, is for us to see this indemnity or lack thereof. Wasps flat refusal to even contemplate removing the NDA speaks volumes, imho.
I accept its a shocking analogy but when the uk government revoked Jahadi Jack of his citizenship they knew they’d pulled a fast one and left Canada with the problem
Seppala knows full well no one would actually allow disclosure to that level so by going first the other party is backed into a corner and she knows full well if the shoe was on the other foot she’d not play ball
This is my theory as well.
So morally CCFC are correct & Wasps & CCC are deliberately misleading but have worded their statements to also be true...
View attachment 16142
Fucking hell. The worm has turned.There is zero chance of a new ground being built. This whole scenario has reached a new level of farce
Why would people sign up to it in the first place if it didn't have worth, after all.
As far as I was aware, such things were pretty standard.Whether this true or not, the first of our statements made the claim that the NDA was signed ‘at the insistence of Wasps’. Presumably, as a precondition of entering negotiations.
Maybe I’ve misread, but I can’t recall Wasps challenging that specific claim.
There is zero chance of a new ground being built. This whole scenario has reached a new level of farce
Yep agree with all of that. Differ on opinion of whether it’s worth pursuing for CCFC, but that’s a personal call. Everyone will have their own take.
My belief is that it is this that is the “threat to the future of the club”. They are being asked to waiver any future right to legal action — full stop. I have no idea if that is even legally possible? I mean, you can’t stop the CPS from prosecuting you for murder just because of a legal contract, but as seems to be the phrase at present IANAL.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
I am not sure SISU can use the complaint process to claim damages from WASPS. Surely the restitution is from WASPS to CCC
What damages could SISU claim if the full price has been paid?
Context - only a few people know the truth and I have only been told what they want to tell meOne question of anyone can Answer please is
if the same issues exist to last year then why have months of decent negotiations been had for? Surely it’s the first thing you ask to save yourself the bother
The thing that gets missed every time, no media want to challenge is that Wasps were involved with Hoffman and his takeover plans.
Surely that plays a fairly big part and says a fair bit about intentions?
I suppose it’s in the past and not relevant to current discussions or helps to move things forward.The thing that gets missed every time, no media want to challenge is that Wasps were involved with Hoffman and his takeover plans.
Surely that plays a fairly big part and says a fair bit about intentions?
One thing we need to drop as fans looking on is the conflicting idea that wasps are skint and need us at the Ricoh yet are hampering our ability to do so. People seem to concoct their theories believing both. Pick one or accept the issue is less black and white and the two sides are just falling out over complex negotiations.
I suppose it’s in the past and not relevant to current discussions or helps to move things forward.
When mark and I met with Dave and joy it was clear there were some issues that were personal and it would take significant shifts in the situation to move on from them.
Doesn’t stop me thinking what daft apes not being able to make an agreement that would be financially beneficial for both parties.
I suppose this next season we may play all games behind closed doors and so for Ccfc not paying lots of money is the most important whereas any normal season we could be nudging 20000 average when we compete in the championship. I suppose if the announcement saying St. Andrews had said we’ve decided to play at St. Andrews as the up front costs are much cheaper than the deal on offer from wasps at the Ricoh and we don’t think fans will be in many matches so we’ve decided to continue discussions and look to take advantage of playing in coventry when fans are allowed back in large numbers.
The thing that gets missed every time, no media want to challenge is that Wasps were involved with Hoffman and his takeover plans.
Surely that plays a fairly big part and says a fair bit about intentions?
If both are true then as I say it’s not as black and white as people sometimes make out and calls Boddys statement about wasps running down the clock into question. It would suggest, as I say in a reply to Nick above, a game of chicken with both sides trying to make the other blink to get more favourable terms. If that’s the case this could go on for years again yet.Perhaps both are true
They are certainly not flush with cash and laden with real 3rd Party Debt
Perhaps other parties connected to WASPS are affecting the discussions - for whatever reasons?
I’m not saying I think it’s in the past or not relevant just suggesting why others might.Is it in the past though?
It is very relevant that Wasps were involved in a Consortium trying to take over the club. Previously, why did Hoffman always popup when discussions of rent were stalling or having issues? It was like clockwork.
When you have the local media shitting themselves to go near it, it also adds that there might just be something about it.
I wouldn't overlook that, just rewind to the Haskell situation.
I’m not saying I think it’s in the past or not relevant just suggesting why others might.
In the church we have a phrase about change that goes something like this
Honouring the past
Navigate change in the present
Building for the future
It’s where we are!
The parties need reconciliation to move forward but are too entrenched
My wife works in reconciliation and movement and change is possible when not only discussion takes place but listening and ultimately when your enemy can understand your story well enough to explain it. Not necessarily agree but can tell your story.
Business is different of course
tbh the inevitability of all this (and it has been since ACL days) is that getting a deal that suits both interests, without one party taking advantage to an inordinate degree, is easier said than done.I get that but if Wasps still have Hoffman in mind when negotiating things like this then it will impact it.
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?