CovInEssex
Well-Known Member
Possible to make a freedom of information request to the council asking a simple yes/no if they are the 3rd party?
Not like its a difficult questions. Just needs a simple yes or no. And one of those answers would indicate there is something to hide.Im actually liking the fact they arent replying. Absolute guilt sign. Hundreds if not thousands on twitter giving them the hurry up and also asking for a response.
Silence says a lot in this case. Oh how the tide has turned
IF the Ricoh was sold undervalue, as per the EU complaint, then -yes - CCC have propped up the wasps financially
or understand what they were bidding for, or time to complete due diligence, or understand that a 250 year deal was shortly going to follow...Also that the sale was all done behind closed doors with CCFC given no chance to bid
Wasps aren’t going to waive the NDA
Too many parties involved to waive it apparently
But they definitely didn’t need an indemnity apparently
However, we believe it is important to defend ourselves against the accusations levied at us, and to address and clarify certain points.
Wasps statement stinks of BS. Realistically who else is involved in talks around us playing at the Ricoh? You've got the council as freeholders who say they aren't involved, Wasps themselves and the football club (who have said they are happy to drop the NDA).
And now they have replied...?Im actually liking the fact they arent replying. Absolute guilt sign.
And now they have replied...?
And now they have replied...?
Well tbf they might as well not replied as it's just the same as the other one in more words isn't it
What else are they going to say?"We didn't do that, we didn't do that, CCFC are wrong"
They said it was an implication which tbf it was.Can someone go back to Tom in twitter and point out Ccfc and Sisu didn’t say wasps had anything to hide. Mark and I sent an email to all parties and one responded to say ok if other parties said ok. It’s not clarity to repeat what you said earlier that the lead negotiator has taken issue with from the other side
They said it was an implication which tbf it was.
I don't know what to make of it all to be honest, feels like piggy in the middle with contrasting claims coming from both sides. One side says there is an indemnity clause the other days that's a lie. Well there is only 1 way to find out for us fans to find out, and that is breaking this stupid NDA.
I would have though that if Wasps believe it is merely 'just a tactic by SISU' then call their bluff. Agree to waiving the NDA then expose SISU for lying about their being an indemnity.
It’s the right way round though
Yeah. It's easier said than done to get the answers that reveal things really. Asking questions to the people direct is probably not going to do it - really needs some undercover moles and whistleblowersIt’s just going to end up as another game of he said, she said. Best thing we can probably do is coming up with some very specific probing questions and get a journalist or Pete and Mark to ask them.
One might be “what other parties are involved in the NDA?”. Unfortunately it probably breaking the NDA to say so.
CCFC: this is what happened, we have the evidence to back it up and are happy to release it"We didn't do that, we didn't do that, CCFC are wrong"
It doesn’t matter. For all intents and purposes the club are saying drop it and wasps are saying they can’t. The implication, even though it’s not intentional, is they have something to hide.Not really, Mark and Pete approached them all in the same email.
Anything that is asked has to be done very carefully. Mark and Pete submitted a reasonable question about the NDA yet are now at the centre of an argument about why it can’t be dropped. It’s all very excited us thinking wasps have something to hide but there could be nothing in it and we’re back to arguing over who we should believe. Every action can have unforeseeable consequences.Yeah. It's easier said than done to get the answers that reveal things really. Asking questions to the people direct is probably not going to do it - really needs some undercover moles and whistleblowers
It doesn’t matter. For all intents and purposes the club are saying drop it and wasps are saying they can’t. The implication, even though it’s not intentional, is they have something to hide.
I called this yesterday. It might mean they have something to hide but it might just mean the club know it can’t be dropped and so there’s no harm in them taking the opportunity presented by the email.
The long and the short of it is wasps can say “it can’t be dropped” and there’s nothing we can do about it unless we can find out who the other parties are.
Agree. I don't want to commit money to buy season tickets based on me believing sisu when they've been lying. On the flip side of that I don't want to not get them and deprive the club of money to find out it's wasps acting the twat.
I had to make decision last season based on the flimsiest of evidence, would be nice to be a bit more informed this season.
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?