torchomatic
Well-Known Member
I await a flurry of Shmmeee tweets! LOL.
This isn’t news?
We knew this already. It was blatantly obvious. Have I missed something?
So let’s get this straight.
The Indemnity covers only the Council. And they are the ones insisting on it.
The Council are the soul reason we are not playing in Cov.
They drew first blood long before SISU came and continue to do so.
didn't wasps say that talks breaking down was nothing to do with indemnity?
didn't wasps say that talks breaking down was nothing to do with indemnity?
so - Indemnity or no indemnity - What is the difference between us playing at the Ricoh or not. Irrespective of any indemnity, surely it is in all parties interests for us to be playing at the Ricoh ?
didn't wasps say that talks breaking down was nothing to do with indemnity?
The issue is CCFC say tomato and Wasps say tomato.
I await a flurry of Shmmeee tweets! LOL.
I've been saying that for yearsBoo Hiss - the council rears it’s ugly head once more!
Mist is clearing and everything is falling into place.
The people of Coventry need to vote this shower out at the next opportunity!!
The parties on the NDA are Wasps, CCFC, Delaware North and Andy Street
Indeed it does Pete.Makes wasps there’s too many parties line a little disingenuous
Not saying they aren’t disingenuous, but what’s the outright lie? We still don’t know details of the indemnity and how it would impact CCFC. Wasps have said all along they want wider indemnity.
We all suspected they were hiding behind the caterers. That was disingenuous but not technically a lie.
We are all up in arms if they want something that threatens the future of CCFC, but we don’t know if that’s true yet. Would a promise not to sue CCC in the future threaten our future? As I say on here it was out that we can’t stop the state aid case so it was an unfair risk to indemnify it. This confirms it’s not the state aid case but a future action Sisu would take. I fail to see how that threatens CCFCs future. I couldn’t care less if Sisu can’t sue it doesn’t help the club.
This isn’t news?
We knew this already. It was blatantly obvious. Have I missed something?
interesting. A little more clarity
Neither side out right lied or told the whole truth. Quelle surprise.
I also believe there is a time limit of 6 years for any civil court case. a claim against ccc would run out by end of this year In that case I would guess. I assume wasps would be required to participate?
Disingenuous - Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
From wasps statement - "However, Wasps did not insist on an indemnity clause as has been claimed – this claim is simply false.”
That is a lie, it would be disingenuous to say otherwise.
From wasps statement - "However, Wasps did not insist on an indemnity clause as has been claimed – this claim is simply false.”
That is a lie, it would be disingenuous to say otherwise
Indeed it does Pete.
Absolutely no reason Wasps can't say they're fine with the NDA being dropped and I can't really see a reason Street, if he was there as an independent mediator, would object to it being dropped so are we really supposed to believe it all hinges on the Delaware being worried we'll find out there's a huge mark up on the burgers?
Would anybody have an issue with documents being released with anything relating to cost of F&B being redacted, would doubt it.
It’s not a lie. It’s word play. We don’t know what “indemnity” means still.
Sisu claimed it would destroy the club, making is all think it was the state aid indemnity. Clearly it’s not.
Ah! It is being said it didn’t include Wasps?
Getting it now!
What time was this on CWR does anyone know? I’d like to listen
For the first time ever I feel like agreeing with PSB "Group"....
Stop the world I want to get off.
well I would say the clubs concern would be if the outcome of the EC complaint went in their favour any subsequent payments made by wasps to the council will mean the club is having to pay it on wasps behalf
Dictionaries are wonderful things.No. It’s in Wasps interests to protect themselves from losing the Ricoh. That’s worth more to them than any short term cash from CCFC sadly.
Likewise it’s in Sisus interests to keep that option open, they stand to gain more than any short term losses at Brum.
They said there wasn’t an indemnity. Seems like word play about the difference between “indemnity” and “protect from future legal action”
But we’ve just had it confirmed it’s not Wasps being indemnified? How would an indemnity for CCC mean Sisu (not the club) have to pay that?
It doesn’t matter who insisted on it, wasps said it didn’t exist so they lied.They’d probably say the council insisted on it or a company that owns wasps holdings
It's 'an indemnity clause as claimed' anyway, not 'an indemnity clause'.They’d probably say the council insisted on it or a company that owns wasps holdings
But we’ve just had it confirmed it’s not Wasps being indemnified? How would an indemnity for CCC mean Sisu (not the club) have to pay that?
Yeah, he seems to think it was an indemnity for Wasps but CCC.
That's even stranger, even though I think they are cunts I get why they want their money covered. To want it for CCC is a bit strange.
I don’t think it is. But we’re all grasping around in the legal dark. Makes sense to me that a general “back off the Ricoh shit” indemnity would be about action against CCC. But we don’t know the details. Is there something Sisu can do that would force Wasps out by suing CCC? No idea but they must think so.
Would be good to ask CCC under what circumstances Wasps might be forced out and can they protect against that themselves. Or just to outright say they don’t need indemnity because they’re big boys.
It’s not a lie. It’s word play. We don’t know what “indemnity” means still.
Sisu claimed it would destroy the club, making is all think it was the state aid indemnity. Clearly it’s not.
Why is it clearly not the state aid indemnity?It’s not a lie. It’s word play. We don’t know what “indemnity” means still.
Sisu claimed it would destroy the club, making is all think it was the state aid indemnity. Clearly it’s not.
IF it is true, why wouldn't they include themselves?
It's been obvious for years the council still have a lot of influence, especially when their owner wants to be a property developer. Back scratching.
Why is it clearly not the state aid indemnity?
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?