I've always assumed any future action would be along the lines of losses suffered due to CCC's actions. Would the 6 year time limit apply to that or would the clock start ticking if / when that verdict is delivered by the EC.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?
No. I’ve been saying the idea that CCC are trying to destroy CCFC for thirty years is a conspiracy theory.
Ive also been saying the idea Gilbert and the CT are part of that plan is a conspiracy theory. Which this kinda proves.
WowFor the first time ever I feel like agreeing with PSB "Group"....
Stop the world I want to get off.
I've always assumed any future action would be along the lines of losses suffered due to CCC's actions. Would the 6 year time limit apply to that or would the clock start ticking if / when that verdict is delivered by the EC.
No. Do you realise how many councillors there are?
Any conspiracy theory involving that many people is nonsense. It’s where all conspiracy theories fall down.
Shmeee of course CCC haven’t been working to destroy CCFC for 30 years-just the last 5 or 6.
Destroy is a strong word-maybe just leveraging out the owners & segueing their own ‘preferred bidders’ in (Hoffman et al).
As for the CT-local rags always work with Councils-you’d be surprised that the old boys network does indeed still work and you’d be naive to think otherwise. (Have friends and relatives who work in both areas & their many stories over the years confirm this-esp a couple who are newspaper editors who have been threatened by CCC)
What’s actually happening is that the CT have finally seen that the PR tide is turning and that they need to get on the right side!
They have definitely known about the CCC shenanigans for years and have chosen not to release info.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Dint sisu a year or so back basicly say the indemnity took away a legal right. Maybe im reading to much in to things. Maybe CCC wanted it that if they lost the eu case Sisu could not go after them privately.
Ah....word play....
You don’t understand local government.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Ah so it wouldn’t stop a theoretical resolution which resulted in which wasps paid money to the council but would stop SISU pursuing a separate claim later on?Technically that’s a complaint and any future action off it is new legal action
The media saying it though is progress. I think now the media has confirmed what a section of fans have been assuming it piles the pressure on other parties to if nothing else stop saying bare faced lies, which was their response to fan speculation.Just read Gilbert’s twitter. There’s literally nothing there we haven’t been saying for days. Someone ELI5 please?
The media saying it though is progress. I think now the media has confirmed what a section of fans have been assuming it piles the pressure on other parties to if nothing else stop saying bare faced lies, which was their response to fan speculation.
Ultimately it might not change the fact that we’re at St Andrews again next season but importantly the truth is out and that at least gives fans the opportunity to make an informed decision on wether to attend home games or not. Personally I think they should (assuming they feel comfortable to do so in this Covid situation) because it’s clear that signing the indemnity could finish CCFC when they’re the only party not at fault when it comes to the sale of the Ricoh.
Joking aside who is left in the 'but SISU' camp now? salop888, Linnell and his mate Neil?For the first time ever I feel like agreeing with PSB "Group"....
Stop the world I want to get off.
I have agreed with Tony, Gilbert and PSB Group and it's not even 10am.
Wasps are doing a great job at uniting our fans, I bet they are shitting it.
Or any future legal action so what if terms of the rental agreement are broken, they technically wouldn't be able to take legal action against that would they (or am I reading it wrong, I'm so confused with the whole thing now)
Joking aside who is left in the 'but SISU' camp now? salop888, Linnell and his mate Neil?
I have to agree there and that might be nearer the point. We will kick off in September behind closed doors then hopefully a few weeks later with a percentage of supporters allowed in talk of 17% and no away fans that would be just less than 5000 and with this uncertainty over if this virus is on the rise again the prospect of higher crowds could be in doubt from ccfc point of view why rush.Frankly, I'm not sure next season, it matters where we playing ay.
Ah so it wouldn’t stop a theoretical resolution which resulted in which wasps paid money to the council but would stop SISU pursuing a separate claim later on?
If so the implication from the notion that it would threaten the club is the club isn’t financially viable long term if it doesn’t get a financial settlement? That doesn’t bode well and suggests a new stadium is a non-starter.
It's 'an indemnity clause as claimed' anyway, not 'an indemnity clause'.
See the shift in meaning?
"However, Wasps did not insist on an indemnity clause as has been claimed – this claim is simply false.”
misquoting the statement is what shifts the meaning.
Nope, they did not insist on an indemnity clause as has been claimed."However, Wasps did not insist on an indemnity clause as has been claimed – this claim is simply false.”
misquoting the statement is what shifts the meaning.
"However, Wasps did not insist on an indemnity clause as has been claimed – this claim is simply false.”
misquoting the statement is what shifts the meaning.
Which could well be factually true, CCC insisted on it
My thoughts exactly. Sisu need pushing on the “threaten the club” stuff. Clearly it’s not indemnity against Wasps payments from State Aid so it must be that the future of the club relies on Sisu suing someone. Also that if the state aid fails the club is fucked?
Concerning.
What I don’t get is that if SISU win state aid claim then council gives money to SISU & if SISU agree to an indemnity protecting CCC (as a condition to return to Ricoh) then SISU have to pay money to CCC (which they have already won in state aid claim).
So does indemnity insist on a certain amount above what CCC would have to pay out if they lose?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Which would mean CCC lied about not being insisting on it. As NW has pointed out the penalty for CCC making false public statements is far higher than for Sisu or Wasps.
My working theory is still Wasps think action against CCC could take the Ricoh off them. Whether they worked that out themselves or were helped by the council I’m not sure it matters. Once they know it’s their decision to put it in.
Now you are engaging in word play. Let me have a go.“an indemnity clause as has been claimed” still leaves room for an indemnity clause not as has been claimed.
That was kind of the point!!Now you are engaging in word play
My working theory is still Wasps think action against CCC could take the Ricoh off them. Whether they worked that out themselves or were helped by the council I’m not sure it matters. Once they know it’s their decision to put it in.
Now you are engaging in word play. Let me have a go.
wasps could have said, “It has been claimed that wasps insisted on an indemnity clause. This claim is false”
As there were no claims about the details of the indemnity clause, the above is what was meant.
In short, wasps lied.
That doesn’t make sense because there’s no stopping the EU state aid claim. It continues to be a monetary threat to CCC & Wasps.
State Aid claim cannot reverse a decision made years ago merely award compensation to wronged parties.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
That’s what doesn’t make sense. How can an indemnity for CCC lead to payments from the State Aid judgement.
That’s why I think it can only be some future legal action.
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?