Nick
Administrator
Yeah, no more action against Wasps. Which is why I assume Wasps didn't want an indemnity as it was agreed
But SISU agreed to no more legal action-isn’t that what Boddy and Joy said in their statements?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
But SISU agreed to no more legal action-isn’t that what Boddy and Joy said in their statements?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
There seems to be very little wiggle room left for CCC. Will be interesting to see what they say next, if anything, as I'm struggling to see how they spin this one into being nothing to do with them or someone else's fault.
Presumably somehow the indemnity CCC are insisting on reimburses Wasps if they are forced to pay out as a state aid remedy. Otherwise why would Wasps entertain the idea of letting CCC dictate the terms of an agreement between landlord and tenant?
There seems to be very little wiggle room left for CCC. Will be interesting to see what they say next, if anything, as I'm struggling to see how they spin this one into being nothing to do with them or someone else's fault.
Presumably somehow the indemnity CCC are insisting on reimburses Wasps if they are forced to pay out as a state aid remedy. Otherwise why would Wasps entertain the idea of letting CCC dictate the terms of an agreement between landlord and tenant?
That makes no sense. Reimbursing Wasps is indemnity for Wasps. Both sides agree they don’t need that.
Clearly there’s something Wasps think Sisu have planned that is against CCC and would result in Wasps losing the Ricoh. We just don’t know what that is exactly.
What’s the monetary threat to CCC from the state aid case? The entire point is that CCC are owed money.
StateAid remedies aren’t punitive. They don’t fine. They “recover” any aid given.
several possibilities spring to mind.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.
If Wasps thought that, wouldn't that mean they think something was shady about the deal?
We’ve been over this. You can think you’re OK but want the threat of legal action to go away. Not wanting to be falsely accused doesn’t mean you think you’re guilty.
All legal action is an uncertainty as it relies on a third party judgement.
Clearly there’s something Wasps think Sisu have planned that is against CCC and would result in Wasps losing the Ricoh.
Am sorry to be pedantic but isn’t ‘recovering any aid given’ a monetary threat?
Unless of course CCC and wasps used potatoes as currency.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Wouldn’t ccc reimbursing wasps be state aid?There seems to be very little wiggle room left for CCC. Will be interesting to see what they say next, if anything, as I'm struggling to see how they spin this one into being nothing to do with them or someone else's fault.
Presumably somehow the indemnity CCC are insisting on reimburses Wasps if they are forced to pay out as a state aid remedy. Otherwise why would Wasps entertain the idea of letting CCC dictate the terms of an agreement between landlord and tenant?
I’ll try and be clearer. All numbers from my ass:
EU decide that CCC undersold rhe Ricoh lease to Wasps.
Let’s say it was sold for £6m and it shouldn’t been £60m.
Therefore CCC have effectively given Wasps £54m.
EU say “oi Wasps, you need to pay CCC £54m to right this wrong”
Where is the monetary threat to CCC? They stand to gain £54m.
Yes but if whatever they had planned results in Wasps losing the Ricoh.... Arses seem to be twitching.
Thats not me saying there's a smoking gun or "LOLZ SISU WILL WIN", I still don't think that will happen.
Because they then get a document saying St Andrews, Sixfields etc cost us 54m and we get:
Wasps go bust or back to London and the Ricoh rots to the ground while the council own it.
That's wank bank material.
Yeah exactly. But that’s not the state aid case, that’s future legal action. Which is what I’ve been saying for at least a year.
Have we really been agreeing this whole time?
If that is the case, on what planet could they reasonably expect the complainant to provide the means to enable that to happen?I don’t think arses are twitching. Well I do bit they’re the arses of Wasps accountants. Wasps want to refinance and right now lenders see a threat to the Ricoh. So wasps want that threat to go away.
Nome of that necessarily means anyone thinks they’re guilty.
Nobody has been disagreeing with you? If that WAS (I don't think it will be) the case. They have every right to and I hope they rinse them IF it helped CCFC.
I always look at it as anything that benefits SISU will ultimately hasten their exit. If they can put us back at the Ricoh, and get out of it with a case against the council, they’ll sell usWell that’s the question isn’t it? How much does it help CCFC as opposed to Sisu?
This is why the “future of the club” stuff worries me. Are Sisu saying the club only has a future if two future legal decisions go their way?
As I’ve said, personally I can’t see that happening and would rather we just dropped the legals () and got on with the football in Cov. But IANAL and honestly don’t know how strong the case is.
If that is the case, on what planet could they reasonably expect the complainant to provide the means to enable that to happen?
Well that’s the question isn’t it? How much does it help CCFC as opposed to Sisu?
This is why the “future of the club” stuff worries me. Are Sisu saying the club only has a future if two future legal decisions go their way?
As I’ve said, personally I can’t see that happening and would rather we just dropped the legalsP) and got on with the football in Cov. But IANAL and honestly don’t know how strong the case is.
Please don't use that picture thoughBecause they then get a document saying St Andrews, Sixfields etc cost us 54m and we get:
Wasps go bust or back to London and the Ricoh rots to the ground while the council own it.
Duggins, Lucas etc all get shamed out of the city to live in the Shetlands.
Joy decides she loves Pete and Mark so much she hands them the club in return for a double header.
That's wank bank material. (maybe not the double header bit, the new stadium bit)
The best way for SISU to prove me wrong is to make some material progress on said new ground.
Of course they did we all knew it was them they know the clock is tickingDidn't CCC actually come out and say it wasn't them earlier this week or am I dreaming that up..snakes
Warwick Uni were set to do some kind of pitches for national university football, I think. It'd be limited issue from their POV for that to be upgraded... and downgraded back again, if necessary!By no means do I think they have the diggers ready to go, I do think they probably know exactly where the "site" would be though and have that up their sleeve the next time something needs to go out.
Could have a JR to find outWouldn’t ccc reimbursing wasps be state aid?
You said wasps wanted a threat to go away. The current threat to Ricoh ownership is the EU complaint. The complaint was raised by sisu. On what planet could wasps reasonably expect sisu to provide the means to enable the threat to Ricoh ownership to go away?Sorry you’ve lost me.
So if the EU case is proven, Wasps would pay CCC an extra £xm to cover the shortfall, but could possibly go bump, then SISU could sue CCC for lost revenue etc maybe to the same value £xm? If an indemnity is in place, CCC want SISU to pay Wasps the same £xm to save them
and SISU possibly go bump?
Or is that too simplistic?
Please don't use that picture though
That is all great (to a degree, Ricoh rotting would cost me money, and what did the Shetlands do to us?!?).
Goes back to they really, really need to show material progress on their end of that deal though. Fine, we'll phone them an uber if they like.
I can't get away from the fact the plan is the same old, same old, and they're manipulating the conditions to make it so. Except unlike Northampton (let's not forget, as Northampton grew to a crisis the statement from ACL was 'negotiations are at an end', CCFC therefore had nothing else to do than move out) the game has been played a lot more slickly for public perception by SISU.
(Note, in saying this I'm not saying that Wasps are innocent butterflies in this)
The best way for SISU to prove me wrong is to make some material progress on said new ground.
Yo
You said wasps wanted a threat to go away. The current threat to Ricoh ownership is the EU complaint. The complaint was raised by sisu. On what planet could wasps reasonably expect sisu to provide the means to enable the threat to Ricoh ownership to go away?
I’m guessing bare minimum we’ll relocate the training ground and academy there.The bit I can't get away from is what's in it for Warwick uni to issue the joint statement if it's just a smokescreen for the Ricoh, what do they get out of it other than if that is the case they look like fools
So if the EU case is proven, Wasps would pay CCC an extra £xm to cover the shortfall, but could possibly go bump, then SISU could sue CCC for lost revenue etc maybe to the same value £xm? If an indemnity is in place, CCC want SISU to pay Wasps the same £xm to save them
and SISU possibly go bump?
Or is that too simplistic?
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?