What do you think will happen if the EU decide ccc didn’t under sell the Ricoh ?
What do you think will happen if the EU decide ccc didn’t under sell the Ricoh ?several possibilities spring to mind.
If CCC don't enforce the full value from Wasps in a timely fashion if the EU decision determines they undersold Ricoh.
SISU to claim loss of potential earnings & damages due to the nature & price of the sale.
Has anybody got their statement. I know I have seen it, just can't seem to dig it back out.Of course they did we all knew it was them they know the clock is ticking
So basically we need the EU to hurry up and find CCC to be in the wrong and then bang party time
I don’t think it’s CCC want. CCC only stand to gain financially. It’s Wasps want. Wasps think whatever it is would lose them the Ricoh, or more immediately the threat of that is stopping them getting refinanced.
(and then wait out the inevitable appeal from CCC, and hope it’s either before December or we don’t no deal exit, and hope that Boris Johnson doesn’t fancy firing up his base with a nice public up yours to the ECJ)
But yes.
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
Brexit doesn't actually effect it. As case was brought why in EU. So would still be valid I believe. Im sure someones pointed this out before as part of the transfer out of the EU.
CCC won't appeal, they've spent years telling us how they're against them and how a judgement should be acceptedand then wait out the inevitable appeal from CCC
Only if we agree to abide by the ECJ judgement. Which has kinda been a big thing for Brexiteers. And under no deal we’d have no reason to because what are they gonna do?
CCC won't appeal, they've spent years telling us how they're against them and how a judgement should be accepted
Hard to say without knowing more about the indemnity. If wasps are satisfied not having an indemnity for them then they must either think the state aid thing won’t be an issue or they have accepted it will but are more concerned with other consequences which would arise from any legal action taken after the state aid case.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?
I belive that would only happen if it was a new case. But knowing CCC they would find a way to wiggle out of it due to a technically
From my perspective and I stand to be corrected on this but:No I don’t think that is the threat. Wasps has always said they’ll put that aside and now apparently are happy with a wider lack of indemnity against themselves.
Clearly they think the threat is after a successful state aid judgement, Sisu have some future legal action against CCC planned that would result in Wasps losing their lease at the Ricoh.
No it’s very simple. ECJ provides a judgement and asked U.K. gov to abide by it. If we were in the EU there would be penalties for not abiding, but if we aren’t and we haven’t agreed a deal to abide by ECJ judgements (and we won’t because they keep saying it’s the entire point of Brexit), it’s basically an honour system.
No it’s very simple. ECJ provides a judgement and asked U.K. gov to abide by it. If we were in the EU there would be penalties for not abiding, but if we aren’t and we haven’t agreed a deal to abide by ECJ judgements (and we won’t because they keep saying it’s the entire point of Brexit), it’s basically an honour system.
Perhaps why wasps don’t need an indemnity, they’ve had assurances any ruling wouldn’t be fulfilled? But the outcome would still provide justification for future legal cases, even if the “punishment” had not been implemented.
From my perspective and I stand to be corrected on this but:
If the EU rule that the sale of the Ricoh to Wasps by CCC is illegal state aid then there needs to be financial redress.
CCC would need to either seek funds from Wasps for the identified amount or pay damages to other potential stakeholders.
Those stakeholders include CCFC/SISU [depending on the organisation that was interested in the Ricoh].
I'm not sure CCC could take back the asset, as Wasps would sue.
That must be the worst use of the ‘mind blown’ emoji I’ve ever seen. His mind has been blown by something we’ve all known that dozens of people have been telling him for years.For the first time ever I feel like agreeing with PSB "Group"....
Stop the world I want to get off.
I don’t think it’s CCC want. CCC only stand to gain financially. It’s Wasps want. Wasps think whatever it is would lose them the Ricoh, or more immediately the threat of that is stopping them getting refinanced.
Yeah... been telling him for ages. He blocked me eventuallyThat must be the worst use of the ‘mind blown’ emoji I’ve ever seen. His mind has been blown by something we’ve all known that dozens of people have been telling him for years.
Proper Velcro shoes.
Particularly on state aid which (if there is a No Deal) could become a keystone of new UK economic policy for the immediate futureNo it’s very simple. ECJ provides a judgement and asked U.K. gov to abide by it. If we were in the EU there would be penalties for not abiding, but if we aren’t and we haven’t agreed a deal to abide by ECJ judgements (and we won’t because they keep saying it’s the entire point of Brexit), it’s basically an honour system.
Can you imagine the press if we leave the EU with a big fanfare about how Brussels won’t kick us around and then we bankrupt a top level rugby team because Brussels told us to?
I could be wrong, but politicially I just can’t see it.
They couldn't refinance when there was no EU case, hence the bonds. Which have also gone to shit.
Think the "refinance" thing is a "It's all SISU's fault". Just like it was when they were caught out fiddling the books.
Same. He’s now in his carefully cultivated echo chamber of people who haven’t got a fucking clue.Yeah... been telling him for ages. He blocked me eventually
Particularly on state aid which (if there is a No Deal) could become a keystone of new UK economic policy for the immediate future
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.
I’ll be honest mate, it makes more sense than “private business gets bosses around by local council against their wishes”. But we’re all just reading tea leaves aren’t we? The result is the same: Wasps want to guarantee their future at the Ricoh come what may.
Not sure what it’s got to do with Sisus fault. Just looking for a rational explanation of their actions.
I think that's the point isn't it. As it has been for, well... nearly a decade(!) it's two businesses trying to protect themselves, and doing what they consider they need to. Happens all the time in the big bad world, but obviously sport has the emotional element which means we get caught up in it - and not like I can just flip to using a different football club, if my one goes pop.Just looking for a rational explanation of their actions.
I mean they haven’t lied as far as I can tell. They’ve just refused to break the NDA.
Until we know what’s in the indemnity/promise to not sue we don’t know who’s closer to the truth (I’m guessing both are saying just what they want).
" an indemnity clause as has been claimed."I’d have to disagree, it’s out now that there is an indemnity... Wasps categorically stated that there wasn’t in their ‘clarification’ statement which read thus:
“However, Wasps did not insist on an indemnity clause as has been claimed – this claim is simply false. In addition, nothing in the agreement would have put CCFC at substantial risk, as has also been claimed.”
The council have said that they’re not involved in the negotiations, so who other than Wasps could have insisted on the indemnity clause?
It’s a flat out lie, and it’s important that the people of Coventry and CCFC supporters in particular start to see Wasps for what they are.
It’s a massively unhealthy relationship between Wasps and the Council, in essence supporting each other against the club... in fact I’d go as far as to say it’s corrupt.
So unraveling this means that after State Aid thingy Wasps give council mega bucks and go out of business which leaves CCC with a white elephant but 54m in the bank.
SISU/CCFC are unaffected.
The bit I don’t understand is that why have WASPS withdrawn the indemnity clause when they stand to lose the most.
And why have CCC insisting on it when (according to you) they really don’t stand to lose much at all?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
" an indemnity clause as has been claimed."
(I need a c&p job, I reckon)
I don’t understand the dancing around here, there’s an indemnity clause NW, it’s black and white. Wasps wanted people to think there wasn’t, we now know there is.
Exactly.No I don’t think that is the threat. Wasps has always said they’ll put that aside and now apparently are happy with a wider lack of indemnity against themselves.
Clearly they think the threat is after a successful state aid judgement, Sisu have some future legal action against CCC planned that would result in Wasps losing their lease at the Ricoh.
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?