MalcSB
Well-Known Member
I think ”proven” is a bit strong, suggested more like.
I think ”proven” is a bit strong, suggested more like.It was always word play mate. “Indemnity” vs “drop the legals”. It’s been that way for a year. They both essentially mean the same thing. Sisu wanted people to think it was paying for the state aid remedy and there’s people in this thread who still believe that, when that’s been proven false.
I speculated above that wasps will think (or have been told by somebody in government) that the EU case wouldn’t be enforced. Their issue could be the lease being binned off, from which they would be protected by the council insisting no future legal action is taken.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The bit I don’t understand is that why have WASPS withdrawn the indemnity clause when they stand to lose the most.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
Exactly.
if ever I am up before the magistrates with an open and shut case against me, will you represent me please? Your ability to turn everything to suit your narrative is really impressive.
These arguments are just semantics now. What we have this morning is Lego saying that CCC are working against the club. We don’t know the details but it’s nice to finally have what some of us have known for years in the public domain.
Dont think you can get away with trying to claim it's a conspiracy and nobody died when you were found next to the body, with the murder weapon and with a note saying why you did it.
I think ”proven” is a bit strong, suggested more like.
I speculated above that wasps will think (or have been told by somebody in government) that the EU case wouldn’t be enforced. Their issue could be the lease being binned off, from which they would be protected by the council insisting no future legal action is taken.
I can’t see quite why the council are trying so hard for there to be no legal action aside from the following:
They’d be found to be in the wrong and look bad.
Wasps leave the city/go bust and the Ricoh is empty.
They just don’t like CCFC.
None of these feel concrete enough.
I speculated above that wasps will think (or have been told by somebody in government) that the EU case wouldn’t be enforced. Their issue could be the lease being binned off, from which they would be protected by the council insisting no future legal action is taken.
I can’t see quite why the council are trying so hard for there to be no legal action aside from the following:
They’d be found to be in the wrong and look bad.
Wasps leave the city/go bust and the Ricoh is empty.
They just don’t like CCFC.
None of these feel concrete enough.
The alternative is to allow the council to have defrauded local taxpayers whilst, for example, cutting support to dementia sufferers.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.
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.
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.
Good explanation for ignorants like me. I have a question. If it was found that the Ricoh was undersold, would there not be a financial penalty for the council? Would they not be held accountable?
That’s a fair point. Could it be that by saying “no action against the council” wasps are protecting themselves while also able to say they are not protected specifically by the indemnity? If so, some of their recent comments seem to have dropped the council in it as they imply it’s because of and for the council. If that was the case you’d expect the relationship between wasps and the council start to sour.It doesn’t have to be the council. It can be that Wasps think the council are a weak point that could be exploited.
What we need is someone to get the council to confirm they don’t want it. That would be the smoking gun if they won’t do that. Goes against all the previous statements.
"Did not ask for any conditions to be inserted into any possible deal"
We think that is not true dont we.
Wonder if Wasps are biting their tongue?
And, I’m guessing, it would be easier for SISU to win something like that if the ECJ case was favourable to them?No. The only fines the ECJ hand out are to member states for repeated breaches of state aid rules. The action they demand is “recovery of the aid”.
An easier one to understand is if it was cash payment rather than undervaluing. Let’s say CCC just handed Wasps £10m in a brown envelope, the remedy would be “give them back £10m”.
State aid cases aren’t designed to punish, they’re designed to restore the market to the state that existed before the intervention.
Where damages come in is in civil cases afterwards (Sisu sue for loss of earnings, or Sisu ask the lease is rules void, or whatever). But that’s a separate legal case, in the U.K. justice system, not the state aid case and the ECJ.
I have a feeling about number 2 and 3.
They have gone properly balls deep in with Wasps, in that time CCFC has gone to shit down to League 2 and they have now just won the League to go back into the Championship. It is an absolute nightmare for them because they can't play on negativity around CCFC and take advantage of fans pissed off because we aren't doing well on the pitch.
At the same time, Wasps have done the opposite. Fiddled the books, lost decent players because of promises about training grounds, performances gone downhill, on their 3rd training ground plan while pissing people off at each one (I know we cant talk as its like our stadium).
Now we are in the Championship, we are a much bigger sell than Wasps. We weren't while in League 2.
Is it possible that as part of the original sale Wasps have to insulate CCC from any legal action. Would be technically correct that they haven’t asked for anything to be inserted into the deal but also why wasps are so desperate to have it."Did not ask for any conditions to be inserted into any possible deal"
We think that is not true dont we.
Wonder if Wasps are biting their tongue?
And, I’m guessing, it would be easier for SISU to win something like that if the ECJ case was favourable to them?
The obvious thing here is that if the council haven't requested the indemnity Wasps are requiring on their behalf they will very quickly get a statement out reflecting this. Having gone to the trouble and expense of hiring PR companies to make themselves look like the good guys in this whole mess they aren't going to just sit back and let everything be thrown onto them.
The longer it goes without a statement from them saying they did not request and do not require indemnity the worse it looks for them.
What does balls deep really mean though? It still implies they threw their lot in and now don’t want to look bad but to me that doesn’t justify their actions over the last few years. This is where it does feel a bit “conspiracy theory” in that I can’t see a rational explanation for how hard CCC have backed wasps and been anti SISU.
It does. If I were Gilbert I’d be straight on the phone asking them to confirm they don’t need indemnity. Not whether they asked for it, that’s full of loopholes. Just a simple “we do not need indemnity, it’s Wasps decision”.
Has CCC upset the Telegraph journo's then? why all of a sudden is Gilbert digging deep with the questions?The news is when you hear Simon Gilbert say it, it makes you realise that people are starting to see things
Its taken very little for the house of cards to start collapsing. Imagine if the CT and CWR had actually done some digging years ago.Play them off against each other.
Find inconsistencies.
It's almost like I was pushing that approach in about 2014.
Has CCC upset the Telegraph journo's then? why all of a sudden is Gilbert digging deep with the questions?
Has CCC upset the Telegraph journo's then? why all of a sudden is Gilbert digging deep with the questions?
Also is it not the case now that who ever was behind trying to de-stabalise CCFC and buy them out on the cheap cannot now afford a Championship club!I have a feeling about number 2 and 3.
They have gone properly balls deep in with Wasps, in that time CCFC has gone to shit down to League 2 and they have now just won the League to go back into the Championship. It is an absolute nightmare for them because they can't play on negativity around CCFC and take advantage of fans pissed off because we aren't doing well on the pitch.
At the same time, Wasps have done the opposite. Fiddled the books, lost decent players because of promises about training grounds, performances gone downhill, on their 3rd training ground plan while pissing people off at each one (I know we cant talk as its like our stadium).
Now we are in the Championship, we are a much bigger sell than Wasps. We weren't while in League 2.
What does balls deep really mean though? It still implies they threw their lot in and now don’t want to look bad but to me that doesn’t justify their actions over the last few years. This is where it does feel a bit “conspiracy theory” in that I can’t see a rational explanation for how hard CCC have backed wasps and been anti SISU.
Don't forget they tried to force through an ACL / Wasps takeover of the football club too.
What justifies their actions pre-SISU?
Maybe it was the Wasps promise of this amazing new training facility and all these jobs that sucked them in. Maybe it was the thought of a packed out Ricoh full of Wasps fans and fireworks while they get their freebies in Corporate? What about all the houses their owner was talking about building?
That's possibly true. In the workplace and elsewhere you often see people taking actions that they know their boss wants even though he hasn't ordered it. If it goes wrong the boss can say " i didn't tell him/her to do it". No, but everyone knows that's what he wantedNo. CCC could simply have told Wasps that a certain action against them would threaten Wasps status at the Ricoh (or, for the less council hatey Wasps employed lawyers who found it out themselves), that doesn’t mean CCC asked for the indemnity, Wasps did.
We need someone to ask the council if they’d be happy to waive indemnity if Wasps would.
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?