Simon gilbert has just said on cwr that the indemnity is to protect our friends at CCC WHO ARE THE THIRD PARTY this allows wasps to say there is no indemnity for them
no but it lays bare who is frankly being more truthful at the moment
no they said they were not involved in the talks which may be true on the surface ,but what is now becoming clear they tell wasps what to do
Boo 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!!
Mist is clearing and everything is falling into place.
The people of Coventry need to vote this shower out at the next opportunity!!
I think it’s fair to say though that on this occasion SISU through the club are telling the truth just not the whole truth while other parties just aren’t telling any truth.
what this means is CCC could facilitate the return of the sky blues with 1 phone call try telling that to all the fans and local businesses who are missing out
Just to be clear, Gilbert said CCC are not a party on the NDA, but are named in the indemnity that Wasps want CCFC/SISU to sign.
The parties on the NDA are Wasps, CCFC, Delaware North and Andy Street
Sounds like a “leak” to the well placed journalist to me - well done to whoever is responsible - sure fire way to get around the NDA. 
He didn't say or infer anything about whether the Council had asked for the indemnity. He did use the phrase off the record and that he'd heard it from more than one place. I'd suspect his sources are Boddy and Street.
Doesn’t he suggest they are rather than say categorically? He’s a bit more independent of the parties than other journalists though
Makes wasps there’s too many parties line a little disingenuous
Well it confirms a few things. People have had different points of view on whether the Council were on the NDA or not. We now know they're not. It had also been suggested Delaware were likely on it, and now we know they are
Oh not the NDA. That was always a red herring. But we knew Wasps wanted Sisu to halt legal action against anyone to do with the Ricoh, they’ve said as much Repeatedly. Why wouldn’t that include CCC? Seems blatantly obvious I’m confused why it’s a revelation?
To be clear. Not on about the NDA. That was always a smokescreen and even if there were more parties wouldn’t have to have stopped Wasps and Sisu releasing what concerned only them
But people seem surprised the indemnity isn’t just against Wasps. That’s been the issue from the start since last year.
It’s also the likely remedy isn’t it if the state aid claim goes against ccc. Seems strange for any party to say to Sisu. If the authorities find me and my mate were at fault for something that negatively affected you then we would like you to cover this please. Um no thanks
Sorry has this been confirmed? Because Wasps have repeatedly denied this and as I said I can’t see how it would work legally.
I think it clears up once and for all that the indemnity exists (after Wasps said it didn't) and now there is a definitive reason for the talks to have broken down. Maybe it's just me, but what I heard gave me more clarity, where before, there was some well founded speculation
To be clear I’ve just woken up and come on this thread so haven’t read or heard anything. Links appreciated.
I haven’t heard simon so I don’t know if it has. I think it’s been suggested not confirmed
Just read Gilbert’s twitter. There’s literally nothing there we haven’t been saying for days. Someone ELI5 please?
I don't think it's a surprise to people on here, but there are still a lot of people who are hanging on everything Wasps say as the absolute truth, because apparently they don't have a history of lying (which is a bizarre claim in itself).
What we need to know is the details of the indemnity. That’s been the argument for two years. Confirming the caterer is on the NDA doesn’t really mean much other than Wasps are hiding behind it. Which we knew because they could’ve released the indemnity details regardless.
Would it even be legal for the council to strong arm wasps into holding us hostage in order to grant them protection from legal processes? If it is it seems it would at least be unethical and against the code of conduct for elected officials. If so then you’d think there would be a route of complaint/appeal which SISU would have pursued?
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.
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.
Talks broke down as CCFC couldn't sign an indemnity that prevented them from suing CCC in the future. The indemnity didn't include Wasps.
I guess much of this was known, but for me it clears up the conflicting statements of Wasps and CCFC about indemnity.
