MalcSB
Well-Known Member
I think ”proven” is a bit strong, suggested more like.
So now we know (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter bradwellskyblues
- Start date
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.
Nick
Administrator
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.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
We don’t have that at all? We know Wasps want CCC indemnified. We don’t know why or at who’s request. You’re seeing what you want to see.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
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.
Depends if the prosecution’s case is “hundreds of unrelated people are working together to make this guy murder someone”
(that’s the only one I rise to, promise)
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I mean nothing’s proven. But if we assume Gilbert and his sources aren’t lying then it’s proven. No indemnity for Wasps means they’d have to pay back any aid with no impact on Sisu.
Nick
Administrator
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.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
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.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
The alternative is to allow the council to have defrauded local taxpayers whilst, for example, cutting support to dementia sufferers.
kg82
Well-Known Member
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?
shepardo01
Well-Known Member
Anybody got their statement from the other day. Can't find it. I did see it posted somewhere...
Only what Gilbert says here;
Only what Gilbert says here;
shepardo01
Well-Known Member
"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?
We think that is not true dont we.
Wonder if Wasps are biting their tongue?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
No. 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.
kg82
Well-Known Member
And, I’m guessing, it would be easier for SISU to win something like that if the ECJ case was favourable to 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.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
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.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Yeah definitely. We’re thinking even if the state aid remedy isn’t actually carried out (see previous discussion about Brexit), it would be enough to open those cases up for Sisu.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
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”.
Nick
Administrator
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?
Nick
Administrator
Play them off against each other.
Find inconsistencies.
It's almost like I was pushing that approach in about 2014.
Warwickhunt
Well-Known Member
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
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
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.
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
He works for the BBC now
Nick
Administrator
He doesn't work for them now.
Tom Leach is doing a good job to be fair, using initiative but Bobby Bridge doesn't want to do the same with Wasps.
Would have been interesting to see how Andy Turner would have approached it.
Warwickhunt
Well-Known Member
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!
It's possible that when wasps agreed to buy the stadium lease, CCC agreed to indemnify wasps for losses and costs suffered by wasps if there were ever an issue with the purchase price or anything else. It's also possible that CCC included a provision in the lease or another agreement that required wasps to obtain an indemnity from CCFC/SISU in any sublease to CCFC/SISU, which would be in favor of CCC. Wasps were probably well aware of the state aid risks, and one can see why wasps might have insisted on this. If CCC were desperate to screw over SISU by bringing a new club in to lease the Ricoh, which seems likely, they may have been willing to have agreed to indemnify wasps. There probably weren't many clubs looking to move, so CCC probably didn't have much leverage.
The best way to look at the word "indemnity" is "make whole", and indemnity provisions tend to be very broad.
The best way to look at the word "indemnity" is "make whole", and indemnity provisions tend to be very broad.
Frostie
Well-Known Member
Don't forget they tried to force through an ACL / Wasps takeover of the football club too.
Nick
Administrator
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
You’ve also got to consider that since Sisu CCFC have been quite anti council. See aligning with council critics from the start, and apparently Fisher calling them “a bunch of communists” when asked if he’d talk to them I heard yesterday.
CCC just want an easy life. They probably wanted Wasps in because it is a good thing if you take out the impact on CCFC for a second and don’t have strong feelings about franchises. Economically it’s a positive for the city really. They also don’t want to lose the Ricoh to a party they don’t trust.
I mean look, I know for a cast iron fact that while my Dad was leading the council they weren’t anti CCFC, because I was there and I know my Dads a massive CCFC fan (that’s why I am, he got me into them), I know other councillors such as Maton are big, genuine CCFC fans. I don’t know about every single council leader or councillor, but I find it hard to believe they’d actively hate the club and wish it harm. Most are either ambivalent or actively support CCFC.
CCFCs ace in the hole has always been the ability to razzle dazzle locals. Am I naive enough to think my first game being taken into the dressing room and getting signed programs and seeing Oggy in the bath happened for any other reason than the club wanted to curry favour with the council? No not at all.
So for things to have got to this point all sides must have made some pretty major missteps. And let’s be honest, until Robins arrived Sisu were generally seen by all CCFC fans as pretty shitty owners.
ceetee
Well-Known Member
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 wanted
