shmmeee
Well-Known Member
NDA breach? I’m equally suspicious of how it’s all phrased knowing exactly how it’s taken but not sure you can say either way yet. Hopefully the council makes a statement.
if it is the council, whats to lose by ccfc not calling it out ?
That's what I'm hoping, it seems to be a wide assumption that it's the council so hopefully if it's not them they will do a big song and dance about it not being them
NDA breach? I’m equally suspicious of how it’s all phrased knowing exactly how it’s taken but not sure you can say either way yet. Hopefully the council makes a statement.
"Nothing to do with us"
"Drop the legals"
"We really want Coventry to play in Coventry"
Why are Wasps/CCC worried about the legal action if everything they did was above board?
I mean, probably. At least that’s something though, if they’re saying it’s not them.
Defending yourself is neither free nor fun, uncertainty hanging over the deal makes finance harder to access.
Depends who they get to do it. Any Journalist worth their salt could make George Duggins shit himself live on air.
Why are Wasps/CCC worried about the legal action if everything they did was above board?
Uncertainty over what deal?
They couldn't get finance anyway, hence the Bonds.
1) claim isn't against wasps - that said, if its is found to be upheld the could well lose the stadium
2) CCC either did wrong and are worried or fully correct and are worried its still lingering or it wouldn't be the first time court has made a informed decision that wasn't right would it ?
Don't get why wasps essentially putting themselves at risk over a 3rd party request. Is the 3rd party an investor??
TBF we’ve no evidence CCC are particularly worried other than rumour. What’s the worst that happens to them anyway? They’re forced to take the Ricoh back and run a proper bidding process that’ll net them more money?
Let them go bust
or no money as there would only be one bidder who is willing to pay buttons and they could be left with an empty stadium and the costs associated with it. Also then lost the local income from Wasps games and no CCFC.
What would you ask him?
Turning down revenue. If my business was up shitcreek I'd be happy for some extra cash flow.How are they putting themselves at risk? And it says themselves and a third party. So it’s likely just “leave the fucking Ricoh alone” which encapsulates actions like the current state aid one as well as Wasps directly.
Not sure how that would be a result that provides a competitive market TBH. I don’t think the state aid resolution will be to bankrupt Wasps though. I honestly doubt either club contributes too much directly to the council purse, and they can always knock it down and sell for housing and get their money back. The wet dreams on here about the city and Wasps being penniless and the Ricoh rusting like a Scooby Doo theme park aren’t based in reality.
there was a scooby doo theme park ?
i'll be honest, i didnt have a scooby
Turning down revenue. If my business was up shitcreek I'd be happy for some extra cash flow.
could it be ACL ?
Certainly not Nick Eastwood.A few others have commented since, but there's a chance you could be the first to be correct here. The general concensus is the third party is the Council, but why would Wasps need to indemnify anything against them?
Wasps PR have come out in the last few minutes and said, "there's no indemnity". So, who's got the best track record of telling the truth here?
A few others have commented since, but there's a chance you could be the first to be correct here. The general concensus is the third party is the Council, but why would Wasps need to indemnify anything against them?
Wasps PR have come out in the last few minutes and said, "there's no indemnity". So, who's got the best track record of telling the truth here?
I would guess that because if the case was found in SISU's favour, Wasps/ACL would have had to pay the shortfall. It's been posted on this site many times that the outcome of the case in SISU's favour would have meant the beneficiary paying the difference to CCCWhy would Wasps have needed legal action dropped against the council previously before it was even with the EU and Wasps weren't even named?
I would guess that because if the case was found in SISU's favour, Wasps/ACL would have had to pay the shortfall. It's been posted on this site many times that the outcome of the case in SISU's favour would have meant the beneficiary paying the difference to CCC
I would guess that because if the case was found in SISU's favour, Wasps/ACL would have had to pay the shortfall. It's been posted on this site many times that the outcome of the case in SISU's favour would have meant the beneficiary paying the difference to CCC
That's why I said "previously". The non EU previous stuff.
SISU aren't even part of this case, it is the EU against CCC isn't it?
I'll be honest, I don't know. Aren't the "removal of future legal action" and the indeminty entirely separate?Why would Wasps have needed legal action dropped against the council previously before it was even with the EU and Wasps weren't even named?
ACL is the leaseholder and beneficiary of State Aid isn't it? Therefore the 3rd party is not them.
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?