St Andrew's it is then (7 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

if it is the council, whats to lose by ccfc not calling it out ?

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.

 

---

[Nick]

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

They will just get the local media to sort it for them.

 

[Nick]

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"

 

[shmmeee]

"Nothing to do with us"
"Drop the legals"
"We really want Coventry to play in Coventry"

I mean, probably. At least that’s something though, if they’re saying it’s not them.

 

[CovInEssex]

Why are Wasps/CCC worried about the legal action if everything they did was above board?

 

[shmmeee]

Why are Wasps/CCC worried about the legal action if everything they did was above board?

Defending yourself is neither free nor fun, uncertainty hanging over the deal makes finance harder to access.

 

[Nick]

I mean, probably. At least that’s something though, if they’re saying it’s not them.

Depends who they get to do it. Any Journalist worth their salt could make George Duggins shit himself live on air.

 

[Nick]

Defending yourself is neither free nor fun, uncertainty hanging over the deal makes finance harder to access.

Uncertainty over what deal?

They couldn't get finance anyway, hence the Bonds.

 

[shmmeee]

Depends who they get to do it. Any Journalist worth their salt could make George Duggins shit himself live on air.

What would you ask him?

 

[ccfcway]

Why are Wasps/CCC worried about the legal action if everything they did was above board?

1) claim isn't against wasps - that said, if its is found to be upheld they 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 ?

its like going to divorce court knowing it was your wife who's been cheating on you but your still worried you will lose your colour tv and CD collection of bob marley

 

[shmmeee]

Uncertainty over what deal?

They couldn't get finance anyway, hence the Bonds.

Over the Ricoh deal. Them not getting finance just makes any barriers to finance even more important, I dont get your point.

 

[shmmeee]

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 ?

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?

 

[Limey]

Don't get why wasps essentially putting themselves at risk over a 3rd party request. Is the 3rd party an investor??

 

[shmmeee]

Don't get why wasps essentially putting themselves at risk over a 3rd party request. Is the 3rd party an investor??

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.

 

[ccfcway]

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?

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.

surely a loss would also mean they would need to pay wasps back what they paid for the stadium ?

 

[Liquid Gold]

Let them go bust

 

[ccfcway]

Let them go bust

wasps, the council or both ?

 

[shmmeee]

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.

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.

 

[Nick]

What would you ask him?

"Can you help CCFC get a deal?"
"It's nothing to do with us"
"Why did you offer to help, previously?"
"I didn't"
"You did - Read this quote"

"Why did you seem more bothered about an Aldi closing down than the city's football team who are now in the championship?"

 

[Limey]

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.

Turning down revenue. If my business was up shitcreek I'd be happy for some extra cash flow.

 

[ccfcway]

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

 

[Nick]

Are people forgetting how the council tried to lean on Cov Rugby when they got wind of a business plan about a groundshare with CCFC?

 

[shmmeee]

there was a scooby doo theme park ?

i'll be honest, i didnt have a scooby

A theme park in Scooby Doo, not a theme park based on Scooby Doo (though I would attend such a theme park)

 

[shmmeee]

Turning down revenue. If my business was up shitcreek I'd be happy for some extra cash flow.

Unless you had bigger cash flow problems in financing using the ground you leases that’s got uncertainty scaring off lenders and you can try and make that go away by playing hardball of course.

 

[Orca]

could it be ACL ?

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?

 

[shepardo01]

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?

Certainly not Nick Eastwood.

 

[Nick]

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?

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?

 

[Orca]

 

[Orca]

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?

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

 

[fernandopartridge]

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

ACL is the leaseholder and beneficiary of State Aid isn't it? Therefore the 3rd party is not them.

 

[Nick]

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?

 

[shmmeee]

The third party:

 

[Nick]

The third party:


View attachment 16037

Hill has copyrighted it.

Imagine if he owns all the bonds though and turns up to the bondholders meeting.

 

[Orca]

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?

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?

I'll be honest, I don't know. Aren't the "removal of future legal action" and the indeminty entirely separate?

No-one, outside of those on the inside, knows the detail of these agreements. CCFC have already said they've dropped any legal claim against Wasps. The Indemnity has been guessed at being Wasps saying to CCFC that "if there's a problem with the way we bought the stadium, CCFC will pay". Quite right the club don't sign up to that. The full detail of the indemnity or the conditions for CCFC to return to Ricoh aren't known.

So we're now back to the two major parties saying one thing versus the other with regard to the indemnity. The timing of the "new stadium" announcement has been called out by many as PR in advance of announcing no return to Coventry. Sky Blue tinted glasses aside, who has most to gain by lying about it?

 

[Grendel]

ACL is the leaseholder and beneficiary of State Aid isn't it? Therefore the 3rd party is not them.

correct