The risk is that sisu have a history of taking people to court, the specifics of any future case are purely hypothetical until such a case starts.
Put it this way, if a mate of yours ran a buisiness, and he told you a hedge fund called sisu wanted to do a deal with him, would you say go ahead mate, what could go wrong, or would you say run a mile mate, do not talk to them, they have a history of frivolous litigation, and I’d advise against i?
Ok let me put it this way, if wasps say “we aren’t going to talk to sisu/ccfc regarding any new tenancy agreement”.You aren't getting it though.
They could still go down the legal route (not that I agree with it) whether they give us a deal or not. They could have done all the JR stuff.
Doing a deal with CCFC makes no difference.
Meanwhile, you have tried to justify a £1m rent and being kicked out.
Ok let me put it this way, if wasps say “we aren’t going to talk to sisu/ccfc regarding any new tenancy agreement”.
What possible cause for new legal action would sisu/ccfc have?
Ok let me put it this way, if wasps say “we aren’t going to talk to sisu/ccfc regarding any new tenancy agreement”.
What possible cause for new legal action would sisu/ccfc have?
Going to be hard to prove deliberate action if the contract simply comes to its natural end. There is no legal right to demand renewal
The commitment that any deal relating to the Ricoh Arena would not be approved unless the following three tests were satisfied:
(1) A good deal for the City
(2) The security and future of Coventry City Football Club
(3) The security and future of Coventry Rugby Club
Do they rent it for just 6 hours, x 25 times a year?I believe Oxford pay £500,000/year + costs to Kassam ( well, his Firoka Group actually) for a 3-sided stadium. Could be the going rate?
It wouldn't be that hard.
If CCFC refused to discuss it for example then the contract would expire and if CCFC hadn't even tried to renew it's safe to say the blame is at their door. If CCFC try to renew it and Wasps were to just outright ignore it or refuse to discuss it then you can prove the intention from either side.
Of course there isn't any legal obligation and nobody can force Wasps to, but what does this mean?
The jr’s weren’t against wasps, they were against the council and their undervaluation of the Ricoh and the issue of whether the undervaluation represented state aid to wasps.They could have done the 2 x JRs even if CCFC weren't at the Ricoh.
You aren't getting that if they really want to go on and on with legal action (which I am not saying they should) than they can with or without CCFC at the Ricoh. Wasps kicking CCFC out doesn't mean no more legal action, if anything you would think it would open them up to more.
After trying to push the "Wasps should charge a million" it's now at "if they kick CCFC out there can't / won't be any legal action". It isn't like that.
You have said yourself if they did a deal they would be petty and try and find reasons for legal action, yet you don't think it would happen if they kicked CCFC out?
Said by the council wasnt it? Cannot see how it is legally binding on Wasps unfortunately.
If the contract ceases then there is no legal recourse Nick, we can all point the finger of blame at Wasps but it wont change the reality or the damage done to CCFC & the SISU investment. I was thinking more in terms of what legal action could be taken in terms prejudicing rights by a deliberate act or inaction. Not sure i see any
The jr’s weren’t against wasps, they were against the council and their undervaluation of the Ricoh and the issue of whether the undervaluation represented state aid to wasps.
Wasps aren’t kicking ccfc out, they are just threatening to not renew the contract
(the result would be the same granted, but they would not be acting illegally)
If you don’t agree, then can you please explain why not renewing the lease would open wasps up to new legal issues,
Exactly, well put.Whatever happens at some point next summer the rental contract ends and CCFC right to even enter the site ceases. Wasps don't have to make any effort, or formally evict CCFC. The arrangement simply ceases to exist with no legal recourse for CCFC. There is no option contract to renew
Whole load of brinksmanship going on and PR on all sides cranking up to use an expression from here. They are all positioning themselves to play the cards they have.
I am sure ideally Wasps want CCFC there, (financial and reputationally) i am also pretty certain that the CCFC owners want the club to be there (again financial & reputational). Wasps want the cash flow and SISU need to maintain asset value (the team doing well will have favourably affected that to some degree but the SISU get out relies on being able to sell a viable CCFC on doesnt it?)
Going to be hard to prove deliberate action if the contract simply comes to its natural end. There is no legal right to demand renewal
Could the council have inserted a clause to guarantee CCFC right to be there - unlikely, just think of the implications for any landlord of that - nice idea though. It could also be the case that it would have put a duty on CCFC to remain and that didnt tie in with SISU thinking at the time when attempting to apply pressure (somewhere in my memory i thought it was said it was CCFC that wanted a 2+2 deal)
We are back where we have been for a decade, with a who has the biggest balls contest............ and the CCFC fans in the middle the ones to really suffer made even worse because for the first time in ages we have a team, succeeding, worth seeing and being proud of
It wouldn’t put a stop to the existing case, But I’m saying it Would put a stop to any future unconnected legal cases. Quite what those cases would be are anyone’s guess, but as Tim fisher says, sisu’s M.O. is battering people through the courts.Who has said Wasps would be acting illegally?
I haven't said not renewing the lease would open them up based on just that, I am saying that just because we weren't there it doesn't mean that SISU (who you said yourself would be petty) wouldn't and couldn't find something to start legal action against.
Kicking CCFC out (or not renewing the contract if you want to spin it like that) doesn't mean there's a sudden end to any legal nonsense.
It wouldn’t put a stop to the existing case, But I’m saying it Would put a stop to any future unconnected legal cases. Quite what those cases would be are anyone’s guess, but as Tim fisher says, sisu’s M.O. is battering people through the courts.
I never voted them in and defiantly won't be voting for them this time around.I'm more surprised that if it is just bs or pr it gets swept under the carpet so easily.
Same as the council leader openly lying.
Allowing the existing tenancy to expire and not renewing it, would protect wasps from any future NEW litigation from sisu.So SISU are petty, want to pointlessly drag people through the courts but kicking CCFC out would suddenly put a stop to that?
That last line certainly rings true, The whole saga is a pile of shit.I never voted them in and defiantly won't be voting for them this time around.
Other then they what else can we do?
Funny thing is I do blame them all just blame Sisu more.
Allowing the existing tenancy to expire and not renewing it, would protect wasps from any future NEW litigation from sisu.
If Wasps have zero dealings with sisu, what possible reason could sisu have for taking them to court, if you know of any please tell me.
The already existing JR could of course rumble on for years. But as a buisiness wasps would reduce their risk/exposure.
I’m not saying I want this to happen, I’m just pointing out exactly what the owners of wasps WILL be discussing.
The wording would be along the lines of, “we won’t discuss any new deal with you while we are still involved in litigation with you”
That’s not blackmail, just a statement of fact.
I guess they could go through old paperwork looking for straws to clutch at.
That’s not being petty though, that’s downright bloody minded !
Are you really buying this “We want to talk to the landlords as the Ricoh was always the preferred option” cobblers on the night before the last court case?That's the thing, you can't say they would go out of their way to find something to start pointless legal action against them if they did a deal but then say it will all stop if they kicked CCFC out and refused to deal with them. If anything, they would probably be more likely to go out of their way and twice as pointless.
Nope, I pointed out the time it was transparent and far too blatant.Are you really buying this “We want to talk to the landlords as the Ricoh was always the preferred option” cobblers on the night before the last court case?
You are always accusing the trust and other fans groups cranking things up, but isn’t that what Ccfc (Sisu) done on that occasion to get the fans onside just in case?
Correct. So hats off to you Sir. :emoji_thumbsup:Nope, I pointed out the time it was transparent and far too blatant.
If they were going to do / say that, it should have been at the very start of the season, not the night before the outcome of the court case.
They could have gone with "new season, new players, first thing's first let's sort the Ricoh".
Do I believe that CCFC will want to do a deal to stay at the Ricoh? Yep, can't really see many other options at the minute.
That's why they want to move.Sounds like theyre getting screwed as we have done in the past. Doesn't make it the going rate.
Somewhere to play football next season (P.S. Can't stand Wasps and what has happened - but we have few cards to play, We can pretend we'll walk away, which would damage Wasps, but ultimately it will be us who will have to blink first - gutted as I am to think it)
This is exactly the problem in a nutshell. Any basic level chess player should’ve seen it ending up like this. We gambled everything on the idea the council wouldn’t be able to find a buyer and we’d be able to starve them out from Northampton and we got it spectacularly wrong. Everything else flows from there.
Increasingly the court case looks like nothing more than the desperate flailing of someone who doesn’t like losing rather than a coherent plan for the future of the club.
The decision to sell the ground was taken because sisu had made public their intention to buy land and build their own stadium. What do you think the council were going to do with an empty stadium?
The risk is that sisu have a history of taking people to court, the specifics of any future case are purely hypothetical until such a case starts.
Put it this way, if a mate of yours ran a buisiness, and he told you a hedge fund called sisu wanted to do a deal with him, would you say go ahead mate, what could go wrong, or would you say run a mile mate, do not talk to them, they have a history of frivolous litigation, and I’d advise against i?
Allowing the existing tenancy to expire and not renewing it, would protect wasps from any future NEW litigation from sisu.
If Wasps have zero dealings with sisu, what possible reason could sisu have for taking them to court, if you know of any please tell me.
The already existing JR could of course rumble on for years. But as a buisiness wasps would reduce their risk/exposure.
I’m not saying I want this to happen, I’m just pointing out exactly what the owners of wasps WILL be discussing.
Love it, good reply!Good question. Hypothetically then...
If my mate ran a business, let's say an unprofitable rugby club that owned a football stadium and had other tenants like hotels and a casino. And let's say that he was 37m or so in the hole with 5% interest or more to pay on it every year. And there was a local football team that wanted to rent the stadium for a six figure sum every year, and some of their fans were also his fans. Let's also say that that this football club had been renting the stadium for a couple of years without issue and never missed a payment, and he could get a deposit just in case.
Then in those circumstance I'd say he'd be an absolute idiot not to do a deal - regardless of the club's litigation history, because the simple fact is that there's bugger all to litigate about in a new deal.
If the club don't stick to their side he could keep the deposit and boot them out. He'd just have to make sure the contract was tight which is why I'd suggest he should get decent solicitors (and also perhaps insure against future litigation costs if he was really paranoid). That would be my advice to my mate. He's not really in a place where he can be turning down the money, and alienating a key part of his own (dwindling) fan base and other tenants isn't going to help him get out of his own debt crisis.
Of course if he wanted to shoehorn another issue into it, possibly for PR purposes so that he didn't look like the bad guy, or maybe to give him an excuse to raise the rent, then I'd advise him to fire up the old PR machine and get people writing articles in the papers and on the forums to try to make it look like any failure was all down to the other side's intransigence. (the Boris approach, as it's known).
I hope that helps my hypothetical mate - or maybe you had a different scenario in mind?
This is exactly the problem in a nutshell. Any basic level chess player should’ve seen it ending up like this. We gambled everything on the idea the council wouldn’t be able to find a buyer and we’d be able to starve them out from Northampton and we got it spectacularly wrong. Everything else flows from there.
Increasingly the court case looks like nothing more than the desperate flailing of someone who doesn’t like losing rather than a coherent plan for the future of the club.
What Wasps owners are probably talking about is how they can apply pressure for SISU to drop the current case and/or substantially increase the rent, without them looking like the bad guys if SISU walk away...
Annoys me that the local media don't pick them up on that. At least make them admit is was BS as they wanted to get one over on the club by selling to Wasps.Does anyone remember the Council saying that the main criteria for the sale to Wasps was that it wouldn't detrimentally impact CCFC? We're seeing now what a crock of shit that claim was...
Love it, good reply!
But let’s just suppose, said rugby club was getting £100,000 per season rental income from their tenants, everything started out well, then one day, said tenant decided to take out a legal case against the landlord, for some frivolous reason or other, and withold its rental as a result.
The landlord, having no specialised knowledge of law, was inclined to take on the services of a professional legal team who practised buisiness litigation, and who promised to defend the rugby clubs interests, However, their services were invoiced at the rate of £20,000 per week.
It didn’t take long for the ongoing legal fees to completely wipe out the rental income from the entire period of the lease, along with the original deposit, and then some.
Which then resulted in the rugby club becoming financially distressed, and falling behind with its tax liabilities etc etc, to the point that it could no longer afford to own the freehold of its own stadium, which put its very future in jeopardy.
It later transpired that the tenant had a previous history of carrying out the very same tactics on to previous landlords, which led the fans, sponsors, and investors of the rugby club to ask “why was such a risky tenant allowed to share the facility” and “ why was no due dilligance carried out” and “were any references sourced” to which the rugby club could only reply “we needed the money, so we turned a blind eye to the obvious risks” and “we didn’t want to upset the locals”
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?