Sky Blue Harry H
Well-Known Member
Knew I wouldn't hold out until midday - if there is no comment today, maybe they are still talking and it is a red herring?
The Ricoh.. (36 Viewers)
- Thread starter Tommo72
- Start date
If the complaint was made in Feb, who made it, whats its ultimate purpose and who else knew? would be very good answers to get.
If you think Wasps knew and still engaged in talks then they have responsability to act professionally to get a deal done. If TF has withheld this information knowing what it could cause then I would question him on why he is acting in this way.
I would also question the FL in the allowance of a groundshare again out of the city. They in my mind have once again gave TF/Sisu the ability to say if you/wasps don't give us what we want in what you own we will just fuck off again and with the backing of the league.
In any case all this hurts the fans again, hurts the club and ultimately hurts any trust or understanding these parties will have to move forward.
If you think Wasps knew and still engaged in talks then they have responsability to act professionally to get a deal done. If TF has withheld this information knowing what it could cause then I would question him on why he is acting in this way.
I would also question the FL in the allowance of a groundshare again out of the city. They in my mind have once again gave TF/Sisu the ability to say if you/wasps don't give us what we want in what you own we will just fuck off again and with the backing of the league.
In any case all this hurts the fans again, hurts the club and ultimately hurts any trust or understanding these parties will have to move forward.
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
If they had fully stopped talking surely they would have released statements by now, so its possible negotiations are ongoing
Great_Expectations
Well-Known Member
The lack of statements offers a glimmer of hope this is all a red herring and things are carrying on as normal.
I really hope that is the case for obvious reasons, buts there’s also the supplementary benefit of making all the one sided SISU haters look stupid. And the CCC plan will have failed.
I really hope that is the case for obvious reasons, buts there’s also the supplementary benefit of making all the one sided SISU haters look stupid. And the CCC plan will have failed.
Warwickhunt
Well-Known Member
The European Commission is shit hot on State Aid issues and if investigating this they would come up with a judgement that the Council assistance to Wasp broke the European Ruling, Nothing to do with courts and legals etc.
If he knew about it in Feb, Wasps would have known about it in Feb so no reason for negotiations to stall because of this. Either something has change with said complaint, it was not known about until now or Wasps have been stringing SISU along as the council/ACL strung SISU along whilst trying to buy Wasps
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
Giblet is now in a shameless act of self-promotion on Twitter, saying "Sky have now picked up on our story ..." to which i replied wondering why he was surprised that Sky "journalists" read Twitter, as that was where they all get their content these days. Also retweeting it being on BBC Midlands Live website!
FFS, the bloke will go to the opening of an envelope!
FFS, the bloke will go to the opening of an envelope!
Esoterica
Well-Known Member
If they are still talking then it wouldn't take 10 mins to bang out a 'Despite various reports appearing regarding talks breaking down over the news that our owners lodged a complaint to the European Commission in February, we can confirm that this has no bearing over negotiations to stay at the Ricoh and talks continue between CCFC and Wasps as reported in our update last week.'
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Gilbert now saying that all parties only found out this week in regards to the complaint, making it up as he goes along
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
I've just seen that it's laughable that he is using Sky to emphasise his point.
What he hasn't realised that Sky said last month that it was only going to be a 1-year deal at the Ricoh, now they're reporting that we are blocked on a 2-year deal, so in reality they don't know anything more than Gilbert.
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Apparently from a wasps fan on their forum they wanted a long term deal at the ricoh however we didn't
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
Must be true then!
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Sounds right. They want a 10 year deal which they’ve already offered to us and also to Hoffman and his mysterious consortium
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
Give us the F&B income and we might consider it! Oh and can we use our own stewards instead of their officious cunts?!
Isn't that the way negotiations work?? It's not that fucking difficult is it?
Isn't that the way negotiations work?? It's not that fucking difficult is it?
No there isn’t a reason as far as I can see. This is what I was getting at yesterday.
Why do you say that about Brussels? They have no reason to stop us they’re just investigating.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
This has been rumoured in the past but the rumour was that as well as being long term there was a significant increase in the rent.
While going season to season is a pain signing up for anything that does allow a break clause of something in the region of 5 years could give its own problems down the line.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
As a fan of Coventry City I don't want a long-term rent deal at the Ricoh.
I'd consider a joint ownership with the insects, but playing second fiddle to Wasps is not even remotely appealing.
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
From ec.europa.eu: "the Commission has the power to recover incompatible State aid."
That's why!
Sky Blue Harry H
Well-Known Member
Agree - but if the boot was on the other foot, you'd go mental if we offered half the stadium to the W*sps, when we already owned it. Hence why SISU are still out to distress them (imho) as a first option.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Awful lot of second guessing going on, so i will add some of my own 
Firstly i think it might well turn out that CCFC & Wasps agreed a deal but that SISU had not signed it off. Could a deal still be done? perhaps, but this news greatly risks that not being the case. I am two minds whether we will or wont be at the Ricoh next season. I do think being elsewhere will greatly risk CCFC though.
I suspect SISU could not sign off any contract because it said no more legals, something they knew might well not be the case. To sign would have left them open to legal action
But people need to be really clear these complaints and court actions are not about the well being of CCFC, it is all about the SISU investors and always has been
Having been made aware of the complaint Gilbert had to put it out there, just as any other reporter would have
Technically there is still no legal action going on, but there is a possibility there will be - that will be expensive and time consuming. Up until now then it was possible for both sides to say it was ok to talk. Has it only just become apparent that there is a tangible threat of legal action..... if the decision to complain to EC was February when did Wasps find out, i would think it wasnt until just recently.
I dont have a problem with a time delay between the complaint being made and news now becoming available. If complaint was end of February then by the time the EC have processed it and informed CCC then it is around the right timescale. I would think the news has come from CCC, who i assume are not involved in the rent discussions and therefore not covered by the NDA. I also suspect that CCC were not aware of the complaint until notified by the EC.
At present it isn't legal action but a complaint to the EC that may or may not lead to investigation which in turn may or may not lead to a referral to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). At which point it becomes legal action against CCC. If said legal action is successful for SISU then it gets referred back to the UK courts to implement EU law. That means action in English courts after the ECJ judgement entirely different to both JR's (which were an examination of process primarily). That could take years and could include the requirement for Wasps to repay the state aid deemed to have been received.
To be able to go to the EC you have to show all other avenues of challenge have been exhausted - that box is ticked
An investigation by the EC could take 12 months or more before decided and the case being heard if referred to the ECJ years after that
Going to depend as to how the wording of the complaint has been put as to if the same ground as the JR's is covered or if there is more added
There is not an immediate threat to Wasps but there is a potential financial threat in the future. That could cost hundreds of £1000's to fight and if they lose bankrupt Wasps and seriously affect their owner.
Yes the case, if it goes to the ECJ could take years to arrive at a decision. However the financial danger for Wasps could arrive sooner than that. Recent ECJ case law allows for an interim order to be made in the English Courts to repay (with interest) the state aid prior to the case being decided. That aside such legal action is going to be expensive for all sides
The challenge in the ECJ could seriously hamper the refinancing of the Bond, which has already been hampered by the accounting irregularities (although as the time goes on those decrease in effect assuming no more are discovered). To say that Wasps are not threatened by this is a nonsense. CCC may of course win any case if one is even brought so the threat goes away.
Just because a party fights a case or demands it go away is not an admission of guilt or makes them wrong. At this stage just because a party brings a case does not mean they are right or that their case has any merit at all. The challenge is high risk, but a challenge brought by who? Otium, SBS&L, ARVO, SISU, someone else, some or all of those
A thought comes to mind that this is not just about CCFC. I have had a discussion some time ago where it was suggested that it was a case to establish a principle in a general sense and challenge existing interpretations of law. In which case you would think there is more than SISU involved behind the scenes
Which brings me to another thought. If SISU have outsourced the costs to a litigation buy out fund, CCFC's owners may not actually be in control of where this may lead. Even if they wanted to stop they cant because they have agreed for someone else has conduct of the claims. For the litigation buy out fund, which would take on high risk projects, it is a choice to accept the loss or to carry on with the potential prospect of huge gains in cases other than SISU's. The litigation buy fund would have major funding available, no brainer for them irrespective of what SISU want
Final thought, if SISU won the end game i would not expect there to be huge funds coming to CCFC, by the time the litigation buy out fund has taken their cut (usually high eg 40% or more) SISU recovered their in house costs, repaid the loans & Interest due to ARVO, SBS&L, repaid the investors funds, repaid the preference share dividends Otium owes etc, then the figure is going to be very significantly less than fans might expect
Firstly i think it might well turn out that CCFC & Wasps agreed a deal but that SISU had not signed it off. Could a deal still be done? perhaps, but this news greatly risks that not being the case. I am two minds whether we will or wont be at the Ricoh next season. I do think being elsewhere will greatly risk CCFC though.
I suspect SISU could not sign off any contract because it said no more legals, something they knew might well not be the case. To sign would have left them open to legal action
But people need to be really clear these complaints and court actions are not about the well being of CCFC, it is all about the SISU investors and always has been
Having been made aware of the complaint Gilbert had to put it out there, just as any other reporter would have
Technically there is still no legal action going on, but there is a possibility there will be - that will be expensive and time consuming. Up until now then it was possible for both sides to say it was ok to talk. Has it only just become apparent that there is a tangible threat of legal action..... if the decision to complain to EC was February when did Wasps find out, i would think it wasnt until just recently.
I dont have a problem with a time delay between the complaint being made and news now becoming available. If complaint was end of February then by the time the EC have processed it and informed CCC then it is around the right timescale. I would think the news has come from CCC, who i assume are not involved in the rent discussions and therefore not covered by the NDA. I also suspect that CCC were not aware of the complaint until notified by the EC.
At present it isn't legal action but a complaint to the EC that may or may not lead to investigation which in turn may or may not lead to a referral to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). At which point it becomes legal action against CCC. If said legal action is successful for SISU then it gets referred back to the UK courts to implement EU law. That means action in English courts after the ECJ judgement entirely different to both JR's (which were an examination of process primarily). That could take years and could include the requirement for Wasps to repay the state aid deemed to have been received.
To be able to go to the EC you have to show all other avenues of challenge have been exhausted - that box is ticked
An investigation by the EC could take 12 months or more before decided and the case being heard if referred to the ECJ years after that
Going to depend as to how the wording of the complaint has been put as to if the same ground as the JR's is covered or if there is more added
There is not an immediate threat to Wasps but there is a potential financial threat in the future. That could cost hundreds of £1000's to fight and if they lose bankrupt Wasps and seriously affect their owner.
Yes the case, if it goes to the ECJ could take years to arrive at a decision. However the financial danger for Wasps could arrive sooner than that. Recent ECJ case law allows for an interim order to be made in the English Courts to repay (with interest) the state aid prior to the case being decided. That aside such legal action is going to be expensive for all sides
The challenge in the ECJ could seriously hamper the refinancing of the Bond, which has already been hampered by the accounting irregularities (although as the time goes on those decrease in effect assuming no more are discovered). To say that Wasps are not threatened by this is a nonsense. CCC may of course win any case if one is even brought so the threat goes away.
Just because a party fights a case or demands it go away is not an admission of guilt or makes them wrong. At this stage just because a party brings a case does not mean they are right or that their case has any merit at all. The challenge is high risk, but a challenge brought by who? Otium, SBS&L, ARVO, SISU, someone else, some or all of those
A thought comes to mind that this is not just about CCFC. I have had a discussion some time ago where it was suggested that it was a case to establish a principle in a general sense and challenge existing interpretations of law. In which case you would think there is more than SISU involved behind the scenes
Which brings me to another thought. If SISU have outsourced the costs to a litigation buy out fund, CCFC's owners may not actually be in control of where this may lead. Even if they wanted to stop they cant because they have agreed for someone else has conduct of the claims. For the litigation buy out fund, which would take on high risk projects, it is a choice to accept the loss or to carry on with the potential prospect of huge gains in cases other than SISU's. The litigation buy fund would have major funding available, no brainer for them irrespective of what SISU want
Final thought, if SISU won the end game i would not expect there to be huge funds coming to CCFC, by the time the litigation buy out fund has taken their cut (usually high eg 40% or more) SISU recovered their in house costs, repaid the loans & Interest due to ARVO, SBS&L, repaid the investors funds, repaid the preference share dividends Otium owes etc, then the figure is going to be very significantly less than fans might expect
Last edited:
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
SISU don't need to distress the insects, they're in a bad position as it is.
Can't afford to make any new signings ahead of the new Premiership season.
Can't pay off the Ricoh.
Millions in debt.
I would go mental, you're right, only for the reason that we are putting a London franchise ahead of our own city's Rugby team, beyond that Wasps mean nothing to me personally.
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
Don't hold your breath on this one, guys!
EC has a searchable database of decisions on State Aid cases.
One in the UK was notified to the EC on 21/12/2012. The decision to progress to full investigation was taken on 21/02/2019.
So the preliminary investigation mentioned by Giblet's "expert" on the radio this morning has taken 7 YEARS!
EC has a searchable database of decisions on State Aid cases.
One in the UK was notified to the EC on 21/12/2012. The decision to progress to full investigation was taken on 21/02/2019.
So the preliminary investigation mentioned by Giblet's "expert" on the radio this morning has taken 7 YEARS!
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
What does that mean?
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
It could take an undefined length of time for the EC to come to a decision.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
It means they won't even decide if they're going to look into it or not for 7 years.
So if this complaint was in for sometime why did wasps enter talks? Something still doesn’t tally up. Wasps didn’t know about it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
But OSB58, is it not the case that SISU (or any of the parties you cite) may have made the complaint to the EC, but it is the EC ONLY who will investigate and deem if any state aid laws have been broken, which might be followed by recovery of such state aid (presumably from Wasps)????
So you hand it over to the EC and they investigate - it's not your legal case against anyone, is it? Would the complainant need to shell out legal costs, other than provision of data?
Or am i wrong?
So you hand it over to the EC and they investigate - it's not your legal case against anyone, is it? Would the complainant need to shell out legal costs, other than provision of data?
Or am i wrong?
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
It MAY be that the EC have only just told the parties that a complaint was received in February
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
If you think the decision just happened to come down when talks are going badly then you’re naive.
Possibly but that’s a huge risk by SISU if they knew it could derail talks at any moment. Surely they’d wait 6 months until a deal was done?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
Well they'll start looking into it in the meantime (preliminary evidence gathering, etc), but might not make a decision for quite a while - i only looked at one case, which may have been horrendously complex or something. This might turn out to be open and shut, fuck off and grow up! Cue ECJ appeal!!!
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
that's an interesting and worrying perspective OSB58, and if correct, which I appreciate you're not saying it is, gives me even more serious concerns for the future of the club than I have already.
SkyBlueCRJ
Well-Known Member
I think they probably did. My guess is they believed they could use the complaint as a scapegoat to exit negotiations if CCFC didn't comply with their demands. If I was Nick Eastwood I'd see it as a get out of jail free card as if CCFC (rightly) played hardball on certain aspects of negotiations that could be construed as 'unfair' by the club or owners, Wasps can pull from said negotiations and point the finger at SISU for blocking any further talks due to continued litigation. I'm only speculating though.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Only had a quick google but that's how it seems to me. You make a complaint and then that's it. Not like a legal case where you put your side and have to provide evidence, you just point the finger and the EC goes off and does its own investigation.