This is nuts. We aren’t at St Andrews for financial reasons. It isn’t because they want too much it’s because they don’t want us there while the EU stuff is going on. Either they change their mind and we go back or they don’t and we don’t. All this armchair crap about F&B and increased profits is utter tripe
The EC complaint is going to be investigated now regardless of if we're playing at the Ricoh, St Andrews or anywhere else for that matter so, as Wasps are on their arse financially, they'd be foolish not to accept us back, if only in the short term. We should rightly demand a good deal (including F&B, pitch maintenance assurances etc).
Question is do Wasps have the humility to back down? Can we survive at St Andrews if not?
The EC complaint is going to be investigated now regardless of if we're playing at the Ricoh, St Andrews or anywhere else for that matter so, as Wasps are on their arse financially, they'd be foolish not to accept us back, if only in the short term. We should rightly demand a good deal (including F&B, pitch maintenance assurances etc).
Question is do Wasps have the humility to back down? Can we survive at St Andrews if not?
"In mid-April, SISU signed an undertaking to irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh Arena"Id agree. I think it’s pride and arrogance and not wanting to be seen to lose more than business sense. Wasps are either not as convinced as we are that the complaint isn’t stoppable or do know and are being recalcitrant out of spite. Either way our attendances won’t change that.
Edit: actually that’s not true. The other half of the disagreement both sides mentioned in their statements is future legal action which Sisu refuse to rule out. But we don’t like to talk about that on here because reasons.
Sisu wanting to undertake legal action against anybody else should be none of Wasps' concern.
That doesn’t say they’ve moved past the complaint. It says they’ve been unable to reach an agreement on no future action. Sisu confirmed this as “restricting the clubs legal rights” in the same statement about the indemnity. There’s no disagreement between the two statements, both state the “legals” are the issue, not commercial viability, which was my original point.
we can safely assume that it can't be withdrawn.
Here’s some both sides for you: Sisu should give up on legal action as punishment for the Ricoh and Wasps should drop the indemnity requirement, and Sisu and the council should work together to get us a new ground. I await more hilarious claims of bias.
This is so disingenuous it’s hilarious. You know damn well Wasps want any action relating to the Ricoh stopped, whether you think they should or not is irrelevant, you have no power in this.
Again, both club and Wasps identifies two blockers to the talks, the indemnity was one and the halting of future legal action was the other. The fact you’re resorting to linguistic tricks and pedantry to avoid addressing this tells me you know what you’re doing.
And ultimately this is where this forum shows its bias, happy to talk about “both sides” when challenged but in reality will bend over backwards to excuse Sisu and go full tinfoil hat on anyone else.
Here’s some both sides for you: Sisu should give up on legal action as punishment for the Ricoh and Wasps should drop the indemnity requirement, and Sisu and the council should work together to get us a new ground. I await more hilarious claims of bias.
The only way the club can go back is if Wasps remove the indemnity clause no ifs or buts. If we're behind closed doors for an extended period stay at Blues and let them feel the pinch even more. It strengthens the negotiation they are the ones in financial distress not us.What have WASP got to lose? It's more much needed revenue regardless of what deal is struck. It would mean better opportunities to attract bigger sponsors for the stadium. Even if CCFC paid a zero rent they would make money from everything else by having us there. A compromise looks likely. Times have changed, circumstances have changed for everyone. If there is not a deal announced soon I'll be very suprised.
No bias intended here but :
Why don't WASPS tell us what they are so concerned about with the complaint against the Council
Will they explain what indemnities they have given the Council that may impact on them?
Perhaps CCFC / CCC could actually explain what the "complaint" is - is it public anywhere?
From what I understand, one of the outcomes of a successful state aid complaint is that the purchaser who received the aid would be liable for the difference between actual assessed value and price paid, so guess they are worried about having to stump up what it's worth.
The originigal request was stop legal action against Wasps. Which they did.This is so disingenuous it’s hilarious. You know damn well Wasps want any action relating to the Ricoh stopped, whether you think they should or not is irrelevant, you have no power in this.
Again, both club and Wasps identifies two blockers to the talks, the indemnity was one and the halting of future legal action was the other. The fact you’re resorting to linguistic tricks and pedantry to avoid addressing this tells me you know what you’re doing.
And ultimately this is where this forum shows its bias, happy to talk about “both sides” when challenged but in reality will bend over backwards to excuse Sisu and go full tinfoil hat on anyone else.
Here’s some both sides for you: Sisu should give up on legal action as punishment for the Ricoh and Wasps should drop the indemnity requirement, and Sisu and the council should work together to get us a new ground. I await more hilarious claims of bias.
The only way the club can go back is if Wasps remove the indemnity clause no ifs or buts. If we're behind closed doors for an extended period stay at Blues and let them feel the pinch even more. It strengthens the negotiation they are the ones in financial distress not us.
This is so disingenuous it’s hilarious. You know damn well Wasps want any action relating to the Ricoh stopped, whether you think they should or not is irrelevant, you have no power in this.
Again, both club and Wasps identifies two blockers to the talks, the indemnity was one and the halting of future legal action was the other. The fact you’re resorting to linguistic tricks and pedantry to avoid addressing this tells me you know what you’re doing.
And ultimately this is where this forum shows its bias, happy to talk about “both sides” when challenged but in reality will bend over backwards to excuse Sisu and go full tinfoil hat on anyone else.
Here’s some both sides for you: Sisu should give up on legal action as punishment for the Ricoh and Wasps should drop the indemnity requirement, and Sisu and the council should work together to get us a new ground. I await more hilarious claims of bias.
How can SISU give up on legal action that is no longer in their hands?
and is not a legal action ?
From what I understand, one of the outcomes of a successful state aid complaint is that the purchaser who received the aid would be liable for the difference between actual assessed value and price paid, so guess they are worried about having to stump up what it's worth.
Then they would have to reimburse wasps the money they’ve paid and put the lease back to 40 years I thought was the caseI think if the Purchaser can show evidence he acted in good faith and paid what was considered the correct price he would have a defence
The claim would then fall on the Councillors ?
Its goalpost shifting of the highest order. Even if you ignore the fact that the club and / or SISU are not involved in any current legal action against Wasps and / or CCC it is ludicrous to suggest that Wasps can dictate the club and / or SISU can take no legal action in the future against third parties.The originigal request was stop legal action against Wasps. Which they did.
what’s it to wasps if SISU sue the council. Again it’s only possible if the EC complaint finds something wrong with the Ricoh deal.
the council can’t pass their liabilities onto Wasps.
besides nothing wrong with the Ricoh deal so why the suppression into challenging it?
Legals, maybe, but not the EC complaint specifically.
This is so disingenuous it’s hilarious. You know damn well Wasps want any action relating to the Ricoh stopped, whether you think they should or not is irrelevant, you have no power in this.
Again, both club and Wasps identifies two blockers to the talks, the indemnity was one and the halting of future legal action was the other. The fact you’re resorting to linguistic tricks and pedantry to avoid addressing this tells me you know what you’re doing.
And ultimately this is where this forum shows its bias, happy to talk about “both sides” when challenged but in reality will bend over backwards to excuse Sisu and go full tinfoil hat on anyone else.
Here’s some both sides for you: Sisu should give up on legal action as punishment for the Ricoh and Wasps should drop the indemnity requirement, and Sisu and the council should work together to get us a new ground. I await more hilarious claims of bias.
Its goalpost shifting of the highest order. Even if you ignore the fact that the club and / or SISU are not involved in any current legal action against Wasps and / or CCC it is ludicrous to suggest that Wasps can dictate the club and / or SISU can take no legal action in the future against third parties.
In reality that means that should the EC decide to proceed with an investigation and should that investigation conclude wrongdoing on the councils part, both things we are told won't happen as the complaint is baseless and there is no wrongdoing on the part of CCC, it would then be impossible to recover any losses caused by that wrongdoing. Mind boggling that anyone believes that is a justifiable stance.
It's been said over and over again but doesn't seem to sink in for some, there will be no punishment for CCC, Wasps or anyone else if they have done nothing wrong.
They have no power either, the undertaking they are asking for is completely unreasonable. Nobody is going to sign away their rights like that.
How does "irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh Arena" not stop the threat of legal action against Wasps. Please can you explain to me in simple terms as you're such a brilliant mind how "irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps" means Wasps have to worry about legal action?We’re back to this. It’s a pointless argument. Even the club have to rely on Liquid Golds argument of “well ackshually we aren’t suing Wasps themselves so it doesn’t count” it’s hardly following the spirit of the agreement is it?
Clearly Wasps want the threat of legal action ended to help them finance in the future. They obviously see that as more valuable than any F&B or rental income we may bring, so are refusing to let us have a deal until that happens. We’ve focused on the indemnity but according to both sides that’s not the major issue. I’m just taking both sides at what they say and agreement is so rare in this that if both sides are agreeing it’s probably true.
It all comes back to attempts to reverse the Ricoh sale at the end of the day. And we’re back to square one either you think it’s worth the gamble keeping us away on the chance of it falling Sisus way or you don’t think that’s a smart gamble and think the club should swallow their pride and either get a long term deal or build elsewhere.
Clear all the crap away and the same issue remains that has been there since day one. Frankly going on about this and that and what PWKH said it Bryan Richardson didnor didn’t do, or whether you’d fuck Ann Lucas is all noise.
How does "irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh Arena" not stop the threat of legal action against Wasps. Please can you explain to me in simple terms as you're such a brilliant mind how "irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps" means Wasps have to worry about legal action?
Then no body is going to get a deal at the Ricoh and we need to build our own ground. Maybe it wasn’t such a smart move to piss off your landlord without anywhere else to go?
So what else can they possibly bring legal action against Wasps for?“relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh”
Are you really pretending you don’t understand what the problem is? Really?
You thought Wasps would be fine with continued efforts to reverse their purchase because they aren’t named specifically on a court document?
Then no body is going to get a deal at the Ricoh and we need to build our own ground. Maybe it wasn’t such a smart move to piss off your landlord without anywhere else to go?
OK, it's perfectly reasonable then for SISU to pursue any legal avenue they wish against the landlords
Did SISU not actually make a commitment to no further legal action?
Its goalpost shifting of the highest order. Even if you ignore the fact that the club and / or SISU are not involved in any current legal action against Wasps and / or CCC it is ludicrous to suggest that Wasps can dictate the club and / or SISU can take no legal action in the future against third parties.
In reality that means that should the EC decide to proceed with an investigation and should that investigation conclude wrongdoing on the councils part, both things we are told won't happen as the complaint is baseless and there is no wrongdoing on the part of CCC, it would then be impossible to recover any losses caused by that wrongdoing. Mind boggling that anyone believes that is a justifiable stance.
It's been said over and over again but doesn't seem to sink in for some, there will be no punishment for CCC, Wasps or anyone else if they have done nothing wrong.
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?