My own take on recent events.
Lets be clear all parties have got us in to this mess. They have chosen their actions decisions or responses and must own their responsibility for those actions decisions and responses. Do i feel sorry for any of them - absolutely not, i certainly do not feel any party has been hard done by, in fact some parties, in particular SISU & CCC have not been hard done by enough in my opinion.
Like it or not each side is entitled to make their own decisions and have their own terms. If you accept that SISU have the right to go repeatedly to court, then you have to accept Wasps have a right of choice too. The only party that suffers in this is the fans, who appear to have only one choice, how to support the team or not.
The Complaint
Not a "legal case" as yet in terms of English court procedures no but this is the EC, it is a defined legal process enshrined in EU law and regulation. You do not make a complaint to the EC to prove the other side right. You do not make a complaint to the EC if you do not hope or expect to get it heard at the ECJ. EU law is investigation nor adversarial based, so my understanding is that this is much like an application to the High Court in England to have a case heard, but you don't sit in front of a judge to do it. Trying to draw a distinction between a legal case or not is really just playing with words. The clear intention is to get one, and to obtain financial remedy from it afterwards in the English courts.
This is also not a simple letter to the EC saying "you should look at this". It will have been a detailed reasoned statement produced by lawyers, providing evidence, history and context. SISU have made the choice to go this route no one forced them to
The EC investigation has been instigated by SISU. They can not simply wash hands of it and say its not me guv. The process allows the complainant to add evidence at any time, any one think SISU wont? Just because it is the EC investigating doesnt mean it isnt an action brought by SISU. If it gets to the ECJ then you would expect that SISU are represented as complainant.
Timing of the Complaint
We are told the complaint was made in February. I suspect the CCC didn't receive the details until recently and Wasps probably got informed very recently (last week i would guess). I do not think that either were aware of the complaint being made over 2 months ago. I also suspect the CCFC negotiating team (Boddy +?) were not aware either. The complaint was made before the Supreme Court Judgement was passed down, which implies that this was a course SISU always intended to take no matter what happened, they can not have entered into negotiations openly and in good faith. Just to be clear i think CCFC in the shape of Boddy probably did go in good faith.
Complaint issued in February, SISU statement issued 13th March which in part complained about things being done behind their back (not like they were ever innocent of that in the first place) whilst doing exactly that themselves. Classic don't look here look there
Disclosure of the complaint
Clearly this should have been at the earliest opportunity, but in terms of negotiations certainly when those started.( Something else SISU complained about, was that things were not disclosed when they should have been). Everyone knew that any form of legal action by the CCFC owners was going to mean negotiations at serious risk or no talks. SISU knew that. No its not a legal action in the sense of going to court but it is a legal process which has the sole intent of getting it heard in the ECJ. To take part in talks with that hidden in the background will not only destroy any modicum of trust left between Wasps & SISU but also the working relationship at senior level between Wasps & CCFC. I think you do have to ask why so much was made of the alternative ground heads of terms being time critical, was it or was it a deal was needed before the complaint news came out? Not to disclose was a cold calculated decision & risk.
The deal
I am sure a two year deal between CCFC & Wasps was agreed, with probably an option to extend. Pretty certain the reason it would not have been signed was SISU playing with the clause relating to legal actions. I am not sure Wasps have totally closed the door on a deal, but will want some contractual assurances that mitigate any risk from the complaint. I do not think they will get them, the purpose of SISU's actions is to distress Wasps any way they can or to get a settlement. As it seems the complaint can not now be stopped by SISU then the second option seems very unlikely.
RIsk
The case is brought against the Council. It is apparently couched in the same terms as the JR2 case. It is not true to say it does not impact on Wasps. In the JR2 case legal counsel for SISU said that the remedies should include a multi million pound sum to be paid by Wasps. Yes I know SISU have to win first and then take to UK courts. It would be inconceivable to think that such a remedy was not included in the complaint however.
The complaint might be against CCC, but Wasps are clearly impacted from the start, and SISU intend them to be. It impacts in a more general sense because the threat could influence lenders or investors, could affect credit rating assessments, could affect interest rates, could affect refinancing the bond, will certainly increase professional fees to auditors & lawyers, could impact future planning etc. Much of that applies whether there is or isnt a case to prove. Could they have an indemnity against CCC perhaps but if the deal broke state aid rules that makes it an illegal deal so is the contract enforceable?
It could impact even more should the case progress. Going to court is not always a guarantee of the result expected, and it is expensive
To Sum Up
Personal opinions
If it wasnt clear that when SISU say some one has acted behind their back, they are recognising actions they have undertaken themselves it should be
Much of what has gone on since January in the public arena from all parties has been disgraceful and purely designed to distract. Most statements put out bear little scrutiny in truth. The CCC ones have been amateur and the SISU ones nothing more than distraction that some bought in to as the only truth. None of the parties have changed one little bit. The new found acceptance of SISU is misplaced. CCC, never trust politicians.
If it wasn't clear that the club is not important enough to the various parties it should be now. In particular it should be absolutely crystal clear that it is not about the well being of CCFC to SISU, it is only and only ever has been about their investment
Sick and tired of this saga. I might go to a ground share on the odd occasion but not certain of that, at the Ricoh i would have had a season ticket.
Was annoyed yesterday & day before but to be honest now i feel kind of numb to it all, this is not what supporting a football team should be about...... roll on August!
