Tommo1993
Well-Known Member
What a boring and incorrect thing to say.
Wasps pull out... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Tommo72
- Start date
What a boring and incorrect thing to say.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
So in effect once made it cant be withdrawn unless the EC investigations indicate the case not to be worth proceeding with. So SISU withdrawing it would be hollow & worthless words
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
If Gilbert had anything about him he'd be all over this with Wasps. Pointing out this isn't legal action and isn't' against Wasps. Stating that SISU / CCFC have met the terms previously stated by Wasps and now Wasps have changed the terms.
Why will nobody in our local media ask questions of Wasps? They are allowed to make demonstrably false statements and never get questioned. The only one asking questions is Reid and the council & Wasps point blank refuse to answer.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Which means there are no circumstances in which the club can meet London Wasps’s requirements.
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Hahahahaha Gilbert all over wasps, more chance of wasps letting us play a the ricoh for free!
Warwickhunt
Well-Known Member
Nick can ou list theses accounts so we can take the piss out of them?
Nick
Administrator
Which they will have known full well. Which is why the requirement has now been changed.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
If it was a case worth proceeding then Wasps should be looking at the council should they not?
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
I'm still unsure who to believe in all this, especially with the timing of leaks, etc, but it strikes me that the EC investigation has the potential to put Wasps at greater direct risk of financial loss than SISU's attempts at getting a JR against the Council.
As i have said before, i have been less "anti-SISU" than many, even on SBT, but i have to question why they felt the need to go to the EC with this. I wouldn't have thought it was out of some altruistic desire to uphold the principles of EC Regulations (i.e. preventing State Aid), so the only conclusion can be that they knew it has the potential to financially distress Wasps, perhaps with a view to gaining an advantage in tenancy agreements, joint ownership of the Ricoh, etc.
What do you think?
People keep asking when the Council will make a statement, but the negotiations now have FUCK-ALL to do with them, so hopefully they'll restrict their comments to being the subject of an EC investigation.
Disgruntled Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
From conception to near expulsion the Ricoh Arena has been one long nightmare as far as Coventry City FC are concerned. It's never been our true home and never will be by the looks of things. Everytime we get a little bit of good news about the football it is always watered down by the off field crap. I'm at the point, like others, of being so sick of SISU, THE COVENTRY CITY COUNCIL and LONDON WASPS that I can no longer apportion blame. They are all equal self-serving scum and hope all the individuals involved in the demise of our club will get to feel the undiluted pain we have had to endure. That includes Richardson and Robinson who needlessly started our demise imo.
As long as CCFC exists I will support them. I will buy a season ticket and travel up from London until someone decides that 136 years of history has no value to the people of Coventry. I am so disgusted by all the one-upmanship, and opportunist greed on display by all the rancid parties involved.
Our only hope is that one day someone will show mercy and CCFC and it's fans can be rescued from this pit of shit.
As long as CCFC exists I will support them. I will buy a season ticket and travel up from London until someone decides that 136 years of history has no value to the people of Coventry. I am so disgusted by all the one-upmanship, and opportunist greed on display by all the rancid parties involved.
Our only hope is that one day someone will show mercy and CCFC and it's fans can be rescued from this pit of shit.
Corrado
Well-Known Member
Why? You have just stated that if we will be playing at another ground other then the Ricoh then you "are out"
I will follow the club to wherever they play - they are being forced out, this is different to Northampton
ohitsaidwalker king power
Well-Known Member
Have I missed something....?
Isn't this fundamentally about trust more so than the technicality of whether SISU have lodged a 'complaint' or a 'legal challenge' to the European Commision.
Is the WASP position not (simplistically) that talks were entered into in good faith (post latest court ruling) and that SISU had not disclosed their EC complaint... and on that basis they have withdrawn?
WASPS don't trust SISU.. is that not it?
Isn't this fundamentally about trust more so than the technicality of whether SISU have lodged a 'complaint' or a 'legal challenge' to the European Commision.
Is the WASP position not (simplistically) that talks were entered into in good faith (post latest court ruling) and that SISU had not disclosed their EC complaint... and on that basis they have withdrawn?
WASPS don't trust SISU.. is that not it?
Nick
Administrator
I did to try ask IF on the off chance something was found to be amiss and Wasps had to pay money back. Who's fault would it be.
It fell on deaf ears.
This is why they use the standard PR approach they have for years.
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Wasps stated their terms, they were met, Wasps changed the terms to something it is impossible to meet. The local media should be absolutely hammering them on that but I can't even see a mention of it.
I find it hard to believe that Wasps have purchased a stadium deep in legal wrangles without a clause in place to protect themselves (ie: if there's any financial implication to Wasps its covered by CCC). If they haven't done that then its either negligence on the part of their legal team or they got the stadium on the cheap knowing the risks
Also don't understand why people are concerned Wasps might have to pay out. That can only happen if something is found to be wrong in which case surely we all want the taxpayers money protected?
duffer
Well-Known Member
Just to flip this on it's head a little. I know it's SISU and everyone hates them, but if by some small chance the EC finds the Council have done something wrong on the sale of the Ricoh, wouldn't we want to know regardless?
It may or may not be that somewhere down the line that costs Wasps money, or the Council money, but does that give anyone the right to demand that the complaint is withdrawn?
In simple terms, if the Council has done nothing wrong, as they insist, then what is there for them or Wasps to worry about?
It may or may not be that somewhere down the line that costs Wasps money, or the Council money, but does that give anyone the right to demand that the complaint is withdrawn?
In simple terms, if the Council has done nothing wrong, as they insist, then what is there for them or Wasps to worry about?
Sky Blue Harry H
Well-Known Member
Don't quite know why, but I found myself smiling at this phrase - quite like it!
Tommo1993
Well-Known Member
Good for you, your badge is in the post.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Exactly, this has been the case from day 1. Wasps also have said they are quite confident the case has no merit and have had legal advice to that effect. The complaint to the EC does not land them in court necessarily. Looking at the complaint form I posted (State aid online complaint form – European Commission), there is nothing in there about a request for remedial measures, so Eastwood is lying again.
Corrado
Well-Known Member
What a boring and incorrect thing to say.
Disgruntled Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
It surprises me how poetic I can get when I'm raging!! :emoji_rage:
Tommo1993
Well-Known Member
Very clever :emoji_thumbsup:
You’re a true fan because you’ll go to games. Haven’t heard that since my school playground days. The “I go to games, you don’t” dick measuring argument has returned. I’m as bad for being sucked into this shit, but this fan base, as a whole, is so shattered.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It was mooted a long time ago that SISU's court actions may be funded by 3rd parties with an interest in setting precedents when it comes to State Aid. Any chance this could still be the case?
Nick
Administrator
I thought you were done? Is it too soon for the flounce?
Tommo1993
Well-Known Member
Let me have lunch first at least
rob9872
Well-Known Member
SISU will have agreed no more legal action and that hasn't changed. The bomb was already dropped before the negotiations began and they can't stop it now. This isn't them. Actually been quite clever, but to Wasps it appears underhand that they've not declared it. Were they simply looking for an excuse to cease talks? Only they will know that, but the SISU position and anything they signed up to post February hasn't changed so imo remiss of Wasps to suggest otherwise if entering into a legally binding agreement. A pity that Gilbert couldn't have kept his mouth shut until any agreement was signed and sealed, but I'm also suspicious as to why that info was 'leaked' to him at this stage and also whether he or someone else has been sat on it for a while with another agenda.
I guess at least it's consistent with how things always are in that we're the last to find out and even then it's smoke and mirrors or half truths. Tbh getting fed up of all of them and I begin to wonder if all parties actually want us to fail
I guess at least it's consistent with how things always are in that we're the last to find out and even then it's smoke and mirrors or half truths. Tbh getting fed up of all of them and I begin to wonder if all parties actually want us to fail
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
Well certainly not SISU's, aside from the fact of drawing EC's attention to it.
MusicDating
Euro 2016 Prediction League Champion!!
So in theory it could have been anyone that raised the complaint with the EC?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Why don't we complain en masse? There are certain details there that SISU / their lawyers will now have
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
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!
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!
Last edited:
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
Absolutely, although i suggest the case might be taken a bit more seriously if you are the party (e.g. SISU) that has lost out because of the preferential treatment given to another party (e.g. Wasps) in being handed state aid (e.g by the Cuntsil)
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
I was thinking overnight that the snippets of emails and historic data being put out by SISU were around the time the complaint would have been made to the EC. I'm sure it was coincidence!!
Corrado
Well-Known Member
Shattered because the likes of you give up on your football club because they are going through a hard time - maybe the likes of Man City/UTD would be more suited to you. You clearly don't have any allegiance to the club if your out. Don't worry I'm sure the dinner bell will ring shortly so you can go