And this is why the blame for this sorry mess always has been 50/50 between the council and Sisu , with each bullshit statement people try and point score over each other , when the truth is we are all being played , The maddest thing is in all the animosity between the party's is that they at this moment in time both need each other
Wasps pull out... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Tommo72
- Start date
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Bingo, so the only scenario in which Wasps could be financially damaged is one where the council have been found to be in the wrong. Which is the fault of the football club how?
mark82
Super Moderator
Exactly. The only reason for Wasps to be worried is if they know they paid under value.
higgs
Well-Known Member
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
higgs
Well-Known Member
Ud buy a footballers house for the price wasps paid for the Ricoh
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
Which is why wasps are scared as all thieves will look at is valuation
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
CanadianCCFC
Well-Known Member
They don’t want these investigations. Why could that be?
Someone’s guilty, which would explain the blackmail of no legals/investigations or no Ricoh deal.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
I am all for building our own stadium.
Calista
Well-Known Member
Strikes me that there is now absolutely no point in NOT letting CCFC play at the Ricoh until the EU investigation has run its course, because it has a life of its own and can’t be stopped. Why pile yet more pointless misery on innocent fans by banishing us to Birmingham, Burton or the Butts?
Apart from anything else, should the outcome lead to Wasps being penalised in some way, if they’ve compounded matters by distressing the complainant’s business, it surely won’t help their cause and might even increase the penalty imposed?
This is now completely in the hands of bureaucrats in Brussels, so a ceasefire is the only sensible way forward until they pass judgement. Supposedly a 2-year arrangement had already been agreed in principle, so both sides just do it and give us all a break.
Apart from anything else, should the outcome lead to Wasps being penalised in some way, if they’ve compounded matters by distressing the complainant’s business, it surely won’t help their cause and might even increase the penalty imposed?
This is now completely in the hands of bureaucrats in Brussels, so a ceasefire is the only sensible way forward until they pass judgement. Supposedly a 2-year arrangement had already been agreed in principle, so both sides just do it and give us all a break.
duffer
Well-Known Member
It is different though mate. There is no court case, so no costs to Wasps to defend, and no damages can be awarded by the EC.
It's an investigation into the Council directly. it won't be adversarial or played out in a public forum. The EC will presumably ask Coventry City Council to provide all their documentation about what's gone on, and then they'll weigh it against how they feel EU law should be applied. That may differ slightly to how English courts have viewed it so far, but I wouldn't hold my breath, personally.
If they find the Council have followed the rules, as they've claimed all along, then they've got nothing to worry about.
However, if the finding does go against the Council, then possibly at that point SISU try the UK courts again. Then it becomes legal action in the true sense of the word.
Even then, it's not clear to me that SISU could claim damages direct from Wasps, or force them to pay the Council the true value. It's possible I suppose, but I'd have thought the easier route would be to claim directly against the Council.
Either way, it's surely got be at least a year before we get anywhere near to a decision, and much longer to get to court again. There's no reason to not do a short-term deal now whilst it plays out, but there's also no way we should offer to indemnify Wasps against possible illegal actions by the Council. That's a ridiculous request.
Wasps got a very good deal on the Ricoh, did it in secret, and were fully aware of the history between the Council and SISU. There was every possibility it would be challenged in the future, if they were worried they could either have stayed, looked elsewhere or asked the Council to indemnify them. They are not, despite all the various claims, an innocent party.
Last edited:
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Why? He’s being insulting and annoying. The best way to counteract a bully is to fight back. I’m having a little dig
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Ha ha ha ha ha. Where have you been. What hole have you suddenly crawled out of . Are you saying Sisu are great owners ?
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Nobody is arguing sisu are innocent but strangely some are arguing that London wasps and CCC are.
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
Suddenly crawled out of? Been here a while and no I did say that so why lie
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
Pete why did you keep asking the same shit question,? You thick twat fuck off back to the city Facebook group with the other Lego eaters
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
The thing we’ve got to worry about is the future of our club whether the Eu say nothing to see here or not. Crazy to ask them to look into it and crazy wasps have pulled out of an agreement for us to play there
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
No me and my son sam sometimes dial in
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Only 1000 posts in 4 years. Hardly prolific are you? You a fan or what?
You do know you or I may be right and neither of us know for definite don’t you? You must be about 12 to keep resorting to infantile name calling or you just have a small car and well let’s just say car
Calista
Well-Known Member
Well SISU must have had in mind since the start that going to the EU was an option, and it may well have been their intention all along.
I seem to recall from JR1 that one of the criteria in EU state aid law was whether it affected competition between member states. Since Wasps (in a good year) are directly in competition with rugby clubs from France & Ireland etc., I would have thought that any unfair advantage given to them would definitely have that cross-boundary competition element to it.
None of us have any idea what the EU will find, but make no mistake if it goes against the Council, it’s an enormous political disaster for them, and it could be an existential crisis for Wasps.
Whatever the EU decide, no doubt there are routes to appeal for either side, so sadly this is bound to drag on for years. All the more reason for a ceasefire and sensible interim deal for CCFC to play at the Ricoh while the Eurocrats do their thing.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
The UK courts can’t change the law they just interpret if it’s been broken whereas I believe the commission have much larger legal scope. There is a potential that sisu have always been aiming for the EU and are using this as a precedent to changing the law.
They could also just be complaining cos they love a complaint though.
They could also just be complaining cos they love a complaint though.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
If they serious about new ground they need to push ahead with it and make it public everytime council stop them in slne way
Cant see anyway we win this war without new ground
Cant see anyway we win this war without new ground
The Penguin
Well-Known Member
Australia bears no responsibility for that arseclown :smuggrin:
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
I have a life outside of here? Is that a crime? You of these folk who still has city bed sheets in old age?
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
RegTheDonk
Well-Known Member
Looking at it this way, I'd agree. Bit like a car dealer got a uniqe model but can't shift it, so flogs it massively cheap. Head office might be pissed off and may fine the dealer under some arrangement they've made...but if the punter has simply snapped up a bargin, they wouldn't try and force the him to cough up the difference on what he should have orginally paid. A deals a deal.
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
It doesn't work like that. If they find wrong doing they will either make wasps pay or return the ricoh and ACL to the pre deal state
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
rondog1973
Well-Known Member
Let's not kid ourselves, Sisu never had any intention of keeping us at the Ricoh...
It has come full circle. Substitute ACL for Wasps and we are pretty much at the same stage we were 6 years ago. Sisu engineer a scenario where Legal action whilst not actually taking place may well ensue if the EC investigation deems so. Who goes into 'good faith' negotiations withholding such info expecting the other party to be fully trusting?
And if Sisu made the complaint to the EC, how has anyone else got wind if it without somebody from those 2 entities leaking it?
It has come full circle. Substitute ACL for Wasps and we are pretty much at the same stage we were 6 years ago. Sisu engineer a scenario where Legal action whilst not actually taking place may well ensue if the EC investigation deems so. Who goes into 'good faith' negotiations withholding such info expecting the other party to be fully trusting?
And if Sisu made the complaint to the EC, how has anyone else got wind if it without somebody from those 2 entities leaking it?
sw88
Chief Commentator!
Does anyone recall when wasps became an ‘interested party’ as part of the JR?
I can’t remember but I’m sure it was before February. And if that’s the case surely SISU need to justify why they didn’t include them in their February movement (to the EC) as surely their case would have been like for like, just through another channel?
If it was after, then fair enough and could justify why Wasps wouldn’t have been part of that EC complaint
And if it could be proven that Wasps are not involved in the EC complaint, surely Wasps excuse for stopping the talks is not valid? And they should be challenged why they have used this as an excuse and why they continue to refuse to talk?
Likelihood is someone at the council has a hand over Wasps somehow, otherwise why would Wasps be bothered by SISU V CCC action?
I can’t remember but I’m sure it was before February. And if that’s the case surely SISU need to justify why they didn’t include them in their February movement (to the EC) as surely their case would have been like for like, just through another channel?
If it was after, then fair enough and could justify why Wasps wouldn’t have been part of that EC complaint
And if it could be proven that Wasps are not involved in the EC complaint, surely Wasps excuse for stopping the talks is not valid? And they should be challenged why they have used this as an excuse and why they continue to refuse to talk?
Likelihood is someone at the council has a hand over Wasps somehow, otherwise why would Wasps be bothered by SISU V CCC action?
Nick
Administrator
The EC thing is effectively just grassing them up it seems. So SISU have said "Have a look at this, it might be dodgy" and then the EC people have a look and decide if they think it is, if they think it is then they start any action.