Withdrawing a complaint to the european commission (2 Viewers)

[David O'Day]

CJ is cock monkey, he knowd that the EC will not forget about a case of illegal state aid.

He ain't no sky blue bruv

 

---

[shmmeee]

isnt that focussed on leaving with no deal and pre election? if there is a deal and a period of transition the point stands i think

It was the most recent I could find but yes pre election. We don’t know what the deal will be at all at the moment. From the noises coming out it’ll either be capitulation to everything the EU wants (like the WA was) or basically no deal so we can finish it by the end of the year.

If the former then yeah it’d still apply. The latter not so much. Though there’s a lot of noise about the government using state aid to support industries it’s about to fuck over, so not sure how they’d square that with a trade deal that forbids state aid.

 

[shmmeee]

CJ is cock monkey, he knowd that the EC will not forget about a case of illegal state aid.

He ain't no sky blue bruv

I mean taking him literally, if that’s the case Sisu can ask, the EC will ignore them, then Wasps conditions have been met?

Makes as much sense as anything else in this clusterfuck.

 

[oldskyblue58]

would like to see proper details of the indemnity sought by wasps. Never going to happen of course.

 

[fernandopartridge]

What you have posted is not to do with state aid procedures. There is as far as i am aware no formal mechanism for a complainant to withdraw their complaint. The Commission are duty bound to investigate any complaint brought by a relevant person/entity. Once they have made a decision (even if no case to answer) then that can be challenged under annulment procedures by any side affected (the complainant or the beneficiary or the member state). So this could go on for years.

The financial effect of such a time period on wasps should not be underestimated (eg raising further finance might be affected badly by it until it is settled even if there was no case to answer). At worst it is the beneficiary that would need to make good the illegal state aid with added interest in a short period of time. As to whether any indemnity between CCC and wasps exists i do not know, even if it did then it maybe over ruled by EU law taking precedence. (would such a clause in itself be state aid?)

The only way it could have stopped was if the complainant failed to provide all the information required when making the complaint or if subsequently asked by the Commission for more information. In those circumstances it would have been deemed as withdrawn by the Commission not the complainant.

It wont be affected by Brexit because the period of transition means that the UK has to abide by EU rules but has no say in setting them

A relevant person or entity is someone that has been directly affected by the illegal state aid, i would think that means that Otium must be and remain involved as it is the only entity with direct links to the stadium.

The complaint is a legal procedure, that has the full weight of law behind it. It is not a court case but an investigation of a complaint that could have very serious implications for a beneficiary of illegal state aid. Europe tends not to have an adversarial based court system but instead bases its legals on investigation procedures. This has the full force of EU law behind it with hefty penalties possible. Arguing whether it is a court case or not misses the point.

The rules and regulations governing state aid and making of complaints go on for literally hundreds of pages. The forms that had to be filled in were extensive.

The complaint could also have been made against the Member State not just CCC

You'd think that the complaint is against the member state and CCC, i.e. the original complaint against CCC but also a complaint about how the UK court dealt with the case.

 

[Briles]

You'd think that the complaint is against the member state and CCC, i.e. the original complaint against CCC but also a complaint about how the UK court dealt with the case.

I still wonder why if wasps have done nothing wrong why would they request the dropping of the case? Purely cost?

 

[mark_ccfc]

What you have posted is not to do with state aid procedures. There is as far as i am aware no formal mechanism for a complainant to withdraw their complaint. The Commission are duty bound to investigate any complaint brought by a relevant person/entity. Once they have made a decision (even if no case to answer) then that can be challenged under annulment procedures by any side affected (the complainant or the beneficiary or the member state). So this could go on for years.

The financial effect of such a time period on wasps should not be underestimated (eg raising further finance might be affected badly by it until it is settled even if there was no case to answer). At worst it is the beneficiary that would need to make good the illegal state aid with added interest in a short period of time. As to whether any indemnity between CCC and wasps exists i do not know, even if it did then it maybe over ruled by EU law taking precedence. (would such a clause in itself be state aid?)

The only way it could have stopped was if the complainant failed to provide all the information required when making the complaint or if subsequently asked by the Commission for more information. In those circumstances it would have been deemed as withdrawn by the Commission not the complainant.

It wont be affected by Brexit because the period of transition means that the UK has to abide by EU rules but has no say in setting them

A relevant person or entity is someone that has been directly affected by the illegal state aid, i would think that means that Otium must be and remain involved as it is the only entity with direct links to the stadium.

The complaint is a legal procedure, that has the full weight of law behind it. It is not a court case but an investigation of a complaint that could have very serious implications for a beneficiary of illegal state aid. Europe tends not to have an adversarial based court system but instead bases its legals on investigation procedures. This has the full force of EU law behind it with hefty penalties possible. Arguing whether it is a court case or not misses the point.

The rules and regulations governing state aid and making of complaints go on for literally hundreds of pages. The forms that had to be filled in were extensive.

The complaint could also have been made against the Member State not just CCC

Thank you for a sensible answer without all the abuse. I had looked myself and not seen any way of withdrawing the (state aid) complaint but that of course didn't mean there wasn't one. The link given by astute confirms that it can't be, I must admit the telegraph article had passed me by.

Everyone on here assumes when you put up a question you have some kind of agenda. After reading a lot of threads a while back I saw a lot of people say that it couldn't be withdrawn but nothing concrete so I thought I would ask. After looking myself I was wondering where the information was coming from.

@Astute - FYI no I'm not a wasps fan

 

[oldskyblue58]

I dont think it is just about the cost of the legals it is the on going perceived risk. They have a large refinance to do in the not too distant future and lenders will evaluate the risk associated with that which includes the risk of a multi million pound cost if the EU case goes against CCC that could be payable by wasps. At the very least that increases the interest rate they would charge (1% higher could cost wasps an extra £350k per year) and makes it harder to obtain the finance. Some lenders will simply walk away from the prospect. Wasps can believe they have done nothing wrong, can have legal advice that says so but it is what the lenders perceive as their own risk that is important. The complaint has the effect of distressing wasps finances at a time when they are financially weak...... and it is not like a uk court where a judge hears the case and makes a decision or the complaint could be withdrawn.... neither SISU nor wasps have control of the process or its timescales. The UK courts dealt with whether the process was correct, the EU investigation deals with whether the spirit of the EU treaty and associated rules have been met, could easily lead to a different interpretation from the Commission to the UK courts

 

[Nick]

I dont think it is just about the cost of the legals it is the on going perceived risk. They have a large refinance to do in the not too distant future and lenders will evaluate the risk associated with that which includes the risk of a multi million pound cost if the EU case goes against CCC that could be payable by wasps. At the very least that increases the interest rate they would charge (1% higher could cost wasps an extra £350k per year) and makes it harder to obtain the finance. Some lenders will simply walk away from the prospect. Wasps can believe they have done nothing wrong, can have legal advice that says so but it is what the lenders perceive as their own risk that is important. The complaint has the effect of distressing wasps finances at a time when they are financially weak...... and it is not like a uk court where a judge hears the case and makes a decision or the complaint could be withdrawn.... neither SISU nor wasps have control of the process or its timescales. The UK courts dealt with whether the process was correct, the EU investigation deals with whether the spirit of the EU treaty and associated rules have been met, could easily lead to a different interpretation from the Commission to the UK courts

So they should ask the council to indemnify them as they will only have to pay out if they have done something wrong.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Unless that is in the original contract then it isnt going to happen is it. CCC would not take a new debt on just to help wasps unless they were contractually obliged to by the deal in 2014. CCC cant afford it and could most likely say not our problem

Not even sure that CCC paying it for wasps would be permissable under EU law. The context of the regulations i have seen implies it is the liability of the beneficiary. CCC paying for it should they lose the case would in itself seem to be state aid. I would think the EU have rules about such things that over ride any contract or subsequent agreement

But then again we come back to what indemnities have been given or asked for CCC by wasps and CCFC/SISU by wasps

 

[Nick]

I am sure we will find out pretty soon

 

[oldskyblue58]

you have more confidence in that than i do - why?

I have no expectation of knowing for sure any of the indemnities asked or not asked for. Given the history of this dispute i would need each party to be able to confirm exactly the same thing with no spin or interpretation - never going to happen.

 

[chiefdave]

I still wonder why if wasps have done nothing wrong why would they request the dropping of the case? Purely cost?

The complaint is against the council so no reason it should cost Wasps anything. If the council want Wasps to provide any information or resources to assist their case, should the EC decide to proceed, you would assume the council would have to cover Wasps costs.

But you're right. If, as we are repeatedly told, there is no case to answer why push for it to be dropped or forgotten? The stage it is at currently is the EC deciding if there is anything worth investigating. Based on what we are led to believe they will surely say there isn't and that will be the end of it. If you were Wasps surely you'd be pushing to reach that point as soon as possible, not have it put on the back burner to possibly re-appear years down the line.

 

[chiefdave]

I dont think it is just about the cost of the legals it is the on going perceived risk. They have a large refinance to do in the not too distant future and lenders will evaluate the risk associated with that which includes the risk of a multi million pound cost if the EU case goes against CCC that could be payable by wasps.

Interesting comments. Whenever the bond has been mentioned before, and the need to repay or refinance it, the picture painted has always been that would be straightforward and any dispute around the Ricoh would not affect it. Not a surprise seeing as the dispute was ongoing when the original bond issue occurred.

If there is now a suggestion it will impact any refinancing that will just encourage SISU to keep on the road they are on, and also to keep the club in Birmingham.

 

[chiefdave]

Unless that is in the original contract then it isnt going to happen is it. CCC would not take a new debt on just to help wasps unless they were contractually obliged to by the deal in 2014. CCC cant afford it and could most likely say not our problem

If CCC, who would need to be at fault for Wasps to be required to make any payout, to be able to shrug their shoulders and say nothing to do with us doesn't really strengthen the case that it should fall to CCFC.

Equally if CCC, with their tens of millions in reserves, won't agree to indemnity as they can't afford it who in their right mind would expect CCFC to?

 

[oldskyblue58]

If CCC, who would need to be at fault for Wasps to be required to make any payout, to be able to shrug their shoulders and say nothing to do with us doesn't really strengthen the case that it should fall to CCFC.

Equally if CCC, with their tens of millions in reserves, won't agree to indemnity as they can't afford it who in their right mind would expect CCFC to?

Have never said it should fall on CCFC at all. It is not their liability in any shape or form.

If there is no indemnity in the original contract 2014, i would not expect CCC to fall on their sword and pay up even if they were over flowing with funds. I still doubt their ability to do it in any case because of state aid rules

Comes back to someone or all parties disclosing the actual indemnities required or given. All sides agreeing & confirming what was said or agreed. Stating it in plain english or publishing the proof. Never going to see that

Worrying for CCFC if the actions taken result in CCFC staying longer in Birmingham or further legal actions. Hope we are able return with a decent deal soon but I certainly would not bet against either or both happening would you ? If you wanted to distress wasps it doesnt actually make sense to return or cease legal actions

It isnt just about refinancing the bond though is it ........... it is potentially refinancing the bond plus any repayment to CCC should CCC lose the case (SISU estimate £20m+)..........then add in to that the accounting errors and poor financial performance ........... the financing question has changed in the last 12 to 18 months, the perceived risks for lenders have significantly changed and increased. The longer the complaint takes the more pressure on the refinancing and the more uncertainty

 

[fernandopartridge]

Have never said it should fall on CCFC at all. It is not their liability in any shape or form.

If there is no indemnity in the original contract 2014, i would not expect CCC to fall on their sword and pay up even if they were over flowing with funds. I still doubt their ability to do it in any case because of state aid rules

Comes back to someone or all parties disclosing the actual indemnities required or given. All sides agreeing & confirming what was said or agreed. Stating it in plain english or publishing the proof. Never going to see that

Worrying for CCFC if the actions taken result in CCFC staying longer in Birmingham or further legal actions. Hope we are able return with a decent deal soon but I certainly would not bet against either or both happening would you ? If you wanted to distress wasps it doesnt actually make sense to return or cease legal actions

It isnt just about refinancing the bond though is it ........... it is potentially refinancing the bond plus any repayment to CCC should CCC lose the case..........then add in to that the accounting errors and poor financial performance ........... the financing question has changed in the last 12 to 18 months, the perceived risks for lenders have significantly changed and increased. The longer the complaint takes the more pressure on the refinancing and the more uncertainty

It won't be just state aid rules, i'd imagine the council's own internal procedures would block it. Also, how could you indemnify on an indefinite basis?

 

[oldskyblue58]

It won't be just state aid rules, i'd imagine the council's own internal procedures would block it. Also, how could you indemnify on an indefinite basis?

agreed fp such an indemnity is just not going to happen

 

[Nick]

Have never said it should fall on CCFC at all. It is not their liability in any shape or form.

If there is no indemnity in the original contract 2014, i would not expect CCC to fall on their sword and pay up even if they were over flowing with funds. I still doubt their ability to do it in any case because of state aid rules

Comes back to someone or all parties disclosing the actual indemnities required or given. All sides agreeing & confirming what was said or agreed. Stating it in plain english or publishing the proof. Never going to see that

Worrying for CCFC if the actions taken result in CCFC staying longer in Birmingham or further legal actions. Hope we are able return with a decent deal soon but I certainly would not bet against either or both happening would you ? If you wanted to distress wasps it doesnt actually make sense to return or cease legal actions

It isnt just about refinancing the bond though is it ........... it is potentially refinancing the bond plus any repayment to CCC should CCC lose the case (SISU estimate £20m+)..........then add in to that the accounting errors and poor financial performance ........... the financing question has changed in the last 12 to 18 months, the perceived risks for lenders have significantly changed and increased. The longer the complaint takes the more pressure on the refinancing and the more uncertainty

Poor them.

 

[chiefdave]

It isnt just about refinancing the bond though is it ........... it is potentially refinancing the bond plus any repayment to CCC should CCC lose the case (SISU estimate £20m+)..........then add in to that the accounting errors and poor financial performance ........... the financing question has changed in the last 12 to 18 months, the perceived risks for lenders have significantly changed and increased. The longer the complaint takes the more pressure on the refinancing and the more uncertainty

Wouldn't worry about it. They're the richest club in Europe and Richardson said they were still on course for every game to be a sell out by next season.

 

[shmmeee]

The complaint is against the council so no reason it should cost Wasps anything. If the council want Wasps to provide any information or resources to assist their case, should the EC decide to proceed, you would assume the council would have to cover Wasps costs.

But you're right. If, as we are repeatedly told, there is no case to answer why push for it to be dropped or forgotten? The stage it is at currently is the EC deciding if there is anything worth investigating. Based on what we are led to believe they will surely say there isn't and that will be the end of it. If you were Wasps surely you'd be pushing to reach that point as soon as possible, not have it put on the back burner to possibly re-appear years down the line.

Are you telling me you’d be happy if I repeatedly took you to court for something you didn’t do because you know you did nothing wrong?

Once the EC has made a decision either way either side can appeal. We saw how long the JR dragged on until it was finally thrown out and no one recovers 100% of the cost of defending a legal action.

This is why the concept of vexatious lawsuits is a thing. Vexatious litigation - Wikipedia

I remember people saying this about the JR “Oh well then they’ll find nothing wrong and that’ll be the end of it”. Well they did and here we are.

Stop me if I’m wrong but didn’t someone say there could be civil action if this fails as well?

Maybe we can beat this record: Myra Clark Gaines - Wikipedia

 

[fernandopartridge]

Are you telling me you’d be happy if I repeatedly took you to court for something you didn’t do because you know you did nothing wrong?

Once the EC has made a decision either way either side can appeal. We saw how long the JR dragged on until it was finally thrown out and no one recovers 100% of the cost of defending a legal action.

This is why the concept of vexatious lawsuits is a thing. Vexatious litigation - Wikipedia

I remember people saying this about the JR “Oh well then they’ll find nothing wrong and that’ll be the end of it”. Well they did and here we are.

Stop me if I’m wrong but didn’t someone say there could be civil action if this fails as well?

Maybe we can beat this record: Myra Clark Gaines - Wikipedia

Their approach isn't vexatious, they're quite entitled to question the application of EU law in this case. It seems to be like you're conflating it with JR1 to come up with it being vexatious. If it is part of a strategy to distress Wasps then so be it. They knew what they were getting themselves in for, as did the council.

 

[SkyBlueZack]

Are you telling me you’d be happy if I repeatedly took you to court for something you didn’t do because you know you did nothing wrong?

Once the EC has made a decision either way either side can appeal. We saw how long the JR dragged on until it was finally thrown out and no one recovers 100% of the cost of defending a legal action.

This is why the concept of vexatious lawsuits is a thing. Vexatious litigation - Wikipedia

I remember people saying this about the JR “Oh well then they’ll find nothing wrong and that’ll be the end of it”. Well they did and here we are.

Stop me if I’m wrong but didn’t someone say there could be civil action if this fails as well?

Maybe we can beat this record: Myra Clark Gaines - Wikipedia

What if the eu find wrongdoing? Is it vexatious then?

 

[shmmeee]

Their approach isn't vexatious, they're quite entitled to question the application of EU law in this case. It seems to be like you're conflating it with JR1 to come up with it being vexatious. If it is part of a strategy to distress Wasps then so be it. They knew what they were getting themselves in for, as did the council.

I didn’t say this was vexatious. I was pointing out that there’s a valid reason to not be cool with being sued for no reason and the courts recognise that fact.

I couldn’t care less if they do distress Wasps (though as a tax payer not a fan of distressing the taxpayer), more bothered that this could lead to us out of Cov until your new kid finishes school.

 

[shmmeee]

What if the eu find wrongdoing? Is it vexatious then?

 

[David O'Day]

I didn’t say this was vexatious. I was pointing out that there’s a valid reason to not be cool with being sued for no reason and the courts recognise that fact.

I couldn’t care less if they do distress Wasps (though as a tax payer not a fan of distressing the taxpayer), more bothered that this could lead to us out of Cov until your new kid finishes school.

No one is being sued.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

 

[shmmeee]

No one is being sued.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Yes. That was the key point. Have a cookie.

 

[SkyBlueZack]

Any chance of an answer? Rather than posting gifs thinking you’re funny. You’re not. You’re a condescending prick, you’ve been at it all day. Giving out insults and then ironically saying that’s all others are doing.

 

[shmmeee]

Any chance of an answer? Rather than posting gifs thinking you’re funny. You’re not. You’re a condescending prick, you’ve been at it all day. Giving out insults and then ironically saying that’s all others are doing.

I’m laughing.

I give what I get mate. Come in clearly not having read the thread (I already answered your point in my reply to FP) trying to pick a fight and you’ll get a condescending reply. Insult me and I’ll insult you back.

Actually engage your brain and I’ll give you a discussion.

 

[SkyBlueZack]

Well this is awkward. I posted before you said I didn’t say this was vexatious.....

 

[SkyBlueZack]

As for the rest of what you’ve said, I’ll help (we can all be condescending). Your whole day of arguing initially started with me on the wasps again thread. On that thread, neither was I insulting or condescending to you or others. You were insulting and condescending throughout, I’m not saying others weren’t. The reason for my insult was because I was tired or reading your condescending approach and insults.

So, hopefully now you’ll realise I have no problem engaging my brain. I also have no problem reading posts in order, or conversing without insults.

Thanks for your post though, you’ve made yourself look a bit of a dick.

 

[Grendel]

I’m laughing.

I give what I get mate. Come in clearly not having read the thread (I already answered your point in my reply to FP) trying to pick a fight and you’ll get a condescending reply. Insult me and I’ll insult you back.

Actually engage your brain and I’ll give you a discussion.

actually you crap yourself and put such people on ignore

 

[ccfc1234]

Maybe this doesn't apply in this case but if this link is relevant maybe SISU could withdraw their complaint to the EU:-
Userguide

This might be a way ahead. Maybe someone with more legal knowledge could comment on this (such as oldskyblue)?

Why would we want to withdraw it? If it's true the tax payers in Coventry deserve to know what the public servants who are paid from their taxes have been doing.

 

[shmmeee]

Well this is awkward. I posted before you said I didn’t say this was vexatious.....

And then you posted asking for an answer. Awkward indeed.

The exasperation gif was because I’d had two people wilfully misunderstand the same post one after the other. Also you’ve been a cock all day in the other thread.

 

[shmmeee]

As for the rest of what you’ve said, I’ll help (we can all be condescending). Your whole day of arguing initially started with me on the wasps again thread. On that thread, neither was I insulting or condescending to you or others. You were insulting and condescending throughout, I’m not saying others weren’t. The reason for my insult was because I was tired or reading your condescending approach and insults.

So, hopefully now you’ll realise I have no problem engaging my brain. I also have no problem reading posts in order, or conversing without insults.

Thanks for your post though, you’ve made yourself look a bit of a dick.

Alright mate. Come talk to me when you’ve had a few years of half the forum jumping on you, wilfully misrepresenting you’re view, bringing your family into it, saying your stupid, asking for you to be banned all because you ask a question or fail to take the approved forum view.

I am a bit of a dick, so that wouldn’t be the first time. Apologies if I jumped on you early, can’t be arsed to scroll back through that thread and see so I’ll assume I did.