Update from Big Dave (1 Viewer)

[shmmeee]

They would only have to pay up if the council were found to be in the wrong, wouldn't they?

You always seem to play the "conspiracy" stuff as well, even when things have actually happened it's a conspiracy when mentioned. It doesn't work when you say it about everything.

Yes they’d have to pay if they were found in breach. So what? Why does someone need to have “put them up to it”? That’s the conspiracy mate, there’s no need for it. OSB has laid out in detail the impact on Wasps the proceedings are having. The idea they only care because the shadowy council is pulling their strings is laughable nonsense.

You want me to stop calling your ideas conspiracies, stop relying on conspiracy theories when a more rational reason is available.

 

---

[shmmeee]

Ok, fair enough, if they're asking them to also stop any action against the council then it looks doubly bad.

It's also important not to underestimate the bit about restricting the club and Sisu's basic legal rights. Could this imply that Wasps are wanting it to cover more than just action relating to the sale & lease?

I honestly don’t get the confusion. This is very very simple:

Wasps see the risk associated with Sisus attempts to reverse the sale damaging their chances to finance and would like that risk to go away.

Luckily the people presenting that risk want something from Wasps, meaning they can do a deal where it goes away. So that’s what they want.

Again, it is very very normal for someone to reach an agreement over a dispute that requires both parties to leave the dispute there. It’s not “doubly bad” it’s standard business practice.

You guys are really trying to make this way more complex than it needs to be.

I will note by the way that the argument has morphed in this thread from “there was no undertaking” to “the undertaking was agreed anyway” to “the undertaking is terrible and should never be agreed” to seemingly now “they only want the undertaking because the council put them up to it”. Hardly the sign of a solid rational argument.

 

[clint van damme]

Yes they’d have to pay if they were found in breach. So what? Why does someone need to have “put them up to it”? That’s the conspiracy mate, there’s no need for it. OSB has laid out in detail the impact on Wasps the proceedings are having. The idea they only care because the shadowy council is pulling their strings is laughable nonsense.

You want me to stop calling your ideas conspiracies, stop relying on conspiracy theories when a more rational reason is available.

if wasps have never conspired with the council they have nothing to worry about and should get City back to the Ricoh ASAP for everyones sake.
They're only going to have an issue if they have conspired with the CCC.

 

[Nick]

Yes they’d have to pay if they were found in breach. So what? Why does someone need to have “put them up to it”? That’s the conspiracy mate, there’s no need for it. OSB has laid out in detail the impact on Wasps the proceedings are having. The idea they only care because the shadowy council is pulling their strings is laughable nonsense.

You want me to stop calling your ideas conspiracies, stop relying on conspiracy theories when a more rational reason is available.

You think the council have no involvement at all? Duggins even said himself he could help get a rental deal if the legal were dropped.

I am sure it is the legals really stopping Wasps from running a massively successful business, nothing to do with their massive debts, poor performance, failure to get events and a stadium sponsor and then COVID. Is it the legal's fault they haven't been able to get any of their training grounds started? Still, it has always been the "It's SISUs fault" when it comes to Wasps having issues.It was even SISU running a campaign against the training ground in Henley and not local residents too.

They know the legals cant be dropped, so if the legals are causing financial strain then you would think turning away business out of spite isn't going to be helping that strain?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

You think the council have no involvement at all? Duggins even said himself he could help get a rental deal if the legal were dropped.

I am sure it is the legals really stopping Wasps from running a massively successful business, nothing to do with their massive debts, poor performance, failure to get events and a stadium sponsor and then COVID. Is it the legals fault they haven't been able to get any of their training grounds started? Still, it has always been the "It's SISUs fault" when it comes to Wasps having issues.

It is worth remembering that Nick Eastwood said when the legals began that he had no issue with it and understood it from SISU’s perspective. Some years down the line their business is failing and the legals are now a big problem despite it now being at the final stage of review that is legally possible.

 

[shmmeee]

You think the council have no involvement at all? Duggins even said himself he could help get a rental deal if the legal were dropped.

I am sure it is the legals really stopping Wasps from running a massively successful business, nothing to do with their massive debts, poor performance, failure to get events and a stadium sponsor and then COVID. Is it the legal's fault they haven't been able to get any of their training grounds started? Still, it has always been the "It's SISUs fault" when it comes to Wasps having issues.It was even SISU running a campaign against the training ground in Henley and not local residents too.

They know the legals cant be dropped, so if the legals are causing financial strain then you would think turning away business out of spite isn't going to be helping that strain?

I could get a rental deal if the legals were dropped! That’s the sticking point! That’s my entire point.

The point you are studiously ignoring is that “the legals” isn’t just the EU complaint but the promise to halt further attempts to reverse the sale of the Ricoh. They can be dropped, Sisu can sign away their rights, some in this thread believe that a Ricoh deal isn’t worth that and that’s their right but my position is it’s a wild goose chase and we’re harming the club by carrying it on.

 

[Garryb80]

I honestly don’t get the confusion. This is very very simple:

Wasps see the risk associated with Sisus attempts to reverse the sale damaging their chances to finance and would like that risk to go away.

Luckily the people presenting that risk want something from Wasps, meaning they can do a deal where it goes away. So that’s what they want.

Again, it is very very normal for someone to reach an agreement over a dispute that requires both parties to leave the dispute there. It’s not “doubly bad” it’s standard business practice.

You guys are really trying to make this way more complex than it needs to be.

I will note by the way that the argument has morphed in this thread from “there was no undertaking” to “the undertaking was agreed anyway” to “the undertaking is terrible and should never be agreed” to seemingly now “they only want the undertaking because the council put them up to it”. Hardly the sign of a solid rational argument.

SISU announced, in an uncontested statement, they had sent a letter confirming no further legal actions would be taken against Wasps directly. Therefore, unless Wasps have something to hide, they would have no further legal costs or damages to pay out. The fact this is still an issue, especially the indemnity clause, does suggest they arent confident that any further illegal practices may come to light. You do seem very selective with which parts of the facts you mention and which you leave under the carpet.

 

[shmmeee]

It is worth remembering that Nick Eastwood said when the legals began that he had no issue with it and understood it from SISU’s perspective. Some years down the line their business is failing and the legals are now a big problem despite it now being at the final stage of review that is legally possible.

Have you got a link? Just because so much has been misrepresented in this thread so I’d like to read it myself.

But sure, level the complaint of “changing your mind” at Wasps all you like. I’m not sure it helps anything.

 

[Garryb80]

I could get a rental deal if the legals were dropped! That’s the sticking point! That’s my entire point.

The point your are studiously ignoring is that “the legals” isn’t just the EU complaint but the promise to halt further attempts to reverse the sale of the Ricoh. They can be dropped, Sisu can sign away their rights, some in this thread believe that a Ricoh deal isn’t worth that and that’s their right but my position is it’s a wild goose chase and we’re harming the club by carrying it on.

You mean the letter they sent confirming they would take no further legal action against Wasps?

 

[shmmeee]

SISU announced, in an uncontested statement, they had sent a letter confirming no further legal actions would be taken against Wasps directly. Therefore, unless Wasps have something to hide, they would have no further legal costs or damages to pay out. The fact this is still an issue, especially the indemnity clause, does suggest they arent confident that any further illegal practices may come to light. You do seem very selective with which parts of the facts you mention and which you leave under the carpet.

Ive literally addressed this point about five times in this thread.

 

[shmmeee]

You mean the letter they sent confirming they would take no further legal action against Wasps?

Read the thread.

 

[Nick]

I could get a rental deal if the legals were dropped! That’s the sticking point! That’s my entire point.

The point your are studiously ignoring is that “the legals” isn’t just the EU complaint but the promise to halt further attempts to reverse the sale of the Ricoh. They can be dropped, Sisu can sign away their rights, some in this thread believe that a Ricoh deal isn’t worth that and that’s their right but my position is it’s a wild goose chase and we’re harming the club by carrying it on.

Yeah at the time this wasn't a Wasps EU legal thing, it was purely the council. How could Duggins help Wasps give a rental deal when at that point the action was just the council?

Again, they have signed away their rights when it comes to Wasps and legal action to do with the Ricoh going forward. They are the landlords and who they are doing deals with, yet you think the council aren't anything to do with it but all rights should be signed away against them too?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Have you got a link? Just because so much has been misrepresented in this thread so I’d like to read it myself.

But sure, level the complaint of “changing your mind” at Wasps all you like. I’m not sure it helps anything.

Wasps chief says fresh Sisu legal action 'won't harm relationship'

I know it doesn’t help alter the current reality but it does kind of show why the goalposts have been moved.

 

[mark82]

if wasps have never conspired with the council they have nothing to worry about and should get City back to the Ricoh ASAP for everyones sake.
They're only going to have an issue if they have conspired with the CCC.

That's not entirely true. They also have an issue even if it was just the council in the wrong.

 

[Garryb80]

Ive literally addressed this point about five times in this thread.

Read the thread.

I have read it thanks. I dont believe you have addressed the point though. I go back to my previous post that you choose the parts you want to and ignore the parts you don't

 

[Limey]

Could this impact any future sale of the Ricoh? Is a Ricoh, wasps and ccfc package tempting for a would-be investor currently?

 

[shmmeee]

Wasps chief says fresh Sisu legal action 'won't harm relationship'

I know it doesn’t help alter the current reality but it does kind of show why the goalposts have been moved.

I mean, firstly that’s six years ago and an awful lot of water has passed under the bridge, but that reads to me as Sisu putting out a legal position to protect their rights going forward for something. But I’ll be honest I don’t know. I’m not sure you can compare every legal complaint equally, but IANAL so don’t know the finer points and how say a state aid case would impact Wasps differently, or what their finance arrangements were or whatever.

But as it’s six years ago and a different round of negotiations I’m not sure it helps much now.

 

[shmmeee]

I have read it thanks. I dont believe you have addressed the point though. I go back to my previous post that you choose the parts you want to and ignore the parts you don't

Fine. Please tell me what specific thing you would like me to address and I shall address it just for you.

 

[clint van damme]

That's not entirely true. They also have an issue even if it was just the council in the wrong.

Perhaps they should have looked more carefully at the way the deal was structured then.
Either way, if they're convinced it's more sisu bluster they should get City back in to the Ricoh. If they are genuinely worried about the EU complaint then I hope it bites them on the arse and sends them under.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I mean, firstly that’s six years ago and an awful lot of water has passed under the bridge, but that reads to me as Sisu putting out a legal position to protect their rights going forward for something. But I’ll be honest I don’t know. I’m not sure you can compare every legal complaint equally, but IANAL so don’t know the finer points and how say a state aid case would impact Wasps differently, or what their finance arrangements were or whatever.

But as it’s six years ago and a different round of negotiations I’m not sure it helps much now.

Some points are still relevant, for instance recognising that the day to day club management is distinct from the ownership. They could do it then but can’t now.

 

[Nick]

I mean, firstly that’s six years ago and an awful lot of water has passed under the bridge, but that reads to me as Sisu putting out a legal position to protect their rights going forward for something. But I’ll be honest I don’t know. I’m not sure you can compare every legal complaint equally, but IANAL so don’t know the finer points and how say a state aid case would impact Wasps differently, or what their finance arrangements were or whatever.

But as it’s six years ago and a different round of negotiations I’m not sure it helps much now.

They also said the latest EU action wasn't a sticking point even though they knew it couldn't be dropped, they just wanted indemnity of any compensation to be paid IF the council are found to be at fault and no legal action at all about anything (not just the Ricoh Sale).

 

[shmmeee]

Perhaps they should have looked more carefully at the way the deal was structured then.
Either way, if they're convinced it's more sisu bluster they should get City back in to the Ricoh. If they are genuinely worried about the EU complaint then I hope it bites them on the arse and sends them under.

Right. A rugby club should be able to spot something a council legal department and several high court judges couldn’t. Sounds reasonable.

 

[clint van damme]

Could this impact any future sale of the Ricoh? Is a Ricoh, wasps and ccfc package tempting for a would-be investor currently?

I'm not sure how attractive a stadium with two sports clubs playing behind closed doors and unable to put on gigs is at the moment to be honest, (I know outdoor gigs got the nod yesterday but with social distancing that may mean they're not viable at the Ricoh).
The covid situation has added a whole other level of uncertainty to this situation.

 

[Garryb80]

Fine. Please tell me what specific thing you would like me to address and I shall address it just for you.

Im guessing after 5 attempts you probably wouldnt manage it on a 6th go.

 

[Nick]

Some points are still relevant, for instance recognising that the day to day club management is distinct from the ownership. They could do it then but can’t now.

Were they involved with trying to takeover then though? Maybe putting clauses in a deal that are never going to be accepted and then keep moving the goalposts makes it look like they haven't forced the club out when they don't play there.

It puts more pressure on the club though, maybe to the point the will sell up.

 

[shmmeee]

They also said the latest EU action wasn't a sticking point even though they knew it couldn't be dropped, they just wanted indemnity of any compensation to be paid IF the council are found to be at fault and no legal action at all about anything (not just the Ricoh Sale).

Source?

And yes they said they are willing to ignore the EU complaint if future action was ruled out. It wasn’t. That’s my point.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I was half expecting a message from the club asking if I could call him slim Dave or just Dave.

How about "Busy Boddy"?

 

[Nick]

The covid situation has added a whole other level of uncertainty to this situation.

Yeah exactly, without COVID you could say that CCFC are hit worse than Wasps by not playing there.

With us being promoted and then COVID I'd say the tables turned.

 

[shmmeee]

Im guessing after 5 attempts you probably wouldnt manage it on a 6th go.

Top conversing. A++++ would reply again.

 

[clint van damme]

Right. A rugby club should be able to spot something a council legal department and several high court judges couldn’t. Sounds reasonable.

sounds like there's no issue then, as those who back the council have told us repeatedly, so let's get the club back .

 

[Nick]

Source?

And yes they said they are willing to ignore the right complaint of future action was ruled out. It wasn’t. That’s my point.

It was, they signed to say there would be no further action against Wasps for the sale of the Ricoh.

Source is CCFC themselves saying Wasps wanted to take away basic legal rights of the club

 

[Nick]

Right. A rugby club should be able to spot something a council legal department and several high court judges couldn’t. Sounds reasonable.

To be fair, a high court judge said that ACL and CCC weren't conspiring to do a deal with Yorkshire Bank, as did their legal department.

Can't blame the judge as the evidence wasn't known at that time but look how that turned out.

 

[Garryb80]

Top conversing. A++++ would reply again.

I am pointing out if i cant understand your 'addressing a point' in a 7 page thread by now its doubtful i ever will.

 

[shmmeee]

sounds like there's no issue then, as those who back the council have told us repeatedly, so let's get the club back .

You’ve lost me.

There is no issue. Sisu should drop the attempts to reverse the sale and get us back to the Ricoh then ideally build a ground. Yes that is my position.

 

[Grendel]

I could get a rental deal if the legals were dropped! That’s the sticking point! That’s my entire point.

The point you are studiously ignoring is that “the legals” isn’t just the EU complaint but the promise to halt further attempts to reverse the sale of the Ricoh. They can be dropped, Sisu can sign away their rights, some in this thread believe that a Ricoh deal isn’t worth that and that’s their right but my position is it’s a wild goose chase and we’re harming the club by carrying it on.

The actual only real available route to continue action on this specific point is to agree not to appeal the decision if it went against the council

you’ll I assume want them to agree to that would you?