So now we know (2 Viewers)

[chiefdave]

I also believe there is a time limit of 6 years for any civil court case. a claim against ccc would run out by end of this year In that case I would guess. I assume wasps would be required to participate?

I've always assumed any future action would be along the lines of losses suffered due to CCC's actions. Would the 6 year time limit apply to that or would the clock start ticking if / when that verdict is delivered by the EC.

 

---

[Fergusons_Beard]

No. I’ve been saying the idea that CCC are trying to destroy CCFC for thirty years is a conspiracy theory.

Ive also been saying the idea Gilbert and the CT are part of that plan is a conspiracy theory. Which this kinda proves.

Shmeee of course CCC haven’t been working to destroy CCFC for 30 years-just the last 5 or 6.
Destroy is a strong word-maybe just leveraging out the owners & segueing their own ‘preferred bidders’ in (Hoffman et al).

As for the CT-local rags always work with Councils-you’d be surprised that the old boys network does indeed still work and you’d be naive to think otherwise. (Have friends and relatives who work in both areas & their many stories over the years confirm this-esp a couple who are newspaper editors who have been threatened by CCC)

What’s actually happening is that the CT have finally seen that the PR tide is turning and that they need to get on the right side!

They have definitely known about the CCC shenanigans for years and have chosen not to release info.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

For the first time ever I feel like agreeing with PSB "Group"....
Stop the world I want to get off.

Wow

 

[Nick]

I've always assumed any future action would be along the lines of losses suffered due to CCC's actions. Would the 6 year time limit apply to that or would the clock start ticking if / when that verdict is delivered by the EC.

That's what I assumed, a massive list would be plonked down of how CCFC have lost out.

 

[Fergusons_Beard]

No. Do you realise how many councillors there are?

Any conspiracy theory involving that many people is nonsense. It’s where all conspiracy theories fall down.

You don’t understand local government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Nick]

Shmeee of course CCC haven’t been working to destroy CCFC for 30 years-just the last 5 or 6.
Destroy is a strong word-maybe just leveraging out the owners & segueing their own ‘preferred bidders’ in (Hoffman et al).

As for the CT-local rags always work with Councils-you’d be surprised that the old boys network does indeed still work and you’d be naive to think otherwise. (Have friends and relatives who work in both areas & their many stories over the years confirm this-esp a couple who are newspaper editors who have been threatened by CCC)

What’s actually happening is that the CT have finally seen that the PR tide is turning and that they need to get on the right side!

They have definitely known about the CCC shenanigans for years and have chosen not to release info.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

It has been a lot longer than 5 or 6, have a look at the Paul Fletcher thread.

 

[jordan210]

Dint sisu a year or so back basicly say the indemnity took away a legal right. Maybe im reading to much in to things. Maybe CCC wanted it that if they lost the eu case Sisu could not go after them privately.

 

[mr_monkey]

Dint sisu a year or so back basicly say the indemnity took away a legal right. Maybe im reading to much in to things. Maybe CCC wanted it that if they lost the eu case Sisu could not go after them privately.

Or any future legal action so what if terms of the rental agreement are broken, they technically wouldn't be able to take legal action against that would they (or am I reading it wrong, I'm so confused with the whole thing now)

 

[rhino1002]

i dont whether I've done the right thing but as supporter of CCFC for 50 +years but not a resident of Coventry in any of that time I have sent a short letter to all of the local MP's

i attach the same below

Feel Free to criticise

Dear Member of Parliament



Coventry City Council and Wasps Rugby Club



You may well know about the situation with Coventry City FC being forced to play their home games in Birmingham. There appears to be a lot of underlying misinformation and misleading information as to why this is case.



Having heard a report on local radio CWR which you may now be aware of, it appears that the main problem with the refusal of wasps to allow CCFC to play games in the city that bears their name is due to the fact that the local authority appear to insist on CCFC signing an indemnity against damages which may occur following the complaint to the EU about state aid for the sale of the Ricoh Arena to wasps.



Is it right that the local authority should impose this condition on its football club which bears it’s name

Can questions be asked about the validity of the indemnity.



In my simplistic way of thinking two questions come to mind:



Does Coventry City council think it has broken state aid rules or done anything wrong or illegal in the sale of the Ricoh Arena to Wasps

If the answer is No why do they need an indemnity

If the answer is yes, they think they might have done something illegal or wrong then why should CCFC pay for that mistake.



I am writing to you all as local MPs because this situation cannot be allowed to continue just to protect Coventry City Council



There is great deal more to this than I know but is it right that 10s of thousands of people in Coventry and Warwickshire are losing out on their support and love of the local football team at the whim of the local authority and an erstwhile London Rugby Club

 

[shmmeee]

Ah....word play....

Yeah. They’re all at it. Leave enough wiggle room. That’s never been in doubt. It’s trying to cut through that crap that’s the problem.

Again, I’m not making value judgements about Wasps’ actions, just trying to find a route that doesn’t rely on them being cartoon villains.

You don’t understand local government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Care to elaborate?

 

[djr8369]

Technically that’s a complaint and any future action off it is new legal action

Ah so it wouldn’t stop a theoretical resolution which resulted in which wasps paid money to the council but would stop SISU pursuing a separate claim later on?

If so the implication from the notion that it would threaten the club is the club isn’t financially viable long term if it doesn’t get a financial settlement? That doesn’t bode well and suggests a new stadium is a non-starter.

 

[skybluetony176]

Just read Gilbert’s twitter. There’s literally nothing there we haven’t been saying for days. Someone ELI5 please?

The media saying it though is progress. I think now the media has confirmed what a section of fans have been assuming it piles the pressure on other parties to if nothing else stop saying bare faced lies, which was their response to fan speculation.
Ultimately it might not change the fact that we’re at St Andrews again next season but importantly the truth is out and that at least gives fans the opportunity to make an informed decision on wether to attend home games or not. Personally I think they should (assuming they feel comfortable to do so in this Covid situation) because it’s clear that signing the indemnity could finish CCFC when they’re the only party not at fault when it comes to the sale of the Ricoh.

 

[Nick]

The media saying it though is progress. I think now the media has confirmed what a section of fans have been assuming it piles the pressure on other parties to if nothing else stop saying bare faced lies, which was their response to fan speculation.
Ultimately it might not change the fact that we’re at St Andrews again next season but importantly the truth is out and that at least gives fans the opportunity to make an informed decision on wether to attend home games or not. Personally I think they should (assuming they feel comfortable to do so in this Covid situation) because it’s clear that signing the indemnity could finish CCFC when they’re the only party not at fault when it comes to the sale of the Ricoh.

I have agreed with Tony, Gilbert and PSB Group and it's not even 10am.

Wasps are doing a great job at uniting our fans, I bet they are shitting it.

 

[chiefdave]

For the first time ever I feel like agreeing with PSB "Group"....
Stop the world I want to get off.

Joking aside who is left in the 'but SISU' camp now? salop888, Linnell and his mate Neil?

 

[Fergusons_Beard]

I have agreed with Tony, Gilbert and PSB Group and it's not even 10am.

Wasps are doing a great job at uniting our fans, I bet they are shitting it.

Thinking same thing Nick.

Just waiting for the film guy knobhead to tweet but surprisingly he’s been a little quiet.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[shmmeee]

Or any future legal action so what if terms of the rental agreement are broken, they technically wouldn't be able to take legal action against that would they (or am I reading it wrong, I'm so confused with the whole thing now)

I don’t see how that would be against CCC though? Wasps are the landlords subletting to CCFC so if they aren’t indemnified then CCFC could still sue in that case. I’d be surprised if this would over rule a leasehold contract anyway.

We just don’t know do we? The word “indemnity” could mean a million things.

I wonder if we can salami slice it? Ask CCC to confirm they don’t need indemnity on something (like you mention leaseholds for example) and keep going until we find out what it is.

 

[ccfcway]

We need sky blues sam to stand as an independent so cov residents can vote out the people they have voted in who are blocking our way back home

 

[Nick]

Joking aside who is left in the 'but SISU' camp now? salop888, Linnell and his mate Neil?

To be fair, Salop888 actually said something about Wasps needing to drop the NDA. If you can find it in amongst all of the other shite.

 

[Magwitch]

Frankly, I'm not sure next season, it matters where we playing ay.

I have to agree there and that might be nearer the point. We will kick off in September behind closed doors then hopefully a few weeks later with a percentage of supporters allowed in talk of 17% and no away fans that would be just less than 5000 and with this uncertainty over if this virus is on the rise again the prospect of higher crowds could be in doubt from ccfc point of view why rush.

 

[shmmeee]

Ah so it wouldn’t stop a theoretical resolution which resulted in which wasps paid money to the council but would stop SISU pursuing a separate claim later on?

If so the implication from the notion that it would threaten the club is the club isn’t financially viable long term if it doesn’t get a financial settlement? That doesn’t bode well and suggests a new stadium is a non-starter.

My thoughts exactly. Sisu need pushing on the “threaten the club” stuff. Clearly it’s not indemnity against Wasps payments from State Aid so it must be that the future of the club relies on Sisu suing someone. Also that if the state aid fails the club is fucked?

Concerning.

 

[MalcSB]

It's 'an indemnity clause as claimed' anyway, not 'an indemnity clause'.

See the shift in meaning?

"However, Wasps did not insist on an indemnity clause as has been claimed – this claim is simply false.”

misquoting the statement is what shifts the meaning.

 

[Nick]

"However, Wasps did not insist on an indemnity clause as has been claimed – this claim is simply false.”

misquoting the statement is what shifts the meaning.

Which could well be factually true, CCC insisted on it

 

[NorthernWisdom]

"However, Wasps did not insist on an indemnity clause as has been claimed – this claim is simply false.”

misquoting the statement is what shifts the meaning.

Nope, they did not insist on an indemnity clause as has been claimed.

NOT they did not insist on an indemnity clause.

 

[shmmeee]

"However, Wasps did not insist on an indemnity clause as has been claimed – this claim is simply false.”

misquoting the statement is what shifts the meaning.

“an indemnity clause as has been claimed” still leaves room for an indemnity clause not as has been claimed.

 

[shmmeee]

Which could well be factually true, CCC insisted on it

Which would mean CCC lied about not being insisting on it. As NW has pointed out the penalty for CCC making false public statements is far higher than for Sisu or Wasps.

My working theory is still Wasps think action against CCC could take the Ricoh off them. Whether they worked that out themselves or were helped by the council I’m not sure it matters. Once they know it’s their decision to put it in.

 

[Fergusons_Beard]

My thoughts exactly. Sisu need pushing on the “threaten the club” stuff. Clearly it’s not indemnity against Wasps payments from State Aid so it must be that the future of the club relies on Sisu suing someone. Also that if the state aid fails the club is fucked?

Concerning.

What I don’t get is that if SISU win state aid claim then council gives money to SISU & if SISU agree to an indemnity protecting CCC (as a condition to return to Ricoh) then SISU have to pay money to CCC (which they have already won in state aid claim).

So does indemnity insist on a certain amount above what CCC would have to pay out if they lose?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[shmmeee]

What I don’t get is that if SISU win state aid claim then council gives money to SISU & if SISU agree to an indemnity protecting CCC (as a condition to return to Ricoh) then SISU have to pay money to CCC (which they have already won in state aid claim).

So does indemnity insist on a certain amount above what CCC would have to pay out if they lose?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That’s what doesn’t make sense. How can an indemnity for CCC lead to payments from the State Aid judgement.

That’s why I think it can only be some future legal action.

 

[Nick]

Which would mean CCC lied about not being insisting on it. As NW has pointed out the penalty for CCC making false public statements is far higher than for Sisu or Wasps.

My working theory is still Wasps think action against CCC could take the Ricoh off them. Whether they worked that out themselves or were helped by the council I’m not sure it matters. Once they know it’s their decision to put it in.

I am pretty sure it will all be cleverly worded, hence Duggins and Maton have been told to be quiet.

Did Ann Lucas get in trouble when she was bullshitting? Let's face it, they will get sent to the "ethics committee" and nothing at all will be done.

 

[MalcSB]

“an indemnity clause as has been claimed” still leaves room for an indemnity clause not as has been claimed.

Now you are engaging in word play. Let me have a go.

wasps could have said, “It has been claimed that wasps insisted on an indemnity clause. This claim is false”

As there were no claims about the details of the indemnity clause, the above is what was meant.

In short, wasps lied.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Now you are engaging in word play

That was kind of the point!!

 

[Fergusons_Beard]

My working theory is still Wasps think action against CCC could take the Ricoh off them. Whether they worked that out themselves or were helped by the council I’m not sure it matters. Once they know it’s their decision to put it in.

That doesn’t make sense because there’s no stopping the EU state aid claim. It continues to be a monetary threat to CCC & Wasps.

State Aid claim cannot reverse a decision made years ago merely award compensation to wronged parties.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[shmmeee]

Now you are engaging in word play. Let me have a go.

wasps could have said, “It has been claimed that wasps insisted on an indemnity clause. This claim is false”

As there were no claims about the details of the indemnity clause, the above is what was meant.

In short, wasps lied.

Im not engaging. I’m pointing out how the statement leaves open possibilities. All parties are doing it. For me the most concerning word play is Sisu claiming this threatens the future of the club.

You can call it a lie if you want, that’s up to you.

 

[shmmeee]

That doesn’t make sense because there’s no stopping the EU state aid claim. It continues to be a monetary threat to CCC & Wasps.

State Aid claim cannot reverse a decision made years ago merely award compensation to wronged parties.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

What’s the monetary threat to CCC from the state aid case? The entire point is that CCC are owed money.

StateAid remedies aren’t punitive. They don’t fine. They “recover” any aid given.

 

[Fergusons_Beard]

That’s what doesn’t make sense. How can an indemnity for CCC lead to payments from the State Aid judgement.

That’s why I think it can only be some future legal action.

But SISU agreed to no more legal action-isn’t that what Boddy and Joy said in their statements?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[chiefdave]

There seems to be very little wiggle room left for CCC. Will be interesting to see what they say next, if anything, as I'm struggling to see how they spin this one into being nothing to do with them or someone else's fault.

Presumably somehow the indemnity CCC are insisting on reimburses Wasps if they are forced to pay out as a state aid remedy. Otherwise why would Wasps entertain the idea of letting CCC dictate the terms of an agreement between landlord and tenant?