Wasps action (2 Viewers)

AJB1983 said:

Not misinformed, just being objective.
“Others on here” could do with being that way sometimes...

Click to expand...

No, it is misinformed as you produced a screenshot which showed he was correct. (even with his random **).

Like I said, if you want to be objective you should probably start by looking at the facts first.

pastythegreat said:

And what if SISU were suing w**ps? What if they were?
If w**ps were so sure they had done absolutely nothing wrong, and SISU pick up the bill every time they lose, why are they so bothered?
Why are w**so so desperate to have legal dropped? Is it because they know something was done underhand and they could actually lose?

If I was in court tomorrow for murder, I'd be happy knowing that I was nowhere near it and there is zero evidence to convict me, unless I helped shift the body then I'd want to do everything I could to stop proceedings.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

No you wouldn’t. Don’t be ridiculous. Vexatious lawsuits are a thing.

Nick said:

No, it is misinformed as you produced a screenshot which showed he was correct. (even with his random **).

Like I said, if you want to be objective you should probably start by looking at the facts first.

Click to expand...

Are you saying Wasps only have their conditions because the council asked them to?

shmmeee said:

No you wouldn’t. Don’t be ridiculous. Vexatious lawsuits are a thing.

Click to expand...

As a general question for any lawers out there...

Speaking to a lawyer, they seemed to think it would be irrelevant if costs were awarded against the complainents, if the complainents didn't have the means to pay. So, say, if OEG and SBSL were no more, that leaves ARVO who... could also end up without the means to pay?

Therefore, there's still a risk of the defendants [and interested parties? My question, this one!] having to pay their court costs.

If a criminal law lawyer would like to confirm or deny this, I'd be grateful!

Nick said:

It shows that the defendant is the council and that the others are just interested parties.

Click to expand...

Wasps ( who I hate) are just interested parties. The problem is that there interest is that, if CCC lost the case, there could/ would be a potential for financial loss to Wasps. It kind of makes them more than “just”” interested unfortunately.

the council were causing trouble long before sisu lets not forget. anytime paul fletcher mentioned buying 50% of ricoph they would respond with "we have the power to veto!"

boycott wasps, get this out on social media and go on radio to talk about it etc

shmmeee said:

Are you saying Wasps only have their conditions because the council asked them to?

Click to expand...

How did you jump from my post to that? A bit random

AJB1983 said:

Funny how you can’t bring yourself to spell out Wasps but SISU you have no problem with typing. It’s pathetic no?

Click to expand...

No, what's pathetic is completely ignoring (or in your case lying about) any wrongdoing from any other party in this whole situation.
People getting so defensive over who SISU are or aren't suing. Does it matter who they're suing? If in the long run they win, we get a 50% share of the Ricoh or w**ps fuck off back to London, is that such a bad thing?? Of course it would be, because you precious council and egg chasers plan would of failed.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

MalcSB said:

Wasps ( who I hate) are just interested parties. The problem is that there interest is that, if CCC lost the case, there could/ would be a potential for financial loss to Wasps.

Click to expand...

If on the off chance that CCC lost then surely they would be the ones in the wrong?

Nick said:

If on the off chance that CCC lost then surely they would be the ones in the wrong?

Click to expand...

That’s very true and I suppose thats why they are holding ccfc to ransom / blackmail.

NorthernWisdom said:

As a general question for any lawers out there...

Speaking to a lawyer, they seemed to think it would be irrelevant if costs were awarded against the complainents, if the complainents didn't have the means to pay. So, say, if OEG and SBSL were no more, that leaves ARVO who... could also end up without the means to pay?

Therefore, there's still a risk of the defendants [and interested parties? My question, this one!] having to pay their court costs.

If a criminal law lawyer would like to confirm or deny this, I'd be grateful!

Click to expand...

Not a lawyer, but I’d imagine that if they “don’t have the means to pay” then liquidation would be entered at which time Arvo would have to call in the charge on Ryton and sell to raise the money to cover the costs. Because there’s a background asset I very much doubt it’d be as easy as saying “not got any cash so we’ll have to leave it”. And because of this, I can’t see them going down that route.

SBAndy said:

Not a lawyer, but I’d imagine that if they “don’t have the means to pay” then liquidation would be entered at which time Arvo would have to call in the charge on Ryton and sell to raise the money to cover the costs. Because there’s a background asset I very much doubt it’d be as easy as saying “not got any cash so we’ll have to leave it”. And because of this, I can’t see them going down that route.

Click to expand...

I think the charge on Ryton has been satisfied. Could be wrong though.

AJB1983 said:

The court papers showing sky blue sports and leisure, arvo and otium versus Coventry City council, arena Coventry ltd, WASPS HOLDINGS LTD and the trustees of Higgs charity

Click to expand...

Erm, its actually the court papers showing only Coventry City Council as a defendant.

AJB1983 said:

The court papers showing sky blue sports and leisure, arvo and otium versus Coventry City council, arena Coventry ltd, WASPS HOLDINGS LTD and the trustees of Higgs charity

Click to expand...

It doesn't. It's a judicial review as such the only defendant is the council. Wasps are an interested party.

The reality is that Wasps should take up their anger with the council, the likelihood of a legal challenge to the sale of the Arena to Wasps was very high indeed. The council must have anticipated it. If I were Wasps I'd have sought indemnity from the council.

fernandopartridge said:

The reality is that Wasps should take up their anger with the council, the likelihood of a legal challenge to the sale of the Arena to Wasps was very high indeed. The council must have anticipated it. If I were Wasps I'd have sought indemnity from the council.

Click to expand...

Its not like this has come out of the blue. They would have been fully aware of the situation when they took the stadium on. If they haven't made an agreement with CCC that CCC cover any costs then that's nobodies fault but their own.

Lots of great ideas on here.

CJ - Thanks for arranging Luton. I think we now need similar prompt next steps with respect to this thread. May I suggest we pick 3 ideas, and run with them ASAP. Where financial assistance is required, my I suggest Crowd Funding. We could post the link for Crowd Funding to the FB group as well as other forums.

Thanks
Alex

Liquid Gold said:

It should be escalated to the point where we would mobilise to block turnstiles to their last games and tell them it will keep happening until we get a deal. I’ll go up and polyfiller their locks every week if we went bust.

Click to expand...

If we genuinely went out of business, I'd have a spare 5 hours to kill every other Saturday. I'd happily kill that time fucking w**ps over. It would be a pleasure. Probably more enjoyable than some of the games I've had to sit and endure during my lifetime

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

fernandopartridge said:

Stupid, simplistic analogies like "if I was a landlord" do my head in.
What if you were the landlord to somebody who lived in the house since it was built for them?

Click to expand...

And what if, as a landlord, your weren't even being sued. It was the bloke who sold you the house who was being sued. Imagine that.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

SkybluesBenny said:

Hardly stupid . . I am a new poster on this forum and the overall experience is one of why I was only a reader for many years. Why is the need to have to result to insults its ridiculous.

I understand a debate but to jump straight in with insults big man are you.

Anyways to cover your point CCFC had the same opportunity and our owners chose their path and hence why were in this situation.
The deals never not been thre the fact is that it came with clauses and sisu have not stuck to them and are trying to spin that they are being evicted . . Fair enough we are but its self inflicted and we wont move forward till they are gone.
If I was the landlord I would want what's best in the interest of my business and that would be to not have court case after court case and costs mounting up when I don't need them.




Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

A) CCFC were never given the same opportunities or deals to buy the ground on the terms w**ps were, you know that, I know that, everybody knows that so I don't get why your lying about it.

B) What clauses did we have? That apparently we haven't stuck to? I don't remember ever reading we wouldn't sue CCC.
It was w**ps who agreed to clauses. A clause that THE LONG TERM FUTRE OFF CCFC WOULD BE SECURE.

C) SISU aren't spinning anything about being evicted, WE ARE BEING EVICTED. NO SPIN.

D) What costs are w**ps mounting up during court cases? (That ones a genuine question I'd like you to answer as w**ps aren't being sued, they're only an interested party so why are they paying any legal costs when not involved???).

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Nick said:

How did you jump from my post to that? A bit random

Click to expand...

Not really. Wasps are refusing to talk until legals are dropped.

You’re claiming the legals don’t affect them as they’re just named parties.

If CCC are the only ones affected, why would Wasps make it a condition of talks? Would only make sense if they were doing a favour for the council.

If I guessed wrong, what was your reasoning?

pastythegreat said:

And what if, as a landlord, your weren't even being sued. It was the bloke who sold you the house who was being sued. Imagine that.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Wasps don’t own the freehold. There’s an ongoing tenant-landlord relationship.

Just to clear up a few things.

No one is suing anyone yet. The legal action is to get a judicial review of the process involving CCC. It is not a claim for damages.

To be pedantic sisu are not suing or seeking legal action sbs&l ARVO and otium are.

It was the claimants as controlled by sisu who included wasps and aehc in the action. Those interested parties had no choice in it. The reason predominantly was to obtain copies of files and documents. That alone means time and cost.

It is far from certain as it stands that CCC or wasps will get all their costs back. For now the cost has been taken out of their cash flows. Another reason to involve the parties. It can take a long time to get those costs back. Very often you dont get it all back

Wasps are at risk because there is potential however small that a judicial review might succeed. If the claim is not challenged then it could get through easier and the costs escalate from their current levels because of a full legal action. This is currently only an application. I understand that CCC and wasps have so far spent well over 1m between them. That on a case where the consensus is that it has no real merit and importantly judges keep knocking back.

Does fighting the claim mean there is something to hide? Most probably not because the process of discovery to get copies of documents would have revealed it and you can bet the claimants would have brought that out as part of their claim. Or even started other legal action by now.

As far as I can see the legal claims appear to vexatious fishing using the legal process to drain funds and tie up large amounts of time. But that's just my opinion

AJB1983 said:

The court papers showing sky blue sports and leisure, arvo and otium versus Coventry City council, arena Coventry ltd, WASPS HOLDINGS LTD and the trustees of Higgs charity

Click to expand...

(f) 'interested party' means any person (other than the claimant and defendant) who is directly affected by the claim.

NorthernWisdom said:

As a general question for any lawers out there...

Speaking to a lawyer, they seemed to think it would be irrelevant if costs were awarded against the complainents, if the complainents didn't have the means to pay. So, say, if OEG and SBSL were no more, that leaves ARVO who... could also end up without the means to pay?

Therefore, there's still a risk of the defendants [and interested parties? My question, this one!] having to pay their court costs.

If a criminal law lawyer would like to confirm or deny this, I'd be grateful!

Click to expand...

Not a lawyer but the parties to this case are arvo sbs&l and otium. They are the ones liable to court costs. Sbs&l has no income. Arvo has a charge over ryton and all assets of otium so there is a risk of recovery action there except arvo are not in the UK. But i assume the court could order assets in uk seized. Otium is the only UK trading entity but everything it owns is charged to arvo.

The charge to arvo includes ryton, that has not been settled

Sisu, seppala etc are not named in the actions so unless they have given guarantees to the court over the costs you would assume they can walk away from it in terms liability for CCC or wasps costs

shmmeee said:

Wasps don’t own the freehold. There’s an ongoing tenant-landlord relationship.

Click to expand...

Yes a 250 year one. Not really a tenant landlord relationship is it

oldskyblue58 said:

Not a lawyer but the parties to this case are arvo sbs&l and otium. They are the ones liable to court costs. Sbs&l has no income. Arvo has a charge over ryton and all assets of otium so there is a risk of recovery action there except arvo are not in the UK. But i assume the court could order assets in uk seized. Otium is the only UK trading entity but everything it owns is charged to arvo.

The charge to arvo includes ryton, that has not been settled

Sisu, seppala etc are not named in the actions so unless they have given guarantees to the court over the costs you would assume they can walk away from it in terms liability for CCC or wasps costs

Click to expand...

I guess the silly large "debt" to them means if the Judge was to award the Council say a million for court fees, they would still be the majority creditor so would have control over how it played out (administration etc etc)? Not like the Blackpool scenario where the guy is owed shed loads.

Have I got that right?

oldskyblue58 said:

.....
Wasps are at risk because there is potential however small that a judicial review might succeed. If the claim is not challenged then it could get through easier and the costs escalate from their current levels because of a full legal action. This is currently only an application. I understand that CCC and wasps have so far spent well over 1m between them. That on a case where the consensus is that it has no real merit and importantly judges keep knocking back.....

Click to expand...

You can see why they want the legals to stop, even if there is no smoking gun. As some once corrected Fisher's line, SISU don't batter people in court, they batter people with the threat of court.

Nick said:

I guess the silly large "debt" to them means if the Judge was to award the Council say a million for court fees, they would still be the majority creditor so would have control over how it played out (administration etc etc)? Not like the Blackpool scenario where the guy is owed shed loads.

Have I got that right?

Click to expand...

I’d guess so. This isn’t their first rodeo and they wouldn’t be chasing such an obvious lost cause if they thought it’d end up costing them loads.

I suspect this is the infamous “battering” tactic. Not the much assumed “we’ve got really good lawyers”.

Last count arvo were owed 13m so probably nick

oldskyblue58 said:

Last count arvo were owed 13m so probably nick

Click to expand...

So in theory if there wasn't that big debt there could be a Blackpool type scenario but instead of the Latvian it would be the Council asking for their legal costs?

pastythegreat said:

A) CCFC were never given the same opportunities or deals to buy the ground on the terms w**ps were, you know that, I know that, everybody knows that so I don't get why your lying about it.

B) What clauses did we have? That apparently we haven't stuck to? I don't remember ever reading we wouldn't sue CCC.
It was w**ps who agreed to clauses. A clause that THE LONG TERM FUTRE OFF CCFC WOULD BE SECURE.

C) SISU aren't spinning anything about being evicted, WE ARE BEING EVICTED. NO SPIN.

D) What costs are w**ps mounting up during court cases? (That ones a genuine question I'd like you to answer as w**ps aren't being sued, they're only an interested party so why are they paying any legal costs when not involved???).

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Funny how you wont use the word wasps in full but have no problem with sisu.

letsallsingtogether said:

Funny how you wont use the word wasps in full but have no problem with sisu.

Click to expand...

Is it??

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

shmmeee said:

I suspect this is the infamous “battering” tactic. Not the much assumed “we’ve got really good lawyers”.

Click to expand...

Back in the day, when they took over, I found all sorts of reports about just this type of tactic made by a hedge fund. I want to say it was indeed SISU, but time (and watching lawyers!) means I won't, as I don't have access to the same databases to check.

It all played out remarkably like it is now - you probably don't want to know the ending!

Arvo still have the charge over all assets so get paid before other creditors no matter who controls the insolvency. Other creditors only get paid if money left over after satisfying the charge in full. Any debt to CCC is not secured

oldskyblue58 said:

Arvo still have the charge over all assets so get paid before other creditors no matter who controls the insolvency. Other creditors only get paid if money left over after satisfying the charge in full. Any debt to CCC is not secured

Click to expand...

Ah so they could get the council to force admin for the money and just end up with Ryton and any other assets anyway which wouldn't cover their debt and the council wouldn't get anything anyway?