Wasps pull out... (2 Viewers)

Warwickhunt

Well-Known Member
My own take on recent events.

Lets be clear all parties have got us in to this mess. They have chosen their actions decisions or responses and must own their responsibility for those actions decisions and responses. Do i feel sorry for any of them - absolutely not, i certainly do not feel any party has been hard done by, in fact some parties, in particular SISU & CCC have not been hard done by enough in my opinion.

Like it or not each side is entitled to make their own decisions and have their own terms. If you accept that SISU have the right to go repeatedly to court, then you have to accept Wasps have a right of choice too. The only party that suffers in this is the fans, who appear to have only one choice, how to support the team or not.

The Complaint
Not a "legal case" as yet in terms of English court procedures no but this is the EC, it is a defined legal process enshrined in EU law and regulation. You do not make a complaint to the EC to prove the other side right. You do not make a complaint to the EC if you do not hope or expect to get it heard at the ECJ. EU law is investigation nor adversarial based, so my understanding is that this is much like an application to the High Court in England to have a case heard, but you don't sit in front of a judge to do it. Trying to draw a distinction between a legal case or not is really just playing with words. The clear intention is to get one, and to obtain financial remedy from it afterwards in the English courts.
This is also not a simple letter to the EC saying "you should look at this". It will have been a detailed reasoned statement produced by lawyers, providing evidence, history and context. SISU have made the choice to go this route no one forced them to
The EC investigation has been instigated by SISU. They can not simply wash hands of it and say its not me guv. The process allows the complainant to add evidence at any time, any one think SISU wont? Just because it is the EC investigating doesnt mean it isnt an action brought by SISU.

Timing of the Complaint
We are told the complaint was made in February. I suspect the CCC didn't receive the details until recently and Wasps probably got informed very recently (last week i would guess). I do not think that either were aware of the complaint being made over 2 months ago. I also suspect the CCFC negotiating team (Boddy +?) were not aware either. The complaint was made before the Supreme Court Judgement was passed down, which implies that this was a course SISU always intended to take no matter what happened, they can not have entered into negotiations openly and in good faith. Just to be clear i think CCFC in the shape of Boddy did go in good faith.

Complaint issued in February, SISU statement issued 13th March which in part complained about things being done behind their back (not like they were ever innocent of that in the first place) whilst doing exactly that themselves

Disclosure of the complaint
Clearly this should have been at the earliest opportunity, but in terms of negotiations certainly when those started.( Something else SISU complained about, that things were not disclosed when they should have been). Everyone knew that any form of legal action by the CCFC owners was going to mean negotiations at serious risk or no talks. SISU knew that. No its not a legal action in the sense of going to court but it is a legal process which has the sole intent of getting it heard in the ECJ. To take part in talks with that hidden in the background will not only destroy any modicum of trust left between Wasps & SISU but also the working relationship at senior level between Wasps & CCFC. I think you do have to ask why so much was made of the alternative ground heads of terms being time critical, was it or was it a deal was needed before the complaint news came out? Not to disclose was a cold calculated decision & risk.

The deal
I am sure a two year deal between CCFC & Wasps was agreed, with probably an option to extend. Pretty certain the reason it would not have been signed was SISU playing with the clause relating to legal actions. I am not sure Wasps have totally closed the door on a deal, but will want some contractual assurances that mitigate any risk from the complaint. I do not think they will get them, the purpose of SISU's actions is to distress Wasps any way they can or to get a settlement. As it seems the complaint can not now be stopped by SISU then the second option seems very unlikely.

RIsk
The case is brought against the Council. It is apparently couched in the same terms as the JR2 case. It is not true to say it does not impact on Wasps. In the JR2 case legal counsel for SISU said that the remedies should include a multi million pound sum to be paid by Wasps. Yes I know SISU have to win first and then take to UK courts. It would be inconceivable to think that such a remedy was not included in the complaint however.
The complaint might be against CCC, but Wasps are clearly impacted from the start, and SISU intend them to be. It impacts in a more general sense because the threat could influence lenders or investors, could affect credit rating assessments, could affect interest rates, could affect refinancing the bond, will certainly increase professional fees to auditors & lawyers, could impact future planning etc. Much of that applies whether there is or isnt a case to prove. Could they have an indemnity against CCC perhaps but if the deal broke state aid rules that makes it an illegal deal so is the contract enforceable?

To Sum Up
Personal opinions
If it wasnt clear that when SISU say some one has acted behind their back, they are recognising actions they have undertaken themselves it should be
Much of what has gone on since January in the public arena from all parties has been disgraceful and purely designed to distract. Most statements put out bear little scrutiny in truth. The CCC ones have been amateur and the SISU ones nothing more than distraction that some bought in to as the only truth. None of the parties have changed one little bit. The new found acceptance of SISU is misplaced. CCC, never trust politicians.
If it wasn't clear that the club is not important enough to the various parties it should be now. In particular it should be absolutely crystal clear that it is not about the well being of CCFC to SISU, it is only and only ever has been about their investment

Sick and tired of this saga. I might go to a ground share on the odd occasion but not certain of that, at the Ricoh i would have had a season ticket.

Was annoyed yesterday & day before but to be honest now i feel kind of numb to it all, this is not what supporting a football team should be about...... roll on August!
Dont go to ground OSB you are my only connection to realism and sanity on this Site mate:inpain:
 

OffenhamSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
OSB58 - another great commentary, thanks. With regard to the section on Risk, i think there is significant direct risk to Wasps because they COULD be ordered to pay back what is regarded as the state aid component of the transaction. I think the complaint is made about the transaction rather than the Council alone. The two parties are inextricably linked by the transaction. The bit that puzzles me is whether the fourth criterion for defining state aid has been met, in that "the intervention is likely to affect trade between Member States".
I'm not sure how that could be the case (unless the Cayman Islands are now a member of the EU!).
I don't see how there can be any indemnification of this risk - do you?
 

OffenhamSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
What are the chances that SISU would (should??) "complain" to the Charities Commission about the Higgs Trust selling their half of ACL on the cheap to Wasps when there was potential for a competitive bidding process??
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
OSB58 - another great commentary, thanks. With regard to the section on Risk, i think there is significant direct risk to Wasps because they COULD be ordered to pay back what is regarded as the state aid component of the transaction. I think the complaint is made about the transaction rather than the Council alone. The two parties are inextricably linked by the transaction. The bit that puzzles me is whether the fourth criterion for defining state aid has been met, in that "the intervention is likely to affect trade between Member States".
I'm not sure how that could be the case (unless the Cayman Islands are now a member of the EU!).
I don't see how there can be any indemnification of this risk - do you?

I would think there were indemnities in place, quite usual in contracts to deal with past company activities before new owners. There could be indemnities given about the deal itself. However if the deal is proven by ECJ to be illegal then i am not sure how enforceable they are

I wouldnt worry about trade between members i dont think you have to meet every criteria
 

OffenhamSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
I would think there were indemnities in place, quite usual in contracts to deal with past company activities before new owners. There could be indemnities given about the deal itself. However if the deal is proven by ECJ to be illegal then i am not sure how enforceable they are

I wouldnt worry about trade between members i dont think you have to meet every criteria
I read it as being all four, rather than any combination of the four. "To be State aid, a measure needs to have these features" ... but they don't prefix the last one with "and" or "or", so it IS ambiguous!
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
OSB58 - another great commentary, thanks. With regard to the section on Risk, i think there is significant direct risk to Wasps because they COULD be ordered to pay back what is regarded as the state aid component of the transaction. I think the complaint is made about the transaction rather than the Council alone. The two parties are inextricably linked by the transaction. The bit that puzzles me is whether the fourth criterion for defining state aid has been met, in that "the intervention is likely to affect trade between Member States".
I'm not sure how that could be the case (unless the Cayman Islands are now a member of the EU!).
I don't see how there can be any indemnification of this risk - do you?

It is nothing to do with the complainant, it's about the EU treaty principles, i.e. non-discrimnation, equal treatment, mutual recognition etc. Affecting trade between member states is probably referring to if CCFC was a company registered in France, would it be put at a detriment due to the state aid from the council to Wasps.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
My own take on recent events.

Lets be clear all parties have got us in to this mess. They have chosen their actions decisions or responses and must own their responsibility for those actions decisions and responses. Do i feel sorry for any of them - absolutely not, i certainly do not feel any party has been hard done by, in fact some parties, in particular SISU & CCC have not been hard done by enough in my opinion.

Like it or not each side is entitled to make their own decisions and have their own terms. If you accept that SISU have the right to go repeatedly to court, then you have to accept Wasps have a right of choice too. The only party that suffers in this is the fans, who appear to have only one choice, how to support the team or not.

The Complaint
Not a "legal case" as yet in terms of English court procedures no but this is the EC, it is a defined legal process enshrined in EU law and regulation. You do not make a complaint to the EC to prove the other side right. You do not make a complaint to the EC if you do not hope or expect to get it heard at the ECJ. EU law is investigation nor adversarial based, so my understanding is that this is much like an application to the High Court in England to have a case heard, but you don't sit in front of a judge to do it. Trying to draw a distinction between a legal case or not is really just playing with words. The clear intention is to get one, and to obtain financial remedy from it afterwards in the English courts.
This is also not a simple letter to the EC saying "you should look at this". It will have been a detailed reasoned statement produced by lawyers, providing evidence, history and context. SISU have made the choice to go this route no one forced them to
The EC investigation has been instigated by SISU. They can not simply wash hands of it and say its not me guv. The process allows the complainant to add evidence at any time, any one think SISU wont? Just because it is the EC investigating doesnt mean it isnt an action brought by SISU. If it gets to the ECJ then you would expect that SISU are represented as complainant.

Timing of the Complaint
We are told the complaint was made in February. I suspect the CCC didn't receive the details until recently and Wasps probably got informed very recently (last week i would guess). I do not think that either were aware of the complaint being made over 2 months ago. I also suspect the CCFC negotiating team (Boddy +?) were not aware either. The complaint was made before the Supreme Court Judgement was passed down, which implies that this was a course SISU always intended to take no matter what happened, they can not have entered into negotiations openly and in good faith. Just to be clear i think CCFC in the shape of Boddy probably did go in good faith.

Complaint issued in February, SISU statement issued 13th March which in part complained about things being done behind their back (not like they were ever innocent of that in the first place) whilst doing exactly that themselves. Classic don't look here look there

Disclosure of the complaint
Clearly this should have been at the earliest opportunity, but in terms of negotiations certainly when those started.( Something else SISU complained about, was that things were not disclosed when they should have been). Everyone knew that any form of legal action by the CCFC owners was going to mean negotiations at serious risk or no talks. SISU knew that. No its not a legal action in the sense of going to court but it is a legal process which has the sole intent of getting it heard in the ECJ. To take part in talks with that hidden in the background will not only destroy any modicum of trust left between Wasps & SISU but also the working relationship at senior level between Wasps & CCFC. I think you do have to ask why so much was made of the alternative ground heads of terms being time critical, was it or was it a deal was needed before the complaint news came out? Not to disclose was a cold calculated decision & risk.

The deal
I am sure a two year deal between CCFC & Wasps was agreed, with probably an option to extend. Pretty certain the reason it would not have been signed was SISU playing with the clause relating to legal actions. I am not sure Wasps have totally closed the door on a deal, but will want some contractual assurances that mitigate any risk from the complaint. I do not think they will get them, the purpose of SISU's actions is to distress Wasps any way they can or to get a settlement. As it seems the complaint can not now be stopped by SISU then the second option seems very unlikely.

RIsk
The case is brought against the Council. It is apparently couched in the same terms as the JR2 case. It is not true to say it does not impact on Wasps. In the JR2 case legal counsel for SISU said that the remedies should include a multi million pound sum to be paid by Wasps. Yes I know SISU have to win first and then take to UK courts. It would be inconceivable to think that such a remedy was not included in the complaint however.
The complaint might be against CCC, but Wasps are clearly impacted from the start, and SISU intend them to be. It impacts in a more general sense because the threat could influence lenders or investors, could affect credit rating assessments, could affect interest rates, could affect refinancing the bond, will certainly increase professional fees to auditors & lawyers, could impact future planning etc. Much of that applies whether there is or isnt a case to prove. Could they have an indemnity against CCC perhaps but if the deal broke state aid rules that makes it an illegal deal so is the contract enforceable?

To Sum Up
Personal opinions
If it wasnt clear that when SISU say some one has acted behind their back, they are recognising actions they have undertaken themselves it should be
Much of what has gone on since January in the public arena from all parties has been disgraceful and purely designed to distract. Most statements put out bear little scrutiny in truth. The CCC ones have been amateur and the SISU ones nothing more than distraction that some bought in to as the only truth. None of the parties have changed one little bit. The new found acceptance of SISU is misplaced. CCC, never trust politicians.
If it wasn't clear that the club is not important enough to the various parties it should be now. In particular it should be absolutely crystal clear that it is not about the well being of CCFC to SISU, it is only and only ever has been about their investment

Sick and tired of this saga. I might go to a ground share on the odd occasion but not certain of that, at the Ricoh i would have had a season ticket.

Was annoyed yesterday & day before but to be honest now i feel kind of numb to it all, this is not what supporting a football team should be about...... roll on August!

I have posted the complaint form on this thread or other threads twice, I could not see anything about remedies.
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
As i said before the remedies would be through the UK courts who would be instructed to enforce EU law on state aid should the complaint be proven in the ECJ.

The statement submitted by SISU lawyers will no doubt indicate remedies they think are appropriate in the other documents that would be sent with the claim.
 

Nick

Administrator
As i said before the remedies would be through the UK courts who would be instructed to enforce EU law on state aid should the complaint be proven in the ECJ.

The statement submitted by SISU lawyers will no doubt indicate remedies in the other documents.

They would be instructed if there was found to be wrong doing, wouldn't they?
 

Nick

Administrator
I reckon Gilbert pays Nick a license fee for lifting info from here but there's a 24 hour embargo in place.

giphy.gif


It looks pretty clear Gilbert is trying to push things in a certain direction with a bit of help from the Orcas of this world.

People getting all worked up saying it's the end of the club.
 

Nick

Administrator
Semantics, I know, but “can NOT be withdrawn” and “must act...if the complaint is withdrawn or not” aren’t really the same thing.

Then again I guess “European Commission confirm that even if SISU withdraw their complaint, the EC are bound to act if an irregularity is found” doesn’t make for quite as good a headline.

No because that says they will only act if something irregular is found. If they don't, they won't act on the complaint.
 

Nick

Administrator
Maybe wasps might let us stay as it simply can't be withdrawn

Wasps would have known full well it can't be, people on here knew this within about 5 minutes of Googling.

Maybe people might get an idea that it's nothing to do with "legals" and that Wasps just want to use it as an excuse? As they have done previously and gone back on it.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Maybe wasps might let us stay as it simply can't be withdrawn
They would have known this when they walked out of talks, there's every chance they knew it before talks started.

This is just an excuse to hide behind and they've now put a requirement in place that is literally impossible for anyone to achieve.
 

Tommo1993

Well-Known Member
Shattered because the likes of you give up on your football club because they are going through a hard time - maybe the likes of Man City/UTD would be more suited to you. You clearly don't have any allegiance to the club if your out. Don't worry I'm sure the dinner bell will ring shortly so you can go

Right, and who said I was cutting ties to the club altogether? Same as before, everyone will see me at away games but in no way, under no circumstance, will I entertain watching my club play their “home” games out of the City. Fine if you do, you’re probably really chuffed with yourself, but you have to accept there are others with a different outlook on things. Enjoy. See you away.
 

Nick

Administrator
He said the complaint CANNOT be withdrawn?

He said: Ultimately, it’s not up to individuals to decide whether or not a state aid action goes ahead or not. That’s a decision for the Commission.

“Now that the Commission knows about the issue it’s not possible for them to ‘un-know’ it – they alone will decide whether or not to investigate.”

This is why Wasps have moved the goalposts to "anything about the ricoh sale" and made it broader. If any action goes ahead it would be from the commission and not SISU.
 

MusicDating

Euro 2016 Prediction League Champion!!
They would have known this when they walked out of talks, there's every chance they knew it before talks started.

This is just an excuse to hide behind and they've now put a requirement in place that is literally impossible for anyone to achieve.
This is the thing that's annoying me as if Wasps have twice previously pulled out of talks, SISU should've covered every base to avoid any get-out clause.
By not being up front about the EC complaint they've made it easy for Wasps.
 

Nick

Administrator
This is the thing that's annoying me as if Wasps have twice previously pulled out of talks, SISU should've covered every base to avoid any get-out clause.
By not being up front about the EC complaint they've made it easy for Wasps.

No, the council, our fans groups, a PR company and the local media make it easy for Wasps.
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
He either really doesn't know or he is trying to push a certain perspective.
He's posted at least 2 today, the withdrawing on and on where he claims the ec see this as legal action but the quote he tweeted says it only becomes legal action if any finding is appealed

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
 

Pete in Portugal

Well-Known Member
This is the thing that's annoying me as if Wasps have twice previously pulled out of talks, SISU should've covered every base to avoid any get-out clause.
By not being up front about the EC complaint they've made it easy for Wasps.

I think that Sisu thought the agreement would be completed before the EC acted - hence the time pressure which they attempted to apply at the outset of the talks with the insects. If so, they clearly made an error of judgement. It's fair to assume that the EC would have requested information from CCC for example, at a very early stage, in order to assess whether the complaint was worth a full investigation. Gilbert somehow gets wind of this and thus ensuring that Eastwood finds out, but not directly from CCC of course. No siree!
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
I think that Sisu thought the agreement would be completed before the EC acted - hence the time pressure which they attempted to apply at the outset of the talks with the insects. If so, they clearly made an error of judgement. It's fair to assume that the EC would have requested information from CCC for example at a very early stage, in order to assess whether the complaint was worth a full investigation. Gilbert somehow gets wind of this and thus ensuring that Eastwood finds out, but not directly from CCC of course. No siree!
Or they are have fully comied with the no legal action agreement

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top