Wasps pull out... (2 Viewers)

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
If it doesn't go anywhere then there's no action against the council is there? It will only go somewhere if it is deemed it should.
I also hope that if ccc have acted illegally with tax payers money there should be action.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
 

Pete in Portugal

Well-Known Member
Or they are have fully comied with the no legal action agreement

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

It's possible that they thought they'd complied, but that very much depends on the wording of the agreement. In any event I'd argue that not informing the insects of the complaint to the EC at the outset, was a breach of the spirit of the agreement. And whether that's right or not, it's was pretty much guaranteed that Eastwood would see it in those terms.
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
It's possible that they thought they'd complied, but that very much depends on the wording of the agreement. In any event I'd argue that not informing the insects of the complaint to the EC at the outset, was a breach of the spirit of the agreement. And whether that's right or not, it's was pretty much guaranteed that Eastwood would see it in those terms.
If it says no legal action then they have complied. Also I doubt a very rich hedge funds very expensive lawyers would not understand the wording of a legal agreement

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Yes if the ec decide state aid was given to help a private company. It's a different legal argument than the court case

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

No, it's the same legal argument entirely, SISU are basically using another route. They could have used this route in the first place but obviously didn't because the Judicial Review process meant more cost for the defendants in court.
 

jim20

Well-Known Member
They have to assess if the same aid would be given to all companies in the same position.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

I think if that’s the case CCC wouldn’t have made the same offer to SISU to buy the Ricoh so they maybe found to have acted illegally
 

jordan210

Well-Known Member


Shock horror journalists stick together.

"The idea that any media outlet has ruined the talks that we all thought were leading to a happy resolution is simply ludicrous."

Dint the telegraph reveal the identities of a party who was in talks to buy the club who wanted to remain anonymous ?
 

jim20

Well-Known Member
Couldn’t SISU argue that their offer was worth more to the taxpayer then?

Exactly, and the fact that Wasps are using dropping legal to threaten CCFC with is a sign of wrongdoing in my opinion. If they had nothing to hide they wouldn’t have insisted SISU drop legals
 

Nick

Administrator


Shock horror journalists stick together.

"The idea that any media outlet has ruined the talks that we all thought were leading to a happy resolution is simply ludicrous."

Dint the telegraph reveal the identities of a party who was in talks to buy the club who wanted to remain anonymous ?


Yet the parody account of Les Reid setup by a Trust Board member is still on the go.

As I have said, people crossed the line saying pathetic shit. At least get some consistency though!
 

Pete in Portugal

Well-Known Member
If it says no legal action then they have complied. Also I doubt a very rich hedge funds very expensive lawyers would not understand the wording of a legal agreement

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

My point was that, regardless of the legalities, Sisu took a huge risk by not complying with the spirit of the agreement. Essentially, they had already taken an action in February, which might possibly result in further legal action of some sort. They must've known that Eastwood would very likely walk away from the talks as soon as they realised that Gilbert had tweeted news of their complaint to the EU.
 

Nick

Administrator
My point was that, regardless of the legalities, Sisu took a huge risk by not complying with the spirit of the agreement. Essentially, they had already taken an action in February, which might possibly result in further legal action of some sort. They must've known that Eastwood would very likely walk away from the talks as soon as they realised that Gilbert had tweeted news of their complaint to the EU.

Do you really think Eastwood didn't know until Gilbert said anything?
 

Pete in Portugal

Well-Known Member
I didn’t say the same offer was made, but if SISU had have made the same or higher offer the council may have acted illegally by selling to Wasps

According to CCC, Sisu made a slightly higher offer, but it was conditional. The insects offer was unconditional and was accepted.
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
My point was that, regardless of the legalities, Sisu took a huge risk by not complying with the spirit of the agreement. Essentially, they had already taken an action in February, which might possibly result in further legal action of some sort. They must've known that Eastwood would very likely walk away from the talks as soon as they realised that Gilbert had tweeted news of their complaint to the EU.
This was before the agreement

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
 

jim20

Well-Known Member
According to CCC, Sisu made a slightly higher offer, but it was conditional. The insects offer was unconditional and was accepted.

I suppose it would depend on the value put on those conditions and the how much the higher offer was. The misuse of public money might be down to those differences, if an EU official believes a higher offer was on the table meaning less public money would’ve been needed it could find the council acted unlawfully
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member


Shock horror journalists stick together.

"The idea that any media outlet has ruined the talks that we all thought were leading to a happy resolution is simply ludicrous."

Dint the telegraph reveal the identities of a party who was in talks to buy the club who wanted to remain anonymous ?

He's on shaky ground there as he's thrown in questioning journalists with abuse. Nobody is going to condone abuse but surely questioning journalists is fair game. Especially when you're tweeting from a paper known to have had a cosy deal with the council in past to keep things out of the public eye.
 

Terry_dactyl

Well-Known Member
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.
Yep, I still don’t get it. Travel all over the country giving money to other clubs but won’t travel to Birmingham (if that’s where we end up), to watch us. I’m not trying to be argumentative, and we’re all obviously entitled to do what we want, I just don’t get the rationale.
 

JulianDarbyFTW

Well-Known Member
He's on shaky ground there as he's thrown in questioning journalists with abuse. Nobody is going to condone abuse but surely questioning journalists is fair game. Especially when you're tweeting from a paper known to have had a cosy deal with the council in past to keep things out of the public eye.

Agreed. People want to understand the story, but when there's only half a story to read then questions should be asked. It feels like a rushed piece of news for the sake of getting an exclusive rather than a piece of solid journalism. Abuse is totally unacceptable, but reasonable questions are not.
 

cc84cov

Well-Known Member
If it doesn't go anywhere then there's no action against the council is there? It will only go somewhere if it is deemed it should.
Surely by then tho we’ve missed the deadline and we’re playing away from the city ?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top