Update from Big Dave (1 Viewer)

shmmeee said:

This is nuts. We aren’t at St Andrews for financial reasons. It isn’t because they want too much it’s because they don’t want us there while the EU stuff is going on. Either they change their mind and we go back or they don’t and we don’t. All this armchair crap about F&B and increased profits is utter tripe

Click to expand...

The EC complaint is going to be investigated now regardless of if we're playing at the Ricoh, St Andrews or anywhere else for that matter so, as Wasps are on their arse financially, they'd be foolish not to accept us back, if only in the short term. We should rightly demand a good deal (including F&B, pitch maintenance assurances etc).

Question is do Wasps have the humility to back down? Can we survive at St Andrews if not?

mark82 said:

Club Statement

Click to expand...

That doesn’t say they’ve moved past the complaint. It says they’ve been unable to reach an agreement on no future action. Sisu confirmed this as “restricting the clubs legal rights” in the same statement about the indemnity. There’s no disagreement between the two statements, both state the “legals” are the issue, not commercial viability, which was my original point.

Frostie said:

The EC complaint is going to be investigated now regardless of if we're playing at the Ricoh, St Andrews or anywhere else for that matter so, as Wasps are on their arse financially, they'd be foolish not to accept us back, if only in the short term. We should rightly demand a good deal (including F&B, pitch maintenance assurances etc).

Question is do Wasps have the humility to back down? Can we survive at St Andrews if not?

Click to expand...

Id agree. I think it’s pride and arrogance and not wanting to be seen to lose more than business sense. Wasps are either not as convinced as we are that the complaint isn’t stoppable or do know and are being recalcitrant out of spite. Either way our attendances won’t change that.

Edit: actually that’s not true. The other half of the disagreement both sides mentioned in their statements is future legal action which Sisu refuse to rule out. But we don’t like to talk about that on here because reasons.

Frostie said:

The EC complaint is going to be investigated now regardless of if we're playing at the Ricoh, St Andrews or anywhere else for that matter so, as Wasps are on their arse financially, they'd be foolish not to accept us back, if only in the short term. We should rightly demand a good deal (including F&B, pitch maintenance assurances etc).

Question is do Wasps have the humility to back down? Can we survive at St Andrews if not?

Click to expand...

They knew this last summer - hence why they demanded an indemnity clause be inserted into the agreement.

They were foolish last season not to have us back and they will be again if a deal can't be struck this season. But given how much they pressed for indemnity last time, I just can't see that stance going away just because of Covid.

shmmeee said:

Id agree. I think it’s pride and arrogance and not wanting to be seen to lose more than business sense. Wasps are either not as convinced as we are that the complaint isn’t stoppable or do know and are being recalcitrant out of spite. Either way our attendances won’t change that.

Edit: actually that’s not true. The other half of the disagreement both sides mentioned in their statements is future legal action which Sisu refuse to rule out. But we don’t like to talk about that on here because reasons.

Click to expand...

"In mid-April, SISU signed an undertaking to irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh Arena"

NEWS: CCFC Statement following statement made by Wasps

Sisu wanting to undertake legal action against anybody else should be none of Wasps' concern.

If there was any official process whereby the EC complaint could be halted then it would have come out by now. It is in Wasps' interest to prove that and a simple leak to CET or CWR would do the trick. It would massively turn the pressure back on Sisu so the fact there has been nothing of the sort means we can safely assume that it can't be withdrawn.

Liquid Gold said:

Sisu wanting to undertake legal action against anybody else should be none of Wasps' concern.

Click to expand...

This is so disingenuous it’s hilarious. You know damn well Wasps want any action relating to the Ricoh stopped, whether you think they should or not is irrelevant, you have no power in this.

Again, both club and Wasps identifies two blockers to the talks, the indemnity was one and the halting of future legal action was the other. The fact you’re resorting to linguistic tricks and pedantry to avoid addressing this tells me you know what you’re doing.

And ultimately this is where this forum shows its bias, happy to talk about “both sides” when challenged but in reality will bend over backwards to excuse Sisu and go full tinfoil hat on anyone else.

Here’s some both sides for you: Sisu should give up on legal action as punishment for the Ricoh and Wasps should drop the indemnity requirement, and Sisu and the council should work together to get us a new ground. I await more hilarious claims of bias.

shmmeee said:

That doesn’t say they’ve moved past the complaint. It says they’ve been unable to reach an agreement on no future action. Sisu confirmed this as “restricting the clubs legal rights” in the same statement about the indemnity. There’s no disagreement between the two statements, both state the “legals” are the issue, not commercial viability, which was my original point.

Click to expand...

Legals, maybe, but not the EC complaint specifically.

Liquid Gold said:

we can safely assume that it can't be withdrawn.

Click to expand...

Yes you can't really unmake an accusation without looking foolish (at the very least)

shmmeee said:

Here’s some both sides for you: Sisu should give up on legal action as punishment for the Ricoh and Wasps should drop the indemnity requirement, and Sisu and the council should work together to get us a new ground. I await more hilarious claims of bias.

Click to expand...

Agree with that, although if Wasps are found to have done wrong, they should be punished , surely?

shmmeee said:

This is so disingenuous it’s hilarious. You know damn well Wasps want any action relating to the Ricoh stopped, whether you think they should or not is irrelevant, you have no power in this.

Again, both club and Wasps identifies two blockers to the talks, the indemnity was one and the halting of future legal action was the other. The fact you’re resorting to linguistic tricks and pedantry to avoid addressing this tells me you know what you’re doing.

And ultimately this is where this forum shows its bias, happy to talk about “both sides” when challenged but in reality will bend over backwards to excuse Sisu and go full tinfoil hat on anyone else.

Here’s some both sides for you: Sisu should give up on legal action as punishment for the Ricoh and Wasps should drop the indemnity requirement, and Sisu and the council should work together to get us a new ground. I await more hilarious claims of bias.

Click to expand...

No bias intended here but :

Why don't WASPS tell us what they are so concerned about with the complaint against the Council
Will they explain what indemnities they have given the Council that may impact on them?
Perhaps CCFC / CCC could actually explain what the "complaint" is - is it public anywhere?

Paxman II said:

What have WASP got to lose? It's more much needed revenue regardless of what deal is struck. It would mean better opportunities to attract bigger sponsors for the stadium. Even if CCFC paid a zero rent they would make money from everything else by having us there. A compromise looks likely. Times have changed, circumstances have changed for everyone. If there is not a deal announced soon I'll be very suprised.

Click to expand...

The only way the club can go back is if Wasps remove the indemnity clause no ifs or buts. If we're behind closed doors for an extended period stay at Blues and let them feel the pinch even more. It strengthens the negotiation they are the ones in financial distress not us.

oldfiver said:

No bias intended here but :

Why don't WASPS tell us what they are so concerned about with the complaint against the Council
Will they explain what indemnities they have given the Council that may impact on them?
Perhaps CCFC / CCC could actually explain what the "complaint" is - is it public anywhere?

Click to expand...

From what I understand, one of the outcomes of a successful state aid complaint is that the purchaser who received the aid would be liable for the difference between actual assessed value and price paid, so guess they are worried about having to stump up what it's worth.

mark82 said:

From what I understand, one of the outcomes of a successful state aid complaint is that the purchaser who received the aid would be liable for the difference between actual assessed value and price paid, so guess they are worried about having to stump up what it's worth.

Click to expand...

And seen as they've been valuing it themselves at £51 million are probably pretty concerned about it going against them.

Feel in safe hands with big Dave

... well as safe as we can be in these times.

shmmeee said:

This is so disingenuous it’s hilarious. You know damn well Wasps want any action relating to the Ricoh stopped, whether you think they should or not is irrelevant, you have no power in this.

Again, both club and Wasps identifies two blockers to the talks, the indemnity was one and the halting of future legal action was the other. The fact you’re resorting to linguistic tricks and pedantry to avoid addressing this tells me you know what you’re doing.

And ultimately this is where this forum shows its bias, happy to talk about “both sides” when challenged but in reality will bend over backwards to excuse Sisu and go full tinfoil hat on anyone else.

Here’s some both sides for you: Sisu should give up on legal action as punishment for the Ricoh and Wasps should drop the indemnity requirement, and Sisu and the council should work together to get us a new ground. I await more hilarious claims of bias.

Click to expand...

The originigal request was stop legal action against Wasps. Which they did.

what’s it to wasps if SISU sue the council. Again it’s only possible if the EC complaint finds something wrong with the Ricoh deal.

the council can’t pass their liabilities onto Wasps.

besides nothing wrong with the Ricoh deal so why the suppression into challenging it?

Senior Vick from Alicante said:

The only way the club can go back is if Wasps remove the indemnity clause no ifs or buts. If we're behind closed doors for an extended period stay at Blues and let them feel the pinch even more. It strengthens the negotiation they are the ones in financial distress not us.

Click to expand...

Is that an opinion or are you suggesting legally? I assume an opinion as WASP can decide to do whatever. make no mistake WASP can survive without us, so staying at St.Andrews will not strengthen our negotiating hand. We will suffer and get weaker so that argument could be turned on it's head. The only fact you need to remember is what I already said - whats they got to lose?

shmmeee said:

This is so disingenuous it’s hilarious. You know damn well Wasps want any action relating to the Ricoh stopped, whether you think they should or not is irrelevant, you have no power in this.

Again, both club and Wasps identifies two blockers to the talks, the indemnity was one and the halting of future legal action was the other. The fact you’re resorting to linguistic tricks and pedantry to avoid addressing this tells me you know what you’re doing.

And ultimately this is where this forum shows its bias, happy to talk about “both sides” when challenged but in reality will bend over backwards to excuse Sisu and go full tinfoil hat on anyone else.

Here’s some both sides for you: Sisu should give up on legal action as punishment for the Ricoh and Wasps should drop the indemnity requirement, and Sisu and the council should work together to get us a new ground. I await more hilarious claims of bias.

Click to expand...

How can SISU give up on legal action that is no longer in their hands?

Brighton Sky Blue said:

How can SISU give up on legal action that is no longer in their hands?

Click to expand...

and is not a legal action ?

oldfiver said:

and is not a legal action ?

Click to expand...

And is not specifically against Wasps, but CCC.

mark82 said:

From what I understand, one of the outcomes of a successful state aid complaint is that the purchaser who received the aid would be liable for the difference between actual assessed value and price paid, so guess they are worried about having to stump up what it's worth.

Click to expand...

I think if the Purchaser can show evidence he acted in good faith and paid what was considered the correct price he would have a defence
The claim would then fall on the Councillors ?

oldfiver said:

I think if the Purchaser can show evidence he acted in good faith and paid what was considered the correct price he would have a defence
The claim would then fall on the Councillors ?

Click to expand...

Then they would have to reimburse wasps the money they’ve paid and put the lease back to 40 years I thought was the case

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:

The originigal request was stop legal action against Wasps. Which they did.

what’s it to wasps if SISU sue the council. Again it’s only possible if the EC complaint finds something wrong with the Ricoh deal.

the council can’t pass their liabilities onto Wasps.

besides nothing wrong with the Ricoh deal so why the suppression into challenging it?

Click to expand...

Its goalpost shifting of the highest order. Even if you ignore the fact that the club and / or SISU are not involved in any current legal action against Wasps and / or CCC it is ludicrous to suggest that Wasps can dictate the club and / or SISU can take no legal action in the future against third parties.

In reality that means that should the EC decide to proceed with an investigation and should that investigation conclude wrongdoing on the councils part, both things we are told won't happen as the complaint is baseless and there is no wrongdoing on the part of CCC, it would then be impossible to recover any losses caused by that wrongdoing. Mind boggling that anyone believes that is a justifiable stance.

It's been said over and over again but doesn't seem to sink in for some, there will be no punishment for CCC, Wasps or anyone else if they have done nothing wrong.

mark82 said:

Legals, maybe, but not the EC complaint specifically.

Click to expand...

We’re back to this. It’s a pointless argument. Even the club have to rely on Liquid Golds argument of “well ackshually we aren’t suing Wasps themselves so it doesn’t count” it’s hardly following the spirit of the agreement is it?

Clearly Wasps want the threat of legal action ended to help them finance in the future. They obviously see that as more valuable than any F&B or rental income we may bring, so are refusing to let us have a deal until that happens. We’ve focused on the indemnity but according to both sides that’s not the major issue. I’m just taking both sides at what they say and agreement is so rare in this that if both sides are agreeing it’s probably true.

It all comes back to attempts to reverse the Ricoh sale at the end of the day. And we’re back to square one either you think it’s worth the gamble keeping us away on the chance of it falling Sisus way or you don’t think that’s a smart gamble and think the club should swallow their pride and either get a long term deal or build elsewhere.

Clear all the crap away and the same issue remains that has been there since day one. Frankly going on about this and that and what PWKH said it Bryan Richardson didnor didn’t do, or whether you’d fuck Ann Lucas is all noise.

shmmeee said:

This is so disingenuous it’s hilarious. You know damn well Wasps want any action relating to the Ricoh stopped, whether you think they should or not is irrelevant, you have no power in this.

Again, both club and Wasps identifies two blockers to the talks, the indemnity was one and the halting of future legal action was the other. The fact you’re resorting to linguistic tricks and pedantry to avoid addressing this tells me you know what you’re doing.

And ultimately this is where this forum shows its bias, happy to talk about “both sides” when challenged but in reality will bend over backwards to excuse Sisu and go full tinfoil hat on anyone else.

Here’s some both sides for you: Sisu should give up on legal action as punishment for the Ricoh and Wasps should drop the indemnity requirement, and Sisu and the council should work together to get us a new ground. I await more hilarious claims of bias.

Click to expand...

They have no power either, the undertaking they are asking for is completely unreasonable. Nobody is going to sign away their rights like that.

chiefdave said:

Its goalpost shifting of the highest order. Even if you ignore the fact that the club and / or SISU are not involved in any current legal action against Wasps and / or CCC it is ludicrous to suggest that Wasps can dictate the club and / or SISU can take no legal action in the future against third parties.

In reality that means that should the EC decide to proceed with an investigation and should that investigation conclude wrongdoing on the councils part, both things we are told won't happen as the complaint is baseless and there is no wrongdoing on the part of CCC, it would then be impossible to recover any losses caused by that wrongdoing. Mind boggling that anyone believes that is a justifiable stance.

It's been said over and over again but doesn't seem to sink in for some, there will be no punishment for CCC, Wasps or anyone else if they have done nothing wrong.

Click to expand...

And it’s been said in reply again and again that the threat of future legal action is a risk regardless. We’re talking past each other at this point.

Frankly this sounds as plausible as my ex when she moved out of Cov despite the separation agreement clearly stating neither of us would “move city”. “Oh” she said, “but Bedworth is a town not a city”. Funnily enough I didn’t accept that reasoning. There’s such a thing as the spirit of an agreement.

fernandopartridge said:

They have no power either, the undertaking they are asking for is completely unreasonable. Nobody is going to sign away their rights like that.

Click to expand...

Then no body is going to get a deal at the Ricoh and we need to build our own ground. Maybe it wasn’t such a smart move to piss off your landlord without anywhere else to go?

or whether you’d fuck Ann Lucas is all noise.

The only noise you would hear from me is screaming as I ran down the Council corridors

shmmeee said:

We’re back to this. It’s a pointless argument. Even the club have to rely on Liquid Golds argument of “well ackshually we aren’t suing Wasps themselves so it doesn’t count” it’s hardly following the spirit of the agreement is it?

Clearly Wasps want the threat of legal action ended to help them finance in the future. They obviously see that as more valuable than any F&B or rental income we may bring, so are refusing to let us have a deal until that happens. We’ve focused on the indemnity but according to both sides that’s not the major issue. I’m just taking both sides at what they say and agreement is so rare in this that if both sides are agreeing it’s probably true.

It all comes back to attempts to reverse the Ricoh sale at the end of the day. And we’re back to square one either you think it’s worth the gamble keeping us away on the chance of it falling Sisus way or you don’t think that’s a smart gamble and think the club should swallow their pride and either get a long term deal or build elsewhere.

Clear all the crap away and the same issue remains that has been there since day one. Frankly going on about this and that and what PWKH said it Bryan Richardson didnor didn’t do, or whether you’d fuck Ann Lucas is all noise.

Click to expand...

How does "irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh Arena" not stop the threat of legal action against Wasps. Please can you explain to me in simple terms as you're such a brilliant mind how "irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps" means Wasps have to worry about legal action?

Liquid Gold said:

How does "irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh Arena" not stop the threat of legal action against Wasps. Please can you explain to me in simple terms as you're such a brilliant mind how "irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps" means Wasps have to worry about legal action?

Click to expand...

“relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh”

Are you really pretending you don’t understand what the problem is? Really?

You thought Wasps would be fine with continued efforts to reverse their purchase because they aren’t named specifically on a court document?

shmmeee said:

Then no body is going to get a deal at the Ricoh and we need to build our own ground. Maybe it wasn’t such a smart move to piss off your landlord without anywhere else to go?

Click to expand...

OK, it's perfectly reasonable then for SISU to pursue any legal avenue they wish against the landlords

shmmeee said:

“relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh”

Are you really pretending you don’t understand what the problem is? Really?

You thought Wasps would be fine with continued efforts to reverse their purchase because they aren’t named specifically on a court document?

Click to expand...

So what else can they possibly bring legal action against Wasps for?

shmmeee said:

Then no body is going to get a deal at the Ricoh and we need to build our own ground. Maybe it wasn’t such a smart move to piss off your landlord without anywhere else to go?

Click to expand...

Did SISU not actually make a commitment to no further legal action?

So are we all in agreement that we hope something can be done and we will play in Coventry next year then lol... Weve been back and forth on this for 12 months already... Nothing has been said that hasn't been said before....


Let's hope we come home eh lads PUSB

fernandopartridge said:

OK, it's perfectly reasonable then for SISU to pursue any legal avenue they wish against the landlords

Click to expand...

Of course it is! They can do what they want legally. However the question is:

Is moving the club out of the city for potentially up to a decade worth the possible gain?

I say no, you say yes. I’d like to see your reasoning. Maybe you’re a gambler and have a higher risk tolerance than me, I don’t know.

Brighton Sky Blue said:

Did SISU not actually make a commitment to no further legal action?

Click to expand...

Not according to their own statement and not according to the Wasps statement, no.

chiefdave said:

Its goalpost shifting of the highest order. Even if you ignore the fact that the club and / or SISU are not involved in any current legal action against Wasps and / or CCC it is ludicrous to suggest that Wasps can dictate the club and / or SISU can take no legal action in the future against third parties.

In reality that means that should the EC decide to proceed with an investigation and should that investigation conclude wrongdoing on the councils part, both things we are told won't happen as the complaint is baseless and there is no wrongdoing on the part of CCC, it would then be impossible to recover any losses caused by that wrongdoing. Mind boggling that anyone believes that is a justifiable stance.

It's been said over and over again but doesn't seem to sink in for some, there will be no punishment for CCC, Wasps or anyone else if they have done nothing wrong.

Click to expand...

This. If the sale of the stadium was above board why go to such lengths to demand indemnity. For the sake of argument, if Wasps were genuinely just playing it safe and being cautious, why not just demand indemnity from CCC?

Surely they'd have no problem signing an indemnity agreement if the deal was legitimate?