Update from Big Dave (1 Viewer)

shmmeee said:

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

Click to expand...

Right, so assuming this is correct and that the EC review is chucked out, what further legal recourse do they have?

Liquid Gold said:

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

Click to expand...

I don’t know IANAL, but if your argument is there isn’t any possible future legal action you’d have to explain why the club are willing to not play in Cov to retain the right to future legal action.

Brighton Sky Blue said:

Right, so assuming this is correct and that the EC review is chucked out, what further legal recourse do they have?

Click to expand...

See above.

shmmeee said:

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.

Click to expand...

As a point of absolute principle I would just not accept such a wide ranging condition in any agreement. It is completely unreasonable.

SkyBlueCRJ said:

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?

Click to expand...

You think that the recipient of state aid can get indemnity from the giver of state aid in case the fact they got state aid means they have to pay back the state aid?

This has to be up there are one of the stupidest arguments I’ve read on this topic.

And again, OSB has explained far better than me how the threat of potential adverse decisions can impact financing. I’m not an accountant but I can see that there are costs to defending any legal action, justified or not.

fernandopartridge said:

As a point of absolute principle I would just not accept such a wide ranging condition in any agreement. It is completely unreasonable.

Click to expand...

That’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it. Personally I think we’re chasing a wild goose and it’ll end in tears.

shmmeee said:

I don’t know IANAL, but if your argument is there isn’t any possible future legal action you’d have to explain why the club are willing to not play in Cov to retain the right to future legal action.

Click to expand...

It would seem more to retain the right to not be liable for tens of millions of pounds.

Brighton Sky Blue said:

It would seem more to retain the right to not be liable for tens of millions of pounds.

Click to expand...

Youre confusing the indemnity and the request for a promise of no further action other than the existing complaint.

shmmeee said:

Youre confusing the indemnity and the request for a promise of no further action other than the existing complaint.

Click to expand...

Have Wasps dropped the indemnity condition?

shmmeee said:

You think that the recipient of state aid can get indemnity from the giver of state aid in case the fact they got state aid means they have to pay back the state aid?

This has to be up there are one of the stupidest arguments I’ve read on this topic.

And again, OSB has explained far better than me how the threat of potential adverse decisions can impact financing. I’m not an accountant but I can see that there are costs to defending any legal action, justified or not.

Click to expand...

Why are you getting so touchy? Just because everyone on this thread thinks you're chatting out your arse.

Go on then explain why it isn't possible then if you're such an expert?

Brighton Sky Blue said:

Have Wasps dropped the indemnity condition?

Click to expand...

But that’s not what we are talking about. Even without the indemnity both the club and Wasps admit the request to drop future legal action is a blocker. You said what does it matter because there is no possible future legal action, so I asked why the club have made it a red line in that case. FP seems to think it’s unreasonable to ask for no future legal action, I think we have a choice between agreeing to that, waiting it out, or building a ground and don’t think waiting it out is a viable solution.

SkyBlueCRJ said:

Why are you getting so touchy? Just because everyone on this thread thinks you're chatting out your arse.

Go on then explain why it isn't possible then if you're such an expert?

Click to expand...

He's chatting out of his arse about everything else but he's right on that. You can't reverse state aid by giving more state aid.

SkyBlueCRJ said:

Why are you getting so touchy? Just because everyone on this thread thinks you're chatting out your arse.

Go on then explain why it isn't possible then if you're such an expert?

Click to expand...

...

I just did.

If what you want were possible what would even be the point of state aid law? Everyone would just indemnify them and any state aid ruling would effectively be null and void. Makes absolutely no sense.

Thanks for the poll of “everyone”, but I’m not too bothered. Keep throwing insults, it doesn’t change my mind on the facts.

SkyBlueCRJ said:

Why are you getting so touchy? Just because everyone on this thread thinks you're chatting out your arse.

Go on then explain why it isn't possible then if you're such an expert?

Click to expand...

Because you have literally just proposed that Coventry City Council...who are the subject of a complaint and subsequent investigation from the European Commission for alleged misuse of state aid by effectively giving Wasps millions of pounds in benefit for public property...would be able to agree to indemnify the very person that they are accused of giving state aid to...in the event that they are indeed found to have given state aid.

Come on now...read it slowly...

As we’ve got to the point where I’m getting insults and people talking about me in the third person, I’m out. If anyone fancies a sensible debate let me know.

Liquid Gold said:

He's chatting out of his arse about everything else but he's right on that. You can't reverse state aid by giving more state aid.

Click to expand...

Tbf i think I've got confused. Realise that was a stupid comment but Shmee needs to chill out.

Calling people stupid when he's ignoring basic evidence.

robbiekeane said:

Because you have literally just proposed that Coventry City Council...who are the subject of a complaint and subsequent investigation from the European Commission for alleged misuse of state aid by effectively giving Wasps millions of pounds in benefit for public property...would be able to agree to indemnify the very person that they are accused of giving state aid to...in the event that they are indeed found to have given state aid.

Come on now...read it slowly...

Click to expand...

Basic mistake don't need to be a sniveling little prick about it.

SkyBlueCRJ said:

Basic mistake don't need to be a sniveling little prick about it.

Click to expand...

If throwing more naughty words at me makes you feel less silly then that's okay. Or you could just laugh it off and say whoops my bad Whatever your style is

shmmeee said:

But that’s not what we are talking about. Even without the indemnity both the club and Wasps admit the request to drop future legal action is a blocker. You said what does it matter because there is no possible future legal action, so I asked why the club have made it a red line in that case. FP seems to think it’s unreasonable to ask for no future legal action, I think we have a choice between agreeing to that, waiting it out, or building a ground and don’t think waiting it out is a viable solution.

Click to expand...

Righto, I misunderstood you. Giving up any right to future legal action gives the club no means to defend itself if there are future genuine reasons which are nothing to do with ownership and so it could give Wasps carte blanche to be unreasonable with impunity. Both clubs need CCFC to return and it seems more that Wasps are denying themselves an income rather than obstinacy on our part, even with the blinkers off. Perhaps they could be specific on no more legal action relating to ownership?

shmmeee said:

As we’ve got to the point where I’m getting insults and people talking about me in the third person, I’m out. If anyone fancies a sensible debate let me know.

Click to expand...

To be honest dude I think if we get past all of the games with semantics and language, it boils down to the fact that a lot of city fans (and obviously the owners) feel robbed by the council over the sale to Wasps because it does stink quite frankly. Because of that, I think that if it is decided that there's been illegal state aid then a lot of us feel that it should indeed by corrected and if that means that Wasps get lost or have to pay what is deemed to be fair market value then all the better.

If I understand the point you're trying to make right, I think what you're saying is then thats fair enough but then build us a fucking stadium. Stop with the bullshit of semantics about wording...if that's genuinely the sticking point then you're both never going to shift then it's stalemate and we need to move on. And I actually agree.

robbiekeane said:

If throwing more naughty words at me makes you feel less silly then that's okay. Or you could just laugh it off and say whoops my bad Whatever your style is

Click to expand...

No you're right I should've laughed off condescending comments from a complete stranger. Forgot that's how the world works.

SkyBlueCRJ said:

No you're right I should've laughed off sheer condesenedntion from a complete stranger. Forgot that's how the world works.

Click to expand...

It's a fans forum and you did a silly. It'll be okay...

robbiekeane said:

To be honest dude I think if we get past all of the games with semantics and language, it boils down to the fact that a lot of city fans (and obviously the owners) feel robbed by the council over the sale to Wasps because it does stink quite frankly. Because of that, I think that if it is decided that there's been illegal state aid then a lot of us feel that it should indeed by corrected and if that means that Wasps get lost or have to pay what is deemed to be fair market value then all the better.

If I understand the point you're trying to make right, I think what you're saying is then thats fair enough but then build us a fucking stadium. Stop with the bullshit of semantics about wording...if that's genuinely the sticking point then you're both never going to shift then it's stalemate and we need to move on. And I actually agree.

Click to expand...

Would also add that most fans think the 3 parties involved are all pricks and culpable to a certain extent. Criticising one doesn't imply support for the other.

Giving up the legal right is unreasonable because if the complaint is upheld then SISU can sue for damages this wouldn’t affect wasps.

they agreed not to include Wasps in this. Wasps are effectively asking SISU not to sue the council.

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:

Giving up the legal right is unreasonable because if the complaint is upheld then SISU can sue for damages this wouldn’t affect wasps.

they agreed not to include Wasps in this. Wasps are effectively asking SISU not to sue the council.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. A 2016 ruling from the EC found that Spain had given unlawful state aid to Real Madrid over some land.

In order to correct this, they required Spain to recoup the funds from Real Madrid to make it right, to the tune of 18m Euros. Couple of years later the actual decision was reversed for other reasons but the recovery method would probably be the same. Link below, or if you’d cant be arsed I attached a screenshot of that page


https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/251155/251155_1773683_350_2.pdf

robbiekeane said:

Incorrect. A 2016 ruling from the EC found that Spain had given unlawful state aid to Real Madrid over some land.

In order to correct this, they required Spain to recoup the funds from Real Madrid to make it right, to the tune of 18m Euros. Couple of years later the actual decision was reversed for other reasons but the recovery method would probably be the same. Link below, or if you’d cant be arsed I attached a screenshot of that page


https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/251155/251155_1773683_350_2.pdf

Click to expand...

Without reading it all it appears Real Madrid had to repay ( or pay ) the amount the amount of illegal state aid
That being so I assume WASPS would have to pay CCC whatever was consider the level of underpayment
If that is the case they expect CCFC to pay this in their stead?

robbiekeane said:

Incorrect. A 2016 ruling from the EC found that Spain had given unlawful state aid to Real Madrid over some land.

In order to correct this, they required Spain to recoup the funds from Real Madrid to make it right, to the tune of 18m Euros. Couple of years later the actual decision was reversed for other reasons but the recovery method would probably be the same. Link below, or if you’d cant be arsed I attached a screenshot of that page


https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/251155/251155_1773683_350_2.pdf

Click to expand...

No I think the points were mixed up here. Yeah the council would have to recoup the difference.

my point was if it was upheld, then SISU could sue the council for losses sustained as a result of state aid

SISU couldn’t sue wasps for example in the above scenario

oldfiver said:

Without reading it all it appears Real Madrid had to repay ( or pay ) the amount the amount of illegal state aid
That being so I assume WASPS would have to pay CCC whatever was consider the level of underpayment
If that is the case they expect CCFC to pay this in their stead?

Click to expand...

Correct mate, that is exactly what the indemnity clause they are proposing is. Literally in this context to indemnify is just to compensate...in the event that Wasps are liable for any fines/payments/court costs as a result of the EC investigation.

Would be complete business suicide for us to agree to it, but it seems something Wasps are insistent on. Hence the stalemate.

Edit: I should actually add/correct...it’s something Wasps are insistent on OR pretending to insist on because they don’t want to do business with us full stop. Potato potarto perhaps

Paxman II said:

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?

Click to expand...

But can they when the bond scheme is due. If the ECJ find in Sisu favour they would have to pay the bonds back plus the difference that would be due for the lease surely?

I could be wrong but isnt the F&B at the Ricoh controlled by a third party who was pretty pissed when we left - no idea if there was any compo so theres another separate negotiation- i would imagine that any deal should also involve the pitch situation and the control of such as for example the grass length was longer that the football team wanted - no idea who got the carpark income but that was robbery when other events were £5 fans were paying £10

shmmeee said:

Same way they could last season, they think having leverage over the EU complaint is more valuable long term than the rent and other benefits of us being there. Our best hope is they realise there’s nothing that can be done to change that and decide not to punish the club for the actions of its owners.

Click to expand...

true, but in the current climate and with their revenue taking a severe hit I'm not sure how long term they can afford to think at the expense of day to day survival.
I also can't believe they aren't under pressure from their partners at the Ricoh.
I'd imagine the casino operators won't be happy at them turning that sort of footfall down.

clint van damme said:

I'd imagine the casino operators won't be happy at them turning that sort of footfall down.

Click to expand...

Agreed - huge amount involved (even more so with bigger crowds in The Championship)

robbiekeane said:

To be honest dude I think if we get past all of the games with semantics and language, it boils down to the fact that a lot of city fans (and obviously the owners) feel robbed by the council over the sale to Wasps because it does stink quite frankly. Because of that, I think that if it is decided that there's been illegal state aid then a lot of us feel that it should indeed by corrected and if that means that Wasps get lost or have to pay what is deemed to be fair market value then all the better.

If I understand the point you're trying to make right, I think what you're saying is then thats fair enough but then build us a fucking stadium. Stop with the bullshit of semantics about wording...if that's genuinely the sticking point then you're both never going to shift then it's stalemate and we need to move on. And I actually agree.

Click to expand...

Yeah there's two issues are stake here, the arguments about whether Sisu have a case is one, and one I don't agree with but none of us really know if we're honest. You can't say you don't want something, make an offer of £5m or whatever it was, say you only want the unencumbered freehold, then whine when you aren't offered the leasehold for more than £5m on a plate. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

The other argument is that given the situation as it is (state aid complaint could take years to resolve, Wasps in charge of the Ricoh, etc. etc.) what should Sisu do and what should we want them to do?

Personally I don't think us playing in Brum for years is viable. I think the idea Wasps will go pop and the council will come crawling to the club is fanciful (I'm also not sure of the morality of wishing another club to go bust TBH). I'm not a gambler, I prefer certainty. So for me the gamble of waiting out for legal actions to finish/a third party to go bust and another not to find another use/tenant is too risky when your stake is the club itself. What do we do if one brick in that wall fails to materialise? We're a decade in still with no ground and a shit ton of bad will. That's me. I get others are more willing to risk the club either for the payoff (though these same people seem to virtue signal that they hate the Ricoh and don't want it at the same time, much like our owners in that respect) or for 'justice' as they see it. That leaves us with two options: build or agree a rental deal by promising to drop all the legals around the Ricoh. Personally I'm happy with either, but if it's build I'm pretty pissed off we haven't started doing it yet as it'll be more years we stay away.

My issue throughout all of this is by taking the actions we did where the club play is no longer in the hands of its owners or its fans, but in the hands of Wasps and CCC. By continuing the legal action (which is their right, but also has consequences) we virtually guarantee we can't stay at the Ricoh.

I don't like gambling with the club. Even if I saw the case for the state aid case (I don't) after the two damning JR verdicts I'd still see the state aid case as a gamble, not just because all legal proceedings overseen by humans are, but also because the actions of CCC after a potential judgement against them are far from certain. So again we're putting out future in the hands of third parties, this time the judge and CCC. I'd rather the club was in control of it's own destiny. The only way I see that happening is a new ground, and that clearly isn't happening.

I should make it clear, as I know people will jump on this that I don't think the indemnity is reasonable, but then I don't think it's supposed to be. I also strongly suspect that we still wouldn't have a deal were it to be dropped due to the second requirement of no future legal actions attempting to reverse the sale. Long story short: Wasps want that to go away and Sisu don't. Whether we think that's right, fair, or whatever is irrelevant, we handed them that power and it's theirs to use as they choose.

shmmeee said:

Yeah there's two issues are stake here, the arguments about whether Sisu have a case is one, and one I don't agree with but none of us really know if we're honest. You can't say you don't want something, make an offer of £5m or whatever it was, say you only want the unencumbered freehold, then whine when you aren't offered the leasehold for more than £5m on a plate. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

The other argument is that given the situation as it is (state aid complaint could take years to resolve, Wasps in charge of the Ricoh, etc. etc.) what should Sisu do and what should we want them to do?

Personally I don't think us playing in Brum for years is viable. I think the idea Wasps will go pop and the council will come crawling to the club is fanciful. I'm not a gambler, I prefer certainty. So for me the gamble of waiting out for legal actions to finish/a third party to go bust and another not to find another use/tenant is too risky when your stake is the club itself. What do we do if one brick in that wall fails to materialise? We're a decade in still with no ground and a shit ton of bad will. That's me. I get others are more willing to risk the club either for the payoff (though these same people seem to virtue signal that they hate the Ricoh and don't want it at the same time, much like our owners in that respect) or for 'justice' as they see it. That leaves us with two options: build or agree a rental deal by promising to drop all the legals around the Ricoh. Personally I'm happy with either, but if it's build I'm pretty pissed off we haven't started doing it yet as it'll be more years we stay away.

My issue throughout all of this is by taking the actions we did where the club play is no longer in the hands of its owners or its fans, but in the hands of Wasps and CCC. By continuing the legal action (which is their right, but also has consequences) we virtually guarantee we can't stay at the Ricoh.

I don't like gambling with the club. Even if I saw the state aid case (I don't) after the two damning JR verdicts I'd still see the state aid case as a gamble, not just because all legal proceedings overseen by humans are, but also because the actions of CCC after a potential judgement against them are far from certain. So again we're putting out future in the hands of third parties, this time the judge and CCC. I'd rather the club was in control of it's own destiny. The only way I see that happening is a new ground, and that clearly isn't happening.

I should make it clear, as I know people will jump on this that I don't think the indemnity is reasonable, but then I don't think it's supposed to be. I also strongly suspect that we still wouldn't have a deal were it to be dropped due to the second requirement of no future legal actions attempting to reverse the sale. Long story short: Wasps want that to go away and Sisu don't.

Click to expand...

When was it said anybody wanted freehold for 5m?

There was an agreement signed for no future action wasn't there?

We have been at the mercy of other factors for years, it's nothing new.

There's this real thing happening where people seem to be forgetting things that have actually happened and just making things up. No wonder you had an issue on the other thread where somebody was just firing out inaccuracies and getting corrected.

clint van damme said:

true, but in the current climate and with their revenue taking a severe hit I'm not sure how long term they can afford to think at the expense of day to day survival.
I also can't believe they aren't under pressure from their partners at the Ricoh.
I'd imagine the casino operators won't be happy at them turning that sort of footfall down.

Click to expand...

Like I say, I don’t pretend to know the finer points of finance, OSB seems to think the uncertainty over the Ricoh is causing them problems with finance right now. I don’t know if those are bigger problems than their cash flow issues, I’m honestly not sure anyone is. I just know this site has been foretelling of Wasps imminent collapse for a few years now with no visible signs of it happening. I know very little about Rugby but I’ve heard of Wasps before they came here so assume the brand alone would ensure some level of survival, but as I say I don’t know how applicable that stuff is in rugby. To an outsider rooted in football it seems like people predicting Chelsea will go pop when we all know the worse that would happen is a points deduction.

All we know for sure if that they seem happy to continue their stance so must see a benefit in it.