Update from Big Dave (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
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.
Click to expand...

No mate. You just like sharpshooting and think taking issue with one small point invalidates an entire argument. If you read what I’d posted you’d understand that the validity of the state aid case doesn’t change my opinion on the best course of action for the club. I understand Joy offered £5m in the first meeting with Lucas, but if not it’s hardly relevant to my point.

You’re obsessed with the minute details but none of them really change the big picture.

Even if I took your views entirely, I still wouldn’t want to gamble the club on the cards falling how you hope. I remember you thinking the same when the rent strike happened and that we were guaranteed a better deal. How did that work out? Too much uncertainty for too little payoff for me personally.

Edit: in fact if I took your position wholesale and did believe the council were out to get us Id want a new ground even more. The last thing I’d want is to be beholden to an organisation out to get us.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
shmmeee said:
No mate. You just like sharpshooting and think taking issue with one small point invalidates an entire argument. If you read what I’d posted you’d understand that the validity of the state aid case doesn’t change my opinion on the best course of action for the club. I understand Joy offered £5m in the first meeting with Lucas, but if not it’s hardly relevant to my point.

You’re obsessed with the minute details but none of them really change the big picture.

Even if I took your views entirely, I still wouldn’t want to gamble the club on the cards falling how you hope. I remember you thinking the same when the rent strike happened and that we were guaranteed a better deal. How did that work out? Too much uncertainty for too little payoff for me personally.

Edit: in fact if I took your position wholesale and did believe the council were out to get us Id want a new ground even more. The last thing I’d want is to be beholden to an organisation out to get us.
Click to expand...

When you make long posts and form your views on inaccuracies then what do you expect? I do mention all the little incorrect details because so many people have formed views on things that have never actually happened it seems.

I didn't mention the validity of the case, I said they had signed to say there would be no further action about it. (which you were worried about).

Your story about 5m changing and then leasehold for 5m and freehold for 5m is similar to the recollection in the other thread you had an issue with.

You keep saying "I remember you thinking". We have been here before, I didn't say or think that so why make things up?
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
When you make long posts and form your views on inaccuracies then what do you expect?

I didn't mention the validity of the case, I said they had signed to say there would be no further action about it. (which you were worried about).

Your story about 5m changing and then leasehold for 5m and freehold for 5m is similar to the recollection in the other thread you had an issue with.

You keep saying "I remember you thinking". We have been here before, I didn't say or think that so why make things up?
Click to expand...

I write long posts cos that’s how I write when I’m trying to explain myself, but the tl;dr is that regardless of how valid the state aid case is, I think it’s a risky move that, without a stadium being built, could leave us in a far worse position at the end and that’s not a risk I’m willing to take.

I might not have involved myself to your level, though you’re not immune from factual errors yourself, but on the core tenets of my argument I’m solid.

They are:

- The problem right now is down to pig headedness and two factors. One in Sisus court, one in Wasps. Both sides have released statements that confirm this.
- That the state aid case has too many risks (effectively already been thrown out twice, all judicial decisions carry an element of uncertainty, no guarantee the ordered remedy will result in CCFC owning the ground or returning on better terms than currently offered, could take years to resolve). Personally I don’t think the potential payoff (a cheap Ricoh?) is worth the potential cost (say all in five years away? £10m+? More in the Championship and with extra fan revenue?).

If you disagree with either of those, on facts, then fine let’s have it. If you disagree on anything else it’s irrelevant. Who did what when, whatever, it’s a matter for the judge and I refer you to point two. Wasps drop the indemnity, great completely agree, but I don’t think that alone will break the deadlock.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
shmmeee said:
I write long posts cos that’s how I write when I’m trying to explain myself, but the tl;dr is that regardless of how valid the state aid case is, I think it’s a risky move that, without a stadium being built, could leave us in a far worse position at the end and that’s not a risk I’m willing to take.

I might not have involved myself to your level, though you’re not immune from factual errors yourself, but on the core tenets of my argument I’m solid.

They are:

- The problem right now is down to pig headedness and two factors. One in Sisus court, one in Wasps. Both sides have released statements that confirm this.
- That the state aid case has too many risks (effectively already been thrown out twice, all judicial decisions carry an element of uncertainty, no guarantee the ordered remedy will result in CCFC owning the ground or returning on better terms than currently offered, could take years to resolve). Personally I don’t think the potential payoff (a cheap Ricoh?) is worth the potential cost (say all in five years away? £10m+? More in the Championship and with extra fan revenue?).

If you disagree with either of those, on facts, then fine let’s have it. If you disagree on anything else it’s irrelevant. Who did what when, whatever, it’s a matter for the judge and I refer you to point two. Wasps drop the indemnity, great completely agree, but I don’t think that alone will break the deadlock.
Click to expand...

I'm happy to be corrected when I'm factually wrong.

I have no idea how valid the EU stuff is, judging by previous results it will be probably thrown out. That can't be dropped now though can it? The indemnity can.

The fact that the media were too scared to mention that until Pete went onto cwr was telling.
 
O

oldfiver

Well-Known Member
Mcbean said:
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
Click to expand...


WASPS have a joint venture with the Delaware Group and they insist F&B must pass through them
 
Sky Blue Harry H

Sky Blue Harry H

Well-Known Member
Apologies for a slight diversion, but hasn't anybody else smiled at the thread title 'Big Dave'
upload_2020-7-9_19-14-11.jpeg
images
 
mark82

mark82

Moderator
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...

Indeed, that's the question. You have to wonder the scope of the requests that Wasps are requesting the club to sign.
 
mark82

mark82

Moderator
Brighton Sky Blue said:
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?
Click to expand...

Nailed it.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
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...
What about the agreement they signed with wasps?
 
robbiekeane

robbiekeane

Well-Known Member
Just wanted to add that after reviewing that Real Madrid case further, it took them 5 years from the (pretty immediate) start of the investigation to make the decision. 2 years later it was then reversed.

What the fuck are we doing to do for 5 years?
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
robbiekeane said:
Just wanted to add that after reviewing that Real Madrid case further, it took them 5 years from the (pretty immediate) start of the investigation to make the decision. 2 years later it was then reversed.

What the fuck are we doing to do for 5 years?
Click to expand...
Isn't there an announcement already due on if they're actually going to investigate it or not? Supposed to be about a year from when they get the complaint.

If its as open and shut as we're led to believe it will be thrown out at that point so no need to wait years for a full investigation to be done.
 
GaryMabbuttsLeftKnee

GaryMabbuttsLeftKnee

Well-Known Member
With all the promotion razzmatazz, I’d forgotten just how annoying Shmeee becomes during wasps/Ricoh/council debates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
robbiethemole said:
considering the amount of shit he got when he came here, for "destroying" two other clubs, that's a bloody good turn around. And it keeps twat-face Fisher away from the Media.
Click to expand...
Trust were and are really worried about him. They were really confused at how professional and successful he’s been. Local reporter at Worcester gave them loads of information about how he knew nothing. Nothing but brilliant in my eyes. Don’t know how or why but he’s nailed so so much at ccfc
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Or w
shmmeee said:
I write long posts cos that’s how I write when I’m trying to explain myself, but the tl;dr is that regardless of how valid the state aid case is, I think it’s a risky move that, without a stadium being built, could leave us in a far worse position at the end and that’s not a risk I’m willing to take.

I might not have involved myself to your level, though you’re not immune from factual errors yourself, but on the core tenets of my argument I’m solid.

They are:

- The problem right now is down to pig headedness and two factors. One in Sisus court, one in Wasps. Both sides have released statements that confirm this.
- That the state aid case has too many risks (effectively already been thrown out twice, all judicial decisions carry an element of uncertainty, no guarantee the ordered remedy will result in CCFC owning the ground or returning on better terms than currently offered, could take years to resolve). Personally I don’t think the potential payoff (a cheap Ricoh?) is worth the potential cost (say all in five years away? £10m+? More in the Championship and with extra fan revenue?).

If you disagree with either of those, on facts, then fine let’s have it. If you disagree on anything else it’s irrelevant. Who did what when, whatever, it’s a matter for the judge and I refer you to point two. Wasps drop the indemnity, great completely agree, but I don’t think that alone will break the deadlock.
Click to expand...
Or even that it is a deadlock much like the Eu complaint isn’t a deadlock for a deal to play at the Ricoh.

I think I completely agree about a new stadium now it’s the only solution to a situation we find ourselves in.

With some creative support there are some ideas about who owns the land and how the council could work with all parties

It’s pretty much why I got involved. There’s got to be a solution to this
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Liquid Gold said:
"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.
Click to expand...
Yep. It was more than intimated to me by local media that an MEP had said Sisu could ask for the complaint to be ignored. It was and is bollox and I think he knew it. I think the MEP had a problem with Sisu from his chairmanship of a certain football club and he was a Brexit one in any case. The fact this has just disappeared proves to me that it’s in the realm of an Eu deal will be the easiest negotiation In history and we hold all the cards and Cummins didn’t break the law driving to Durham
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
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 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.
Click to expand...
So the deal is for only 2 more seasons and ccfc have to give a quarterly update to efl. One thing I was surprised about was how supportive the efl have been to keeping the club going so a decade is out the question but it’s not ricoh or this or that place it’s Ricoh, new stadium or nothing and that is a huge risk
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
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...

No one would sign an indemnity against future legal action anyway it’s a smokescreen
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Pete said:
So the deal is for only 2 more seasons and ccfc have to give a quarterly update to efl. One thing I was surprised about was how supportive the efl have been to keeping the club going so a decade is out the question but it’s not ricoh or this or that place it’s Ricoh, new stadium or nothing and that is a huge risk
Click to expand...

Well quite. It’s not unreasonable to think that in two years the issues around the Ricoh won’t be sorted. Cleary further legal action is planned if it’s thrown out as the club want to retain that right, a decision could take longer than that anyway, and even if it’s quicker and positive for Sisu the council can and almost certainly will appeal.

So what happens at that point if Wasps are still solvent and refusing to let us do a deal while the action is ongoing? Do we fold? Surely we should have broken ground on a stadium by now if we were going to have it ready for that point? It’s a massive massive risk and as I say I’m still yet to be convinced of the actual benefit to CCFC of this route. It seems to have become mostly about spiting Wasps and CCC for most, the actual impacts on the club forgotten.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
No one would sign an indemnity against future legal action anyway it’s a smokescreen
Click to expand...

This is just nonsense. There’s loads of examples of contracts that indemnify someone from future legal action. I’m about to sign one in my divorce stating neither of us can claim against the other financially in the future. It’s a standard clause in most settlements in fact.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
This is just nonsense. There’s loads of examples of contracts that indemnify someone from future legal action. I’m about to sign one in my divorce stating neither of us can claim against the other financially in the future. It’s a standard clause in most settlements in fact.
Click to expand...

That’s not the same and there are no standard clauses in a transaction of this sort

Yiy have a rented house haven’t you? Ha e a clause in your agreement with your landlord that however he acts in future you cannot take action against him?
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
That’s not the same and there are no standard clauses in a transaction of this sort

Yiy have a rented house haven’t you? Ha e a clause in your agreement with your landlord that however he acts in future you cannot take action against him?
Click to expand...

You’ve had apples haven’t you? Well how about oranges. That’s not the same, it’s an undertaking not to make future claims around a specific area. Literally any out of court settlement has this clause in it, otherwise no one would ever settle.

As always you’re talking out your arse.
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
This is just nonsense. There’s loads of examples of contracts that indemnify someone from future legal action. I’m about to sign one in my divorce stating neither of us can claim against the other financially in the future. It’s a standard clause in most settlements in fact.
Click to expand...

Is it common in a rental agreement to prohibit the tenant from ever taking legal action against the landlord?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top