Search results

Hard to believe half of that ever going in but would great for the area.

The council are the worst party involved IMO

But we're just arguing amongst ourselves and the actual lawsuits already took place and we didn't get anywhere...

You're reading too much into the term protection though, NIck. All they said is an NDA is there to protect commercial interests, which is true. It doesn't mean anything sinister.

The wasps statement is crap considering how long they had to plan it but yeah I'm not sure it's indicitive of anything sinister yet.

In fairness the club have said the time limit was up so presumably a decision was needed for the EFL. Both sides seem to have closed the door on talks taking place again depsite it being clear we could return mid-season, as you say, so something doesn't add up there. Agree with the point on how...

Came on to say the same thing.

In fairness it's been a dull year and people have to entertain themselves.

I seem to recall the club said last season we could back out at any time? As you sauy though it's looking possible bridges have been burnt once again.

They could but that doesn't stop what they have said (basically "it isn't as simple as that) being true. As I said earlier, press them on the specifics, who are the other parties, but saying so might void the NDA itself for all we know.

Wouldn't even the owners be classed as other parties and with both having holding companies and subsidiaries and such just that complicates things. Then there's the retail partners doing food and beverage and such. Arguably the police could be a stakeholder. Then you've got the EFL for planning...

Good question but then does it end up being an argument about what’s classed as an indemnity?

I was leaning towards getting a ST to help the club and hadn’t even considered we might be being played again. I suppose the end result is still the same, we need to support the club as best we can (personal financial constraints considered)

Maybe that’s a specific point we could ask to be clarified.

It does kind of look that way but that’s also what we want to believe. This is it. Unless somebody leaks some documents or something we’re none the wiser. We’re taking people at their word and we’re all biased.

They have chosen to take it that way and so have we thus proving their point.

Anything that is asked has to be done very carefully. Mark and Pete submitted a reasonable question about the NDA yet are now at the centre of an argument about why it can’t be dropped. It’s all very excited us thinking wasps have something to hide but there could be nothing in it and we’re back...

It doesn’t matter. For all intents and purposes the club are saying drop it and wasps are saying they can’t. The implication, even though it’s not intentional, is they have something to hide. I called this yesterday. It might mean they have something to hide but it might just mean the club know...

It’s just going to end up as another game of he said, she said. Best thing we can probably do is coming up with some very specific probing questions and get a journalist or Pete and Mark to ask them. One might be “what other parties are involved in the NDA?”. Unfortunately it probably breaking...

They said it was an implication which tbf it was.