Search results

I've even sent him that article but he still insists the Telegraph is right. We should be going to Keith Perry rather than OSB when there are any financial queries as clearly he's the expert.

That will be the court case SISU lost as the judge said they couldn't bundle it all in together and count it as one transaction :facepalm:

Lets hope the EC don't compare it against the price for the original 50 year lease :joyful:

This is the question the media should be hammering Wasps with. From the position we are in now what is it they want / expect the club to do to enable talks to resume?

Maybe you can point out where I, and the vast majority of people on this thread, are wrong. Clearly you have insight the rest of us don't. I'll make it easy for you. 1) what can SISU do to halt the EC investigation as Wasps have now made this a condition to resume talks? 2) what action or...

He point blank denied the Telegraph had surpassed the story on the bail out of ACL to me earlier in the week despite there's being evidence present to the council's ethics committee. Presumably he things SISU's lawyers forged the evidence.

From a taxpayer standpoint there's also a big question why the lease extension wasn't granted to ACL prior to sale to increase the value of the asset being sold.

What a thoroughly bizarre post ISB. Not sure why you've waited months to respond to a post on a different thread about stewarding, not really the priority at the moment. Can you point to a single post where I have absolved SISU of blame? You seem to have forgotten that in the past I have been...

Isn't there something about the lease extension falling away if they go bust, so ACL goes back to the remainder of the original 50 year lease. Sure I've seen something like that mentioned.

Bingo, so the only scenario in which Wasps could be financially damaged is one where the council have been found to be in the wrong. Which is the fault of the football club how?

Explain what has to happen for Wasps to be caused financial damage.

For that scenario to play out the council would have to have been found to be in the wrong and the football club to have suffered as a result. If that was the case why would anyone object to the appropriate measures being taken to rectify that?

That's not flipping it, that's a totally different issue. But it does perfectly illustrate why the council selling to Wasps was so damaging for the football club. They have no legal obligation. Of course they should do as the council assured us repeatedly the clubs future was safeguarded but...

They will look at it themselves and decide if there is anything to investigate, if not it will be dropped. They aren't going to investigate everything sent their way, people would be firing things in left, right and centre and the cost would be crippling. So they will only move forward if they...

Pretty much sums it up.

I thought you were joking. What has to actually happen before the Trust will condemn Wasps and the council?

Who is pursuing legal action? CCFC and / or any related companies aren't. If they all ceased to exist tomorrow it would not make the slightest difference to the EC investigation.

So there you have it. SISU agreed to Wasps demands, with an undertaking signed which I find it hard to believe didn't have its wording checked by Wasps legal team to ensure they were happy with it. Then Wasps changed their demands on a whim. Also casts doubt on Gilbert's claim that Wasps knew...

I'm assuming you're on the wind up but its hard to tell these days. Not even the trust can sympathise with Wasps after this.

Incredible isn't it. We're talking about tens of millions in taxpayer money and all anyone is concerned about is not upsetting a London rugby club.