Search results

Love it, good reply! But let’s just suppose, said rugby club was getting £100,000 per season rental income from their tenants, everything started out well, then one day, said tenant decided to take out a legal case against the landlord, for some frivolous reason or other, and withold its...

I guess they could go through old paperwork looking for straws to clutch at. That’s not being petty though, that’s downright bloody minded !

That last line certainly rings true, The whole saga is a pile of shit.

Allowing the existing tenancy to expire and not renewing it, would protect wasps from any future NEW litigation from sisu. If Wasps have zero dealings with sisu, what possible reason could sisu have for taking them to court, if you know of any please tell me. The already existing JR could...

It wouldn’t put a stop to the existing case, But I’m saying it Would put a stop to any future unconnected legal cases. Quite what those cases would be are anyone’s guess, but as Tim fisher says, sisu’s M.O. is battering people through the courts.

Exactly, well put.

The jr’s weren’t against wasps, they were against the council and their undervaluation of the Ricoh and the issue of whether the undervaluation represented state aid to wasps. Wasps aren’t kicking ccfc out, they are just threatening to not renew the contract (the result would be the same...

Ok let me put it this way, if wasps say “we aren’t going to talk to sisu/ccfc regarding any new tenancy agreement”. What possible cause for new legal action would sisu/ccfc have?

The wording would be along the lines of, “we won’t discuss any new deal with you while we are still involved in litigation with you” That’s not blackmail, just a statement of fact.

The risk is that sisu have a history of taking people to court, the specifics of any future case are purely hypothetical until such a case starts. Put it this way, if a mate of yours ran a buisiness, and he told you a hedge fund called sisu wanted to do a deal with him, would you say go ahead...

I hear what you say. But sisu have plenty of form regarding legal action, so as I’ve said before, why risk it.

No it isn’t, it’s purely a statement of fact.

Yes, I believe they could still do that, But wasps may say we are not going to offer you a new tenancy if you continue to do that. Which would make life very difficult for ccfc.

I’m not making excuses for wasps, I’m just pointing out their position.

If wasps don’t deal with sisu, then sisu have no grounds for litigation. If wasps do deal with sisu, then sisu could make any bs up, or wait for any issue to arise, regardless of however petty, and then initiate a legal action. That is sisu’s M.O. sisu could literally use any minor...

If wasps refuse to give sisu/ccfc a deal, what grounds would there be for a legal case against them? Unless there was a clause stating that ccfc must have access to the ground for ever, And I’m sure we would of heard that.

That’s politics for you. I wouldn’t like to deal with any the sides involved myself. It comes down to who you thing is bullshitting the least.

No, I’m saying why would Wasps deal with sisu/ccfc at all. If Wasps deal with sisu, wasps leave themselves open to possible future legal action, So don’t deal with sisu full stop. The effect on sisu/ccfc if they have no ground available is potentially devastating, But that is not the intent...

It may well of been just PR, or blatant BS. If they are legaly obliged to offer a reasonable tenancy, I’d be very surprised that we havnt heard about it by now.

But sisu will not fund a loss making venture for ever, once all legal avenues have finally been exhausted, they will have to either sell the club, wind the club up, or start new litigation. Hence the risk to Wasps.