Search results

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.

I dont believe Wasps are legaly obliged to offer ccfc a rental deal (although I’m not 100% sure). But if they chose not to deal with ccfc/sisu then surely they would make themselves immune from any legal action. What grounds would sisu have?

The comment about £1m rent was an ironic statement, relating to the fact that that was the original rental figure, and as I said that would bring events “full circle”. As in nothing changed after so many years wasted and all the legal cases etc etc. etc. I do get what chefdave said, but as...

Unfortunately, just saying that you don’t care about sisu, ACL, wasps etc etc, dosnt make them any less relevant. They are the main protagonists whether YOU like it or not. The political issues won’t just go away because the fans (me included) don’t like to consider the worse case sonario...

According to the bbc sport page, there was no disallowed goal, no second yellow card, and no sending off, Tossers.

Bed time!

LEMON SQUEEZYYYY