Search results

I guess what I am saying Nick is I think they would have gotten away with that shit anyway, why the effort to spin it and hide things. Maybe it is as simple as trying to smooth things out and I’m over thinking it.

Why the need for PR then? Bringing money into the city is PR in itself. Why try to turn fans against SISU? If wasps bring these benefits there’s no need to justify their actions. It might just be they wanted public opinion on their side but as half the city doesn’t care about the club and most...

Yeah but why? I’m not doubting they appear to have done some odd things but why?

I hope people like Gilbert come and read this thread as it will give them food for thought.

What does balls deep really mean though? It still implies they threw their lot in and now don’t want to look bad but to me that doesn’t justify their actions over the last few years. This is where it does feel a bit “conspiracy theory” in that I can’t see a rational explanation for how hard CCC...

That’s a fair point. Could it be that by saying “no action against the council” wasps are protecting themselves while also able to say they are not protected specifically by the indemnity? If so, some of their recent comments seem to have dropped the council in it as they imply it’s because of...

I speculated above that wasps will think (or have been told by somebody in government) that the EU case wouldn’t be enforced. Their issue could be the lease being binned off, from which they would be protected by the council insisting no future legal action is taken. I can’t see quite why the...

Perhaps why wasps don’t need an indemnity, they’ve had assurances any ruling wouldn’t be fulfilled? But the outcome would still provide justification for future legal cases, even if the “punishment” had not been implemented.

Hard to say without knowing more about the indemnity. If wasps are satisfied not having an indemnity for them then they must either think the state aid thing won’t be an issue or they have accepted it will but are more concerned with other consequences which would arise from any legal action...

Ah so it wouldn’t stop a theoretical resolution which resulted in which wasps paid money to the council but would stop SISU pursuing a separate claim later on? If so the implication from the notion that it would threaten the club is the club isn’t financially viable long term if it doesn’t get...

Why is it clearly not the state aid indemnity?

Maybe they don’t but whatever is in the indemnity implicitly protects them while they can conveniently deny being involved with it?

Would there have been any expectation that the indemnity would be dropped? Does add up though as Boddy also said “same issues as last year”

Why would wasps insist on an indemnity to protect the council? Particularly when it is against their interests for talks to fail as they could use the money?

Would it even be legal for the council to strong arm wasps into holding us hostage in order to grant them protection from legal processes? If it is it seems it would at least be unethical and against the code of conduct for elected officials. If so then you’d think there would be a route of...

If talks failed due to the indemnity why did Boddy say it was because wasps timed them out? Is this all consistent? Could they have been trying to come up with some kind of work around which wasps then stalled on? Gilbert seems to be doing alright on this tbf.

Because you still have to raise the initial investment and service that debt. It doesn’t matter what’s cheaper in the long run or what might happen in the future. We might be able to go for 25-30k but there is no point us on here treating it as a minimum demand. If we can raise enough capital to...

Yes, obviously it would be raised capital and of course there is more detail to to. You still have to provide a business case to raise capital and pay said capital back. If we build a stadium that is too big we won’t be able to do that. Hence my comment that it would need to be sustainably financed.

Nottingham for one. Either way it’s irrelevant. It can be used as an objection but it’s not genuine. All that matters is can you afford to build it.

I said it won’t compete for the same events. I also said they might be an obstruction. All I’m saying is two stadiums is not a genuine reason to not build.