Search results

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.

I'm not sure he understands what indemnifying means.

Easy question for you then. What court is hearing the case and who is the claimant and who is the defendant? I assume Otium, Avro or SISU must be the claimant and Wasps the defendant else the conditions Wasps placed on talks have been met. Can you confirm?

Stealing that.

Can't see it happening but I'd be more than happy if it did. If we're paying someone rent would much rather it be CRFC.

Not all looking at the same thing and they don't all have the same burden of proof.

We don't know who actually filed the complaint do we? Just that a complaint has been made.

WTF? If I'm reading that right Wasps are now saying that if they and / or the council are found to be in the wrong and there's a financial implication to that ruling the football club has to cover that?

He's been caught out shit stirring before hasn't he? Surely it wouldn't be St Andrews or the Butts at this stage. They'd know by now if the Butts was viable or not for next season.

How is the ball back in the court of CCFC's owners? There is nothing they can do to meet the conditions Wasps have now put it place, it is literally impossible.

I think there's a slight but significant difference. The judicial reviews are on the finer points of the law, the impression I get is that the EC investigation has wider scope.

That was for Higgs half so won't be covered by state aid.

He's on shaky ground there as he's thrown in questioning journalists with abuse. Nobody is going to condone abuse but surely questioning journalists is fair game. Especially when you're tweeting from a paper known to have had a cosy deal with the council in past to keep things out of the public eye.

You're in a dreamland if you think you're going to get people to move to something which is basically a more expensive but shitter version of what they already have. Give people a viable alternative, be it vehicles or public transport, that they can afford and you stand a chance.

They would have known this when they walked out of talks, there's every chance they knew it before talks started. This is just an excuse to hide behind and they've now put a requirement in place that is literally impossible for anyone to achieve.