Search results

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.

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.