Search results

In fairness it's been a dull year and people have to entertain themselves.

I seem to recall the club said last season we could back out at any time? As you sauy though it's looking possible bridges have been burnt once again.

They could but that doesn't stop what they have said (basically "it isn't as simple as that) being true. As I said earlier, press them on the specifics, who are the other parties, but saying so might void the NDA itself for all we know.

Wouldn't even the owners be classed as other parties and with both having holding companies and subsidiaries and such just that complicates things. Then there's the retail partners doing food and beverage and such. Arguably the police could be a stakeholder. Then you've got the EFL for planning...

Good question but then does it end up being an argument about what’s classed as an indemnity?

I was leaning towards getting a ST to help the club and hadn’t even considered we might be being played again. I suppose the end result is still the same, we need to support the club as best we can (personal financial constraints considered)

Maybe that’s a specific point we could ask to be clarified.

It does kind of look that way but that’s also what we want to believe. This is it. Unless somebody leaks some documents or something we’re none the wiser. We’re taking people at their word and we’re all biased.

They have chosen to take it that way and so have we thus proving their point.

Anything that is asked has to be done very carefully. Mark and Pete submitted a reasonable question about the NDA yet are now at the centre of an argument about why it can’t be dropped. It’s all very excited us thinking wasps have something to hide but there could be nothing in it and we’re back...

It doesn’t matter. For all intents and purposes the club are saying drop it and wasps are saying they can’t. The implication, even though it’s not intentional, is they have something to hide. I called this yesterday. It might mean they have something to hide but it might just mean the club know...

It’s just going to end up as another game of he said, she said. Best thing we can probably do is coming up with some very specific probing questions and get a journalist or Pete and Mark to ask them. One might be “what other parties are involved in the NDA?”. Unfortunately it probably breaking...

They said it was an implication which tbf it was.

Was he? He was off the pace but I think it was clear he had talent.

Great read. Not sure why people are surprised about Meyler. Doyle would have been a big loss mentality and he filled that void I think.

Yes. Nobody is really disputing that are they? But it’s SISU bringing the case and SISU getting the blame for doing so. There’s a difference between being in the right, morally or legally, and all parties being on-board with the result.

I think that convo probably takes us back to when people knew about the EU complaint. Wasn’t the accusation that all legal action was dropped then the EU case turned up? Then there was/is all the stuff about the EU case being legal action etc... ....and eventually to shmeeeees point earlier...

Well the councils actions, yes, but SISU dogged pursuit of the situation that would have brought it about. To me the fact the council are so behind wasps suggests there is something to find or at least they are worried it could be perceived that way.

Correct. And they don’t want that to happen so will keep asking to be protected against it. I assume that they expect SISU to cover the cost and anything they’d have to pay back.

Yes but essentially wasps want to be guaranteed from any future harm from any case. SISU, understandably, consider this unreasonable. However, as Boddy said, that’s the same situation as last year so maybe the pertinent question is how we ended up in talks again. I’m sure we’ll never know.