Search results

I don’t think damages would be part of a state aid judgement. They’d be a separate “future legal action”.

Yeah that’s a very fair point. Even if BoJo sticks two fingers up at Brussels the case has been proven and I’d imagine open up civil cases anyway.

No it’s very simple. ECJ provides a judgement and asked U.K. gov to abide by it. If we were in the EU there would be penalties for not abiding, but if we aren’t and we haven’t agreed a deal to abide by ECJ judgements (and we won’t because they keep saying it’s the entire point of Brexit), it’s...

I mean they were in fact proven right on that ;)

Only if we agree to abide by the ECJ judgement. Which has kinda been a big thing for Brexiteers. And under no deal we’d have no reason to because what are they gonna do?

Why not? They’ve not committed anything other than saying they’re “planning for a partnership” and got some nice publicity about their green tech developments.

(and then wait out the inevitable appeal from CCC, and hope it’s either before December or we don’t no deal exit, and hope that Boris Johnson doesn’t fancy firing up his base with a nice public up yours to the ECJ) But yes.

I don’t think it’s CCC want. CCC only stand to gain financially. It’s Wasps want. Wasps think whatever it is would lose them the Ricoh, or more immediately the threat of that is stopping them getting refinanced.

No I don’t think that is the threat. Wasps has always said they’ll put that aside and now apparently are happy with a wider lack of indemnity against themselves. Clearly they think the threat is after a successful state aid judgement, Sisu have some future legal action against CCC planned that...

Sorry you’ve lost me.

Well that’s the question isn’t it? How much does it help CCFC as opposed to Sisu? This is why the “future of the club” stuff worries me. Are Sisu saying the club only has a future if two future legal decisions go their way? As I’ve said, personally I can’t see that happening and would rather...

Yeah exactly. But that’s not the state aid case, that’s future legal action. Which is what I’ve been saying for at least a year. Have we really been agreeing this whole time?

I don’t think arses are twitching. Well I do bit they’re the arses of Wasps accountants. Wasps want to refinance and right now lenders see a threat to the Ricoh. So wasps want that threat to go away. Nome of that necessarily means anyone thinks they’re guilty.

I’ll try and be clearer. All numbers from my ass: EU decide that CCC undersold rhe Ricoh lease to Wasps. Let’s say it was sold for £6m and it shouldn’t been £60m. Therefore CCC have effectively given Wasps £54m. EU say “oi Wasps, you need to pay CCC £54m to right this wrong” Where is the...

We’ve been over this. You can think you’re OK but want the threat of legal action to go away. Not wanting to be falsely accused doesn’t mean you think you’re guilty. All legal action is an uncertainty as it relies on a third party judgement.

That makes no sense. Reimbursing Wasps is indemnity for Wasps. Both sides agree they don’t need that. Clearly there’s something Wasps think Sisu have planned that is against CCC and would result in Wasps losing the Ricoh. We just don’t know what that is exactly.

No. Sisu agreed no more legal action *against Wasps* today we learn that Wasps agreed to drop that too. The sticking point has always been no more legal action against people who aren’t Wasps that would still go against the general principle of “stop trying to reverse the Ricoh sale”.

What’s the monetary threat to CCC from the state aid case? The entire point is that CCC are owed money. StateAid remedies aren’t punitive. They don’t fine. They “recover” any aid given.

Im not engaging. I’m pointing out how the statement leaves open possibilities. All parties are doing it. For me the most concerning word play is Sisu claiming this threatens the future of the club. You can call it a lie if you want, that’s up to you.

That’s what doesn’t make sense. How can an indemnity for CCC lead to payments from the State Aid judgement. That’s why I think it can only be some future legal action.