Search results

Top conversing. A++++ would reply again.

Source? And yes they said they are willing to ignore the EU complaint if future action was ruled out. It wasn’t. That’s my point.

Right. A rugby club should be able to spot something a council legal department and several high court judges couldn’t. Sounds reasonable.

Fine. Please tell me what specific thing you would like me to address and I shall address it just for you.

I mean, firstly that’s six years ago and an awful lot of water has passed under the bridge, but that reads to me as Sisu putting out a legal position to protect their rights going forward for something. But I’ll be honest I don’t know. I’m not sure you can compare every legal complaint equally...

Read the thread.

Ive literally addressed this point about five times in this thread.

Have you got a link? Just because so much has been misrepresented in this thread so I’d like to read it myself. But sure, level the complaint of “changing your mind” at Wasps all you like. I’m not sure it helps anything.

I could get a rental deal if the legals were dropped! That’s the sticking point! That’s my entire point. The point you are studiously ignoring is that “the legals” isn’t just the EU complaint but the promise to halt further attempts to reverse the sale of the Ricoh. They can be dropped, Sisu...

I honestly don’t get the confusion. This is very very simple: Wasps see the risk associated with Sisus attempts to reverse the sale damaging their chances to finance and would like that risk to go away. Luckily the people presenting that risk want something from Wasps, meaning they can do a...

Yes they’d have to pay if they were found in breach. So what? Why does someone need to have “put them up to it”? That’s the conspiracy mate, there’s no need for it. OSB has laid out in detail the impact on Wasps the proceedings are having. The idea they only care because the shadowy council is...

... On a wider point it’s more conspiratorial nonsense that really doesn’t help the debate here and I’d hoped Pete was above.

Oh dear.

See above post. They very clearly did.

I mean clearly not as we didn’t get a deal last season (or have we not moved seasons yet, do you mean the last season at the Ricoh? If so then obviously things changed.). Look I’m only taking both sides at their word. Sisu: “This agreement introduced conditions that would unreasonably...

No, the important bit is “against Wasps”, it’s playing semantic games and not a serious attempt at engagement. It’s playground stuff.

We’ve been over the silliness of this argument. Wasps clearly mean any action relating to reversing the Ricoh sale regardless of whether they specifically are named.

No idea, what’s that got to do with what we’re talking about?

You’ve had apples haven’t you? Well how about oranges. That’s not the same, it’s an undertaking not to make future claims around a specific area. Literally any out of court settlement has this clause in it, otherwise no one would ever settle. As always you’re talking out your arse.

This is just nonsense. There’s loads of examples of contracts that indemnify someone from future legal action. I’m about to sign one in my divorce stating neither of us can claim against the other financially in the future. It’s a standard clause in most settlements in fact.