Chris Anderson (1 Viewer)

Grendel · Jun 4, 2016

I'm just interested to know what is meant by "dropping legals"

So does that mean the club has to sign an agreement it will take no cation against wasps or any associated companies? That surely means they can continue the Judicial review then as it's not a citement against wasps is it?

Is it actually saying that they should not take legal action against CCC? That would surely not be in wasps mandate to insist would it?

Is it no legal action against anyone? Hardly think that's legal or any company in the world wouldn't sign that?

So what does Dongonzalos mean? And surely if it's a verbal "dropping legals" they can restart them once a deal is agreed as it's illegal to insist on this in a contract?

dongonzalos · Jun 4, 2016

Grendel said:
Why? Wasps haven't cited legals as a reason for the deal not to be done. It's only you that has drawn that conclusion. They can't actually agree mutual terms.

I can assure you if CCFC agreed the proposal offered it would be accepted.

Wasps have laid out terms for staying. Why not out pressure on them to reveal those terms? Then you can see if there are any clauses. What would those clauses state by the way? What does dropping legals mean? Any legal action, some legal action, future legal action? Surely that in itself is actually not legal is it?

Are you on these meetings, in order to completely disregard what the respective parties have stated?
Or are you just slightly unhinged?
Or To coin one of your own phrases are you just simply a liar?

armybike · Jun 4, 2016

stupot07 said:
no one knows that. But at the minute they have stopped.

Do you believe wasps are right to stop them?

Or like me and others so you think its a convenient excuse, and they should get round the table and negotiate and agree a deal, get it drawn up, then if they aren't happy to sign it until the legals are dropped say it then rather than we won't speak to you now?

Stopped for now - so come to an end?

But could be pick up and continue in the future - so, they're actually on hold.

I don't agree they should have put the negoations on hold for this reason, but equally I don't agree with SISU's decision to proceed with a further appeal process.

Both parties deem their actions are appropriate, but from what I've read nobody appears to believe either side are making the right choices.

This is an honest question, have you approached SISU with your suggestion regarding a contractual agreement being reached?

It seems like a more than reasonablesuggestion and if SISU were to agree they could look towards approaching Wasps.

Grendel · Jun 4, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Are you on these meetings, in order to completely disregard what the respective parties have stated?
Or are you just slightly unhinged?
Or To coin one of your own phrases are you just simply a liar?

What does dropping legals mean?

Anderson has said no it's not a factor by the way.

stupot07 · Jun 4, 2016

armybike said:
Stopped for now - so come to an end?

But could be pick up and continue in the future - so, they're actually on hold.

I don't agree they should have put the negoations on hold for this reason, but equally I don't agree with SISU's decision to proceed with a further appeal process.

Both parties deem their actions are appropriate, but from what I've read nobody appears to believe either side are making the right choices.

This is an honest question, have you approached SISU with your suggestion regarding a contractual agreement being reached?

It seems like a more than reasonablesuggestion and if SISU were to agree they could look towards approaching Wasps.

Deja vu, you'd already replied an hour ago

Sisu and wasos read this, they will see my suggestion. What happens if sisu don't agree? Who is then to blame? Sisu for not dropping the JR which has nothing to do with Wasps, or wasps for not negotiating because of thr legals that have nothing to do with them?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

armybike · Jun 4, 2016

stupot07 said:
Sisu and wasos read this, they will see my suggestion. What happens if sisu don't agree? Who is then to blame? Sisu for not dropping the JR which has nothing to do with Wasps, or wasps for not negotiating because of thr legals that have nothing to do with them

So you've not contacted them with your suggestion. Why not?

If you want this situation sorted in a specific way, and as many have agreed negotiations but with a clause would be reasonable, then why not put that front and centre.

Anderson has acknowledged that he expects responses to correspondences, which is perfectly reasonable, and he should therefore extend the same to you and in his reply be able to clarify if this is something that Wasps could be approached with and if not then why that's the case.

If you want something progressing then put yourself out there, don't just expect others to pick up on it.

Would be far more productive that just discussing it on a forum.

stupot07 · Jun 4, 2016

armybike said:
So you've not contacted them with your suggestion. Why not?

If you want this situation sorted in a specific way, and as many have agreed negotiations but with a clause would be reasonable, then why not put that front and centre.

Anderson has acknowledged that he expects responses to correspondences, which is perfectly reasonable, and he should therefore extend the same to you and in his reply be able to clarify if this is something that Wasps could be approached with and if not then why that's the case.

If you want something progressing then put yourself out there, don't just expect others to pick up on it.

Would be far more productive that just discussing it on a forum.

I don't have their contact details. If you or anyone can get me an email for Sisu/joy, Chris Anderson and the wasps guy I will gladly email them all with my suggestion.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Captain Dart · Jun 4, 2016

stupot07 said:
Deja vu, you'd already replied an hour ago

Sisu and wasos read this, they will see my suggestion. What happens if sisu don't agree? Who is then to blame? Sisu for not dropping the JR which has nothing to do with Wasps, or wasps for not negotiating because of thr legals that have nothing to do with them?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Just being factual here, as Wasps own ACL and are named as an interested party they are "directly affected" by the action. How I can't tell you.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part54
(f) ‘interested party’ means any person (other than the claimant and defendant) who is directly affected by the claim;

stupot07 · Jun 4, 2016

Captain Dart said:
As Wasps own ACL and are named as an interested party they are directly affected by the action.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part54
(f) ‘interested party’ means any person (other than the claimant and defendant) who is directly affected by the claim;

It will be the previously incarnation of ACL not wasps, like the higgs who have nothing to do with acl but were back at the time of the decision. Funny how DA only mentions it as noise and not that they are directly involved. I'm sure if they were in the current incarnation of ACL directly affected, he would have made a big deal out of it.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Captain Dart · Jun 4, 2016

stupot07 said:
It will be the previously incarnation of ACL not wasps.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Derrr... so disingenuous of you, it is the same company, just different owners. If it impacts the company in any way it affects Wasps does it not?

stupot07 · Jun 4, 2016

Captain Dart said:
Derrr... so disingenuous of you, it is the same company, just different owners. If it impacts the company in any way it affects Wasps does it not?

To quoute David Armstrong

“We were never as dogmatic as to say ‘drop your legal action’. In a way, it’s none of our business if they want to have a legal action with the council.

"We felt it was creating too much attention and noise and we didn’t feel it was the right time to conclude that deal. But just to be clear, we weren’t as firm as saying drop the JRs. It’s not our business we can’t do that.”

At worst it would have little impact on wasps, this is a JR about the councils decision to loan the money to acl back 4 year ago. As Anderson says, it non of their business really.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

armybike · Jun 4, 2016

stupot07 said:
I don't have their contact details. If you or anyone can get me an email for Sisu/joy, Chris Anderson and the wasps guy I will gladly email them all with my suggestion.

Here you go -

jseppala@sisucapital.com

Chris.Anderson@ccfc.co.uk

David.Armstrong@wasps.co.uk

stupot07 · Jun 4, 2016

armybike said:
Here you go -

jseppala@sisucapital.com

Chris.Anderson@ccfc.co.uk

David.Armstrong@wasps.co.uk

I will email them later.

Interestingly re-reading Armstrong's comments, hes says “We were never as dogmatic as to say ‘drop your legal action’. In a way, it’s none of our business if they want to have a legal action with the council."

Yet won't talk until the legal action has been stopped.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Grendel · Jun 4, 2016

He can't say drop legal actions that involve a third party. No one can sign a disclaimer reneging legal actions - it's absurd and that's why he's making sound bites.

If he's asked directly he'd have to say no.

armybike · Jun 4, 2016

stupot07 said:
I will email them later.

Interestingly re-reading Armstrong's comments, hes says “We were never as dogmatic as to say ‘drop your legal action’. In a way, it’s none of our business if they want to have a legal action with the council."

Yet won't talk until the legal action has been stopped.

As others have pointed out there are indirect links between the action and Wasps via ACL.

Wasps don't want to do business whilst it's ongoing and whilst I don't personally think that's right it shouldn't stop them dealing with as they deem appropriate.

It's the same as SISU progressing with the JR. I personally don't think it's right, but if they have sort legal advice and deem it the correct course of action then that's what they should be able to do.

However your suggestion allows a middle ground and hopefully when you contact them they'll see the mutual benefit this could have.

dongonzalos · Jun 4, 2016

Grendel said:
What does dropping legals mean?

Anderson has said no it's not a factor by the way.

Did he I thought he said this....

Can you understand why there might be difficulty over negotiations while there is legal action ongoing from CCFC’s owners?

"In any negotiations, there are obstacles to finding agreement. Sometimes that’s over the issues at hand, sometimes those have to do with the parties involved.

"I really don’t know enough about the issues to address the legal angle - please correct me if I’m wrong, but if I understand correctly, Wasps are not the defendants in any of the proceedings."

You really need to stop lying it's not a great idea when you are falsely accusing others, when they make a point you struggle with.

dongonzalos · Jul 14, 2017

chiefdave said:
I had to do a short course on the basics of contract law a few years ago. The first thing we were told is just because something is in a contract does not make it true or enforceable. Its the same principle here. He's given a soundbite, probably fed to him by a PR company, which those pre-disposed to blame everything on the club will latch on to.

No legal action is being taken or planned against Wasps. No legal action being taken or planned by SISU can impact on Wasps. So how does it impact on the ability to agree a deal to stay at the Ricoh?

People really fell for the bullshit that the legal action doesn't affect Wasps.
Hopefully after today's revelations some people will start to realise how much they have been played!!

Super_Johnny_Gayle · Jul 14, 2017

dongonzalos said:
People really fell for the bullshit that the legal action doesn't affect Wasps.
Hopefully after today's revelations some people will start to realise how much they have been played!!

I and many did not fall for this bullshit

dongonzalos · Jul 14, 2017

stupot07 said:
All sementics, there are no negotiations, they have stopped. Hes embellishing the truth, making everything look hunky dory but then blaming the JR which has nothing to do with wasps, has no affect on wasps and is no longer causing a ripple of interest.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Oooops

hill83 · Jul 14, 2017

Quick panic check of an old thread as usual to see if I've made a tit of myself.

Nope. Nailed it again with an 8/10 corker early on.

dongonzalos · Jul 14, 2017

Super_Johnny_Gayle said:
I and many did not fall for this bullshit

Too right the people on here slating Wasps saying the legal action doesn't affect them and that they are liars who just want to force us out!!!!
Having non of the idea that legal action massively impacted Wasps and that it was ridiculous to try and negotiate a 10 year business deal with them whilst dragging them into legal action.

SISU had just wrote them a letter saying we are going to seek damages from you!!!

Anyway now back to that deal (genius)

You couldn't bloody write it

dongonzalos · Jul 14, 2017

hill83 said:
Quick panic check of an old thread as usual to see if I've made a tit of myself.

Nope. Nailed it again with an 8/10 corker early on.

You are safe as houses on this one

hill83 · Jul 14, 2017

dongonzalos said:
You are safe as houses on this one

You must be loving it today though. Right one time out of 100 is still right.

skybluetony176 · Jul 14, 2017

dongonzalos said:
Too right the people on here slating Wasps saying the legal action doesn't affect them and that they are liars who just want to force us out!!!!
Having non of the idea that legal action massively impacted Wasps and that it was ridiculous to try and negotiate a 10 year business deal with them whilst dragging them into legal action.

SISU had just wrote them a letter saying we are going to seek damages from you!!!

Anyway now back to that deal (genius)

You couldn't bloody write it

Must admit that I said at the time that I didn't buy the legal noise stopping the negotiations but then I wasn't aware of what was going on behind the scenes, as was no one else who got it wrong.

I clearly got it wrong though.

dongonzalos · Jul 14, 2017

hill83 said:
You must be loving it today though. Right one time out of 100 is still right.

It's the shit I got in this thread.
Sorry for the outrageous "I told you so" but when you read the thread you can understand the gloating
Every dog has their day. !!

Nearly up there with me saying .....
We should have signed that long term rental deal with ACL
Or we should ditch JR1 and get back to the Ricoh ASAP in a long term rental deal.
Or Division 4 one day might not be as bad for SISU as some may think. It's the quickest way to get us to break even whilst we wait for this pointless legal action to come to its end.

All slated by the same individuals on here as bollox.

Hey Ho as Grendel says who cares who SISU piss off they are making decisions that are in the best interests of CCFC.

chiefdave · Jul 14, 2017

dongonzalos said:
Too right the people on here slating Wasps saying the legal action doesn't affect them and that they are liars who just want to force us out!!!!

Was in meetings all day so couldn't follow too closely. Was it said why Section 128 wouldn't afford Wasps protection against an additional payment?

wingy · Jul 14, 2017

It's interesting that Wasps chose not to bring it out into the open, don't you think.

dongonzalos · Jul 15, 2017

wingy said:
It's interesting that Wasps chose not to bring it out into the open, don't you think.

Yes very

dongonzalos · Jul 15, 2017

chiefdave said:
Was in meetings all day so couldn't follow too closely. Was it said why Section 128 wouldn't afford Wasps protection against an additional payment?

I haven't seen anything on that, sorry

skybluetony176 · Jul 15, 2017

skybluetony176 said:
Before he joined CCFC he dealt in statistics, he's now having to deal with reality. He could talk the talk, for me he isn't walking the walk. Got a feeling he won't be here that much longer and I suspect that will be his choice. That's based on nothing but a gut feeling by the way before anyone asks for a link.

Nailed this one though

chiefdave · Jul 15, 2017

dongonzalos said:
I haven't seen anything on that, sorry

Would be very interesting to know why SISU think that shouldn't apply. Section 128 basically protects the buyer in the event the public body who were the sellers are later found to have not followed the correct procedure.

skybluetony176 · Jul 15, 2017

fernandopartridge said:
It's OK, Tony Sugar thinks he isn't 'walking the walk'.

He walked alright

skybluetony176 · Jul 15, 2017

wingy said:
It's interesting that Wasps chose not to bring it out into the open, don't you think.

I guess they didn't need to. At least not to the opportune moment anyway.

wingy · Jul 15, 2017

skybluetony176 said:
I guess they didn't need to. At least not to the opportune moment anyway.

Might have affected the Bond Price possibly?

martcov · Jul 15, 2017

I thought that Wasps were right as long as JR2 was in the air, but never dreamed of the suggestion that Wasps should pay the council 30 million. If I were the judge I would offer SISU the Ricoh for 50 million to be paid to the council and the council to pay Wasps their money back. 14 days to do it or pay all costs and leave Coventry for ever. ;-)

Chris Anderson (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency