Nick
Administrator
Exactly, I hope I am wrong but I can just see another public reason coming out they can shout about to stop talks.
There isn't any evidence of desperation from Wasps and even the richest man in the world would never indemnify somebody against losses due to the action of a 3rd party.
Two years? Positively long term, that!Let's hope the pissing about stops now and they sign the 2 year deal that was agreed, I'm not holding my breath though
On the back of Gilbert's twitter poll to see if people will go to St Andrews I'm wary about this update, it could well be more PR. It's funny how these polls keep popping up, Gilbert, Linnell et al. Wasps have probably come back to the table to inform the club no one is going to St Andrews.
I'd take it right now.Two years? Positively long term, that!
Yep him, the most transparent of the lot.You mean Linnell who spends games in boxes with Hoffman who is apparently backed by a Rugby Club Owner?
Wasps could walk away again at half 3 this afternoon and everybody would blame the club / SISU.
Trying to follow the logic of 'Wasps now talking'
Wasps know that the EC complaint can't be retracted and they (and we) know SISU won't cover any financial impact down the line.
Therefore I can only see this as a positive - really can't see any mileage in reigniting talks to walk away again (from Wasps perspective). People's mindsets are already fairly entrenched in terms of blame, so not sure what is to be gained from this. If they walked away and said SISU won't agree to cover 'future EC costs' they would get little sympathy from the general public.
Perhaps I am naïve, but can only see the good in this?
Cue Birmingham to sue CCFC for pulling out of agreement !!!!
Maybe the reason Wasps said they were stopping talks wasn't because of legals. The same as when they did the same as few years ago halfway through when Hoffman appeared, had a bid rejected and Wasps went back into talks?
It could be both sides just calling each other's bluff.
Did Wasps seriously think though that SISU would not plan for the eventuality that CCFC were not back at the Ricoh last season? It seems odd based on any knowledge of what's gone on in the past but who knows? Were they hoping for intervention from the EFL?
Trying to follow the logic of 'Wasps now talking'
Wasps know that the EC complaint can't be retracted and they (and we) know SISU won't cover any financial impact down the line.
Therefore I can only see this as a positive - really can't see any mileage in reigniting talks to walk away again (from Wasps perspective). People's mindsets are already fairly entrenched in terms of blame, so not sure what is to be gained from this. If they walked away and said SISU won't agree to cover 'future EC costs' they would get little sympathy from the general public.
Perhaps I am naïve, but can only see the good in this?
Cue Birmingham to sue CCFC for pulling out of agreement !!!!
This is a negotiation with complications
It was never going to be straight-forward but essentially Wasps and CCFC need each other
And Wasps would probably prefer to avoid the bad PR of forcing the local football team out
The complication is CCC and SISU, both of whom are dogs with fleas
Hopefully the two sports clubs can resolve things for next season at least
From what I’ve heard from peeps in the club. Wasps moved their position end of last week. Until then it had been full steam St. Andrews. That is now the backstop. Ricoh is now in pole position and announcements about new deal expected early next week.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
What day to ya rekon it will be announced?BUMP
Just need to agree definition of “early next week”
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Maybe the reason Wasps said they were stopping talks wasn't because of legals. The same as when they did the same as few years ago halfway through when Hoffman appeared, had a bid rejected and Wasps went back into talks?
Gilbert chatting shite as usual, thats why the club constantly said that talks were continuing but wasps never commented. Its all about wasps playing a game to get the best dealHmmm
So what have Gilbert and the Telegraph been trying their hardest to push for the past week or so with things like this?
Frankly, other than the lease of the Ricoh prohibiting the leaseholder (i.e. Wasps) from sub-letting the stadium, the negotiations between Wasps and City are NOTHING to do with the Council, so how the FUCK can they be a complication?It's telling that CCC is still a complication in Wasps being able to do a deal.
I assume they were hoping for the EFL to not allow it (just going by what the usual social media people were pushing over and over). The same when their bloke was encouraging protests.
Hoffman has gone quiet again though, he piped up a little bit and then the bit in the Telegraph about his new backers.
These types are already trying to push how Wasps are now being fair
Why should CCFC pay for running costs at the stadium for any more than the equivalent of the time they have use of it per year? These people are crackers. Do they not realise that the rent is the base cost of hiring the space and that there are additional costs on top?
Frankly, other than the lease of the Ricoh prohibiting the leaseholder (i.e. Wasps) from sub-letting the stadium, the negotiations between Wasps and City are NOTHING to do with the Council, so how the FUCK can they be a complication?
I'm firmly of the belief (from the coincidence of timings, Giblet's twitterings, etc) that the EC contacted the Council to inform them that they were undertaking a preliminary investigation under Article 107, and required certain information to be provided, at which point the Council leaked it to Wasps who shat themselves and pulled out.
I hope that Wasps have seen sense and realised how long-term this investigation may be, or some other assurance (but NOT indemnification by SISU) - or sheer fear - has brought them back to the table
I’ve no problem with this as long as we get our value in income from the RICOH - we should pay maintenance costs but receive a share of any naming rightsWhy should CCFC pay for running costs at the stadium for any more than the equivalent of the time they have use of it per year? These people are crackers. Do they not realise that the rent is the base cost of hiring the space and that there are additional costs on top?
99.999% of stuff that comes out that guys mouth is bollocks. I had to mute him many years ago.Not sure the Telegraph could be any more obvious if they tried trying to push this angle
View attachment 12245
Alright m8, no one likes a smartarse...BUMP
Just need to agree definition of “early next week”
SISU might provide some useful consultancy to Wasps in how to move assets about.....
Did cross my mind when people were talking about taking on 50%, although I don't know if bonds can be distressed and made to vanish?
Did cross my mind when people were talking about taking on 50%, although I don't know if bonds can be distressed and made to vanish?
Yes but what if the stadium vanishes after all we built one somewhere but nobody can find itThe Company can be distressed ( WASPS FINANCE plc ) the bonds wont vanish as they are secured on the stadium.
Yes but what if the stadium vanishes after all we built one somewhere but nobody can find it
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?