LAtest lagal action (that can't be halted) (1 Viewer)

rob9872 · Jun 10, 2019

I keep reading that people see no way back to the Ricoh this time around, so does anyone know the timeline on this round of events and when it will be resolved? Eg will it be within the 12 month's exile?

Presumably if they find in favour of under-sold, Wasps go bust. If they find in favour of a fair deal, that concludes proceedings and there is no requirement to indemnify losses and negotiation can then be reached between the two parties. Of course the objective is to distress Wasps so that they can't cope with the loss of revenue (no European rugby either), but if there are no more legals after that, what then blocks any likely long term deal being struck?

ccfcway · Jun 10, 2019

If this case is lost, won't the civil action then commence ?

cooperskyblue · Jun 10, 2019

All I would love to know is once SISU have exhausted all legal options and assuming they all come to no avail, then what? What will they do next?

OffenhamSkyBlue · Jun 10, 2019

As i understand it, the EC are currently undertaking a preliminary investigation of the facts to determine if they believe there is a case to answer. In a post last week, i quoted some expert in EU process who said that the current Commissioner for Competition was going after the global organisations such as Amazon who were guilty offences running to tens of billions of Euros (so she may think the Ricoh deal is small potatoes and won't bother wasting her resources on it). A new Commissioner (due to be elected in the Autumn) may take a different view.
IF ... they decide from the preliminary that it is not worthy of full investigation (which may WELL be within a year), that will be the end of it.
I don't know if anyone can appeal those decisions to the CJEU.

If the EC want to pursue it to its conclusion, they may or may not find that it was undersold. If they DO, it will be referred back to the legal system in the member state for them to impose fines as they see fit. As we know, the High Court, the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court have found that it wasn't undersold, but if the EC INSTRUCT them that Article 107 on State Aid has been broken, they will have to look again.

This will take years, during which time W*sps could quite happily have hosted us!

NB W*sps missed out on the European Champions Cup, but they will have European rugby in the shape of the junior Challenge Cup competition. Worcester Warriors found that a real money-spinner last season.

OffenhamSkyBlue · Jun 10, 2019

ccfcway said:
If this case is lost, won't the civil action then commence ?

Well it may, although the legal agreement that SISU signed stated that they would not take direct legal action against W*sps. If they adhered to that going forward, then W*sps might be happy, and SISU would be in breach of any tenancy contract if they issued a civil claim against them.

Nick · Jun 10, 2019

OffenhamSkyBlue said:
Well it may, although the legal agreement that SISU signed stated that they would not take direct legal action against W*sps. If they adhered to that going forward, then W*sps might be happy, and SISU would be in breach of any tenancy contract if they issued a civil claim against them.

Not many are mentioning that they signed to say no more legals going forward from them.

OffenhamSkyBlue · Jun 10, 2019

Nick said:
Not many are mentioning that they signed to say no more legals going forward from them.

Funny that ...

But going forward from THIS point, i think any new negotiations would have to include that agreement again, as the previous agreement is now worthless.

chiefdave · Jun 10, 2019

ccfcway said:
If this case is lost, won't the civil action then commence ?

ccfc said:
In mid-April, SISU signed an undertaking to irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh Arena

Would depend if the agreement fell away when Wasps wouldn't agree a new deal. If it did then frankly Wasps have only got themselves to blame if legal action is launched against them.

Sbarcher · Jun 10, 2019

A spanner in the works........ if this drags beyond end of October when we "leave" the EU, will that court have any jurisdiction in the UK?

OffenhamSkyBlue · Jun 10, 2019

chiefdave said:
Would depend if the agreement fell away when Wasps wouldn't agree a new deal. If it did then frankly Wasps have only got themselves to blame if legal action is launched against them.

That would be my interpretation - that the agreement was only extant during a period in which the two parties were bound by a contract (which doesn't exist, as we know!)

chiefdave · Jun 10, 2019

Sbarcher said:
A spanner in the works........ if this drags beyond end of October when we "leave" the EU, will that court have any jurisdiction in the UK?

Yes. It is hugely unlikely, even if we crash out with no deal, that cases like this will just be dropped.

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 10, 2019

chiefdave said:
Would depend if the agreement fell away when Wasps wouldn't agree a new deal. If it did then frankly Wasps have only got themselves to blame if legal action is launched against them.

Contradicted by the Wasps statement:

Nick Eastwood said:
...we have unfortunately been unable to reach agreement with the owners which, putting aside the complaint to the European Commission, would deliver the fundamental principal that there would be no further proceedings about the ownership of the Ricoh Arena

Too many conflicting elements in all statements. As ever, I'll believe nobody.

OffenhamSkyBlue · Jun 10, 2019

Sbarcher said:
A spanner in the works........ if this drags beyond end of October when we "leave" the EU, will that court have any jurisdiction in the UK?

Dear Spanner
I forget what was said when the EC complaint came to light, but i think the answer was that it is the government's stated intention to enshrine all EU Law into UK Statute, so that may affect things. But given that they have already kicked it into touch on the point of it not being undervalued, i don't think it would progress.

Nick · Jun 10, 2019

Deleted member 5849 said:
Contradicted by the Wasps statement:

Too many conflicting elements in all statements. As ever, I'll believe nobody.

Do you think wasps putting that statement out works well with the local media not really mentioning that sisu had signed something to call off legal action going forward?

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 10, 2019

Nick said:
Do you think wasps putting that statement out works well with the local media not really mentioning that sisu had signed something to call off legal action going forward?

I think it suggests that there's a severe conflict in the statements, and rather than accepting any of them, it's best to view all of them with a healthy scepticism as both sides use a liberal interpretation of whatever went on in confidential talks to show themselves in the best light.

Nick · Jun 10, 2019

Deleted member 5849 said:
I think it suggests that there's a severe conflict in the statements, and rather than accepting any of them, it's best to view all of them with a healthy scepticism as both sides use a liberal interpretation of whatever went on in confidential talks to show themselves in the best light.

Try asking Gilbert about it. That's telling also.

OffenhamSkyBlue · Jun 10, 2019

Nick said:
Try asking Gilbert about it. That's telling also.

He'll only quote David Conn-Artist and say he's not here to give his opinion ...

chiefdave · Jun 10, 2019

Deleted member 5849 said:
Contradicted by the Wasps statement

Not really. The original requirement of Wasps was that SISU / CCFC stop all legal action against them. That was agreed to and SISU signed the undertaking.

Wasps then changed their requirements to no action being taken by anyone against Wasps or third parties regarding the Ricoh. That is a condition it is literally impossible for SISU / CCFC to meet.

chiefdave · Jun 10, 2019

Deleted member 5849 said:
I think it suggests that there's a severe conflict in the statements, and rather than accepting any of them, it's best to view all of them with a healthy scepticism as both sides use a liberal interpretation of whatever went on in confidential talks to show themselves in the best light.

The conflict is Wasps with themselves, just go back and read their statements. Originally they were about legal action being halted. Compare what they were saying before to what they are saying now. Here's one example which was as recently as March this year.

We are happy to talk to the club about extending their ground-sharing arrangements at the Ricoh Arena – an outcome which is favoured by all parties – but on the condition that the club’s owners permanently and unconditionally cease their legal action in relation to the purchase of the Ricoh Arena.

That condition has been met. There is no ambiguity there. Wasps set the condition, SISU met them, Wasps changed them.

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 10, 2019

chiefdave said:
Not really. The original requirement of Wasps was that SISU / CCFC stop all legal action against them. That was agreed to and SISU signed the undertaking.

Wasps then changed their requirements to no action being taken by anyone against Wasps or third parties regarding the Ricoh. That is a condition it is literally impossible for SISU / CCFC to meet.

Wasps claim:

Nick Eastwood said:
We made it a pre-requisite of talks that the owners would stop pursuing proceedings around the ownership of the Ricoh Arena

I repeat, there is a serious conflict. Why on earth would you take at face value any of them?!?

fernandopartridge · Jun 10, 2019

OffenhamSkyBlue said:
Funny that ...

But going forward from THIS point, i think any new negotiations would have to include that agreement again, as the previous agreement is now worthless.

The previous agreement may have been worthless to begin with, as the definitions of legal action might have been too narrow.

Nick · Jun 10, 2019

Deleted member 5849 said:
Wasps claim:

I repeat, there is a serious conflict. Why on earth would you take at face value any of them?!?

Wasps said they wouldn't even talk until that condition was met.

They did talk in the end didn't they? So either the condition was met or they contradicted themselves by starting discussions without it.

Nick · Jun 10, 2019

So if it wasn't met, why did they enter discussions after they said they wouldn't?

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 10, 2019

Nick said:
Wasps said they wouldn't even talk until that condition was met.

They did talk in the end didn't they? So either the condition was met or they contradicted themselves by starting discussions without it.

If we're talking things that change magically, we're in dangerous territory wrt the club and owners, and plans A and B in particular!

Are we seriously now saying it's bad that Wasps diudn't stick to a no talk line?!?

skybluepm2 · Jun 10, 2019

The agreement signed by SISU in April to cease or refrain from carrying out any further legal action, was made at a time that their complaint to the EU had already been lodged, unbeknown (albeit naively) to Wasps, which to me was immoral and underhand.

The ‘it’s not legal action’ argument still doesn’t wash with me personally, as it potentially has the same outcome as SISU had hoped to obtain by going through the UK Courts. The aim remains as it always has done.

At the same time, if Wasps remain confident of no wrongdoing, it should not have prevented them from entering into a new deal with CCFC. I certainly back the club to reject any calls to indemnify Wasps should they have to pay compensation, but this all stems from SISU’s own greed and obsession to fruitlessly chase the Ricoh yet again.

skybluetony176 · Jun 10, 2019

ccfcway said:
If this case is lost, won't the civil action then commence ?

What’s the civil cases going to be based on? Certainly no JR result, certainly not the finding of any EU investigation if no wrongdoing is found to have been done. If anything you would think it be the council or wasps would have a case for spurious litigation against the club, ARVO and SISU. There is a president for doing that, it is recognised in a court of law.

chiefdave · Jun 10, 2019

Deleted member 5849 said:
Wasps claim:

I repeat, there is a serious conflict. Why on earth would you take at face value any of them?!?

Are you not reading what Wasps previously claimed?
Here again is their statement from 29th March 2019

We are happy to talk to the club about extending their ground-sharing arrangements at the Ricoh Arena – an outcome which is favoured by all parties – but on the condition that the club’s owners permanently and unconditionally cease their legal action in relation to the purchase of the Ricoh Arena.

chiefdave · Jun 10, 2019

skybluepm2 said:
The agreement signed by SISU in April to cease or refrain from carrying out any further legal action, was made at a time that their complaint to the EU had already been lodged, unbeknown (albeit naively) to Wasps, which to me was immoral and underhand.

The ‘it’s not legal action’ argument still doesn’t wash with me personally, as it potentially has the same outcome as SISU had hoped to obtain by going through the UK Courts. The aim remains as it always has done.

The 'it's not legal action' argument may not wash with you personally but it is factually correct. And that's before you even consider any EC action will be against CCC not Wasps.

Nick · Jun 10, 2019

Deleted member 5849 said:
If we're talking things that change magically, we're in dangerous territory wrt the club and owners, and plans A and B in particular!

Are we seriously now saying it's bad that Wasps diudn't stick to a no talk line?!?

No, im saying they were adament legals needed to be dropped before they would enter discussions.

It's said sisu signed to drop legals.

Wasps then enter negotiations and discussions which they said they wouldn't.

Either way, there's a contradiction in what they are saying isn't there?

Nick · Jun 10, 2019

chiefdave said:
Are you not reading what Wasps previously claimed?
Here again is their statement from 29th March 2019

Exactly, which matches up with what is said to have been done.

Wasps did enter negotiations and discussions.

chiefdave · Jun 10, 2019

Deleted member 5849 said:
If we're talking things that change magically, we're in dangerous territory wrt the club and owners, and plans A and B in particular!

Are we seriously now saying it's bad that Wasps diudn't stick to a no talk line?!?

Not really the same is it. Wasps repeated the same requirement over and over again for months on every statement. SISU agreed to those requirements. Every statement from Wasps since SISU agreed to the requirements has contained different requirements.

Its not hard to see.

Skyblueweeman · Jun 10, 2019

How do you lot get any work done every day?!

skybluepm2 · Jun 10, 2019

chiefdave said:
The 'it's not legal action' argument may not wash with you personally but it is factually correct. And that's before you even consider any EC action will be against CCC not Wasps.

Factually correct at present Dave yes, but further down the line? And yes, again The complaint is made against CCC, but who would be the ones coughing up if found to be in breach? Certainly not our chums in the council house.

chiefdave · Jun 10, 2019

Skyblueweeman said:
How do you lot get any work done every day?!

We're paid by SISU / Coventry Council* to be on here all day.

*delete as appropriate

Nick · Jun 10, 2019

chiefdave said:
Not really the same is it. Wasps repeated the same requirement over and over again for months on every statement. SISU agreed to those requirements. Every statement from Wasps since SISU agreed to the requirements has contained different requirements.

Its not hard to see.

That's the thing.

The SISU statement about dropping legals matches what Wasps were saying had to be done for talks to happen in the first place, talks happened.

LAtest lagal action (that can't be halted) (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Administrator

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency