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

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
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.
How are the EC going to fine Wasps if they find CCC to be in the wrong?

I think the reality is they wouldn't even fine CCC, doesn't any fine go to central government?
 

OffenhamSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
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.
I'd missed that particular aspect. When did this come out, Chief?
 

skybluepm2

Well-Known Member
How are the EC going to fine Wasps if they find CCC to be in the wrong?

I think the reality is they wouldn't even fine CCC, doesn't any fine go to central government?

I haven't delved into the intricacies of the potential outcomes, but had assumed that Wasps would be forced to pay a substantial and inevitably crippling level of money to CCC? If what you’re suggesting above is the case, what would be SISU’s motive for going to the EC (genuine question, not being facetious)?

You’d have thought the ‘political expert’ Gilbert would’ve made this clear when he was busy spouting his mouth off!
 

Nick

Administrator
I haven't delved into the intricacies of the potential outcomes, but had assumed that Wasps would be forced to pay a substantial and inevitably crippling level of money to CCC? If what you’re suggesting above is the case, what would be SISU’s motive for going to the EC (genuine question, not being facetious)?

You’d have thought the ‘political expert’ Gilbert would’ve made this clear when he was busy spouting his mouth off!

He had no interest in making things clear, he was on a mission to paint a particular picture.
 

olderskyblue

Well-Known Member
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.

Chief, have you got a link to that original agreement that SISU signed up to? Couldn't find it online
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Chief, have you got a link to that original agreement that SISU signed up to? Couldn't find it online
I've posted one example in this thread "the condition that the club’s owners permanently and unconditionally cease their legal action" taken from a Wasps statement. All you need to do is look at any statement from Wasps / Eastwood prior to the last couple of weeks. They all talk of legal action ending.

SISU have stated, and it hasn't been disputed by Wasps or the council, that they signed an agreement to do that in April. Now look at Wasps statements from the last couple of weeks, they talk of stopping all proceedings around the ownership of the Ricoh Arena.

Its a clear shift, not really sure how they could make it more obvious.
 

olderskyblue

Well-Known Member
I've posted one example in this thread "the condition that the club’s owners permanently and unconditionally cease their legal action" taken from a Wasps statement. All you need to do is look at any statement from Wasps / Eastwood prior to the last couple of weeks. They all talk of legal action ending.

SISU have stated, and it hasn't been disputed by Wasps or the council, that they signed an agreement to do that in April. Now look at Wasps statements from the last couple of weeks, they talk of stopping all proceedings around the ownership of the Ricoh Arena.

Its a clear shift, not really sure how they could make it more obvious.

Yes, I had seen that one, but that's what Wasps were asking for. I saw another one where SISU said they would agree, but with caveats about the council supporting them on a development, and wasps agreeing a medium term arrangement.

Has a definitive agreement that SISU signed been published? Just interested in the wording, and why the shift.
 

Nick

Administrator
Yes, I had seen that one, but that's what Wasps were asking for. I saw another one where SISU said they would agree, but with caveats about the council supporting them on a development, and wasps agreeing a medium term arrangement.

Has a definitive agreement that SISU signed been published? Just interested in the wording, and why the shift.

Think it was just said that agreement to stop legal action was signed to commence talks with Wasps. Talks then commenced with Wasps who had that as a pre-requisite.
 

olderskyblue

Well-Known Member
Are you expecting SISU to publish the legal document they signed? Can't see that happening.

No, i'm not, which is why I was asking if anything had come out about it. thought maybe one side may have leaked it if it helped their cause...
 

olderskyblue

Well-Known Member
Think it was just said that agreement to stop legal action was signed to commence talks with Wasps. Talks then commenced with Wasps who had that as a pre-requisite.

Probably right.

Although didn't Wasps have that same clause last year, and talked anyway?
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
I haven't delved into the intricacies of the potential outcomes, but had assumed that Wasps would be forced to pay a substantial and inevitably crippling level of money to CCC? If what you’re suggesting above is the case, what would be SISU’s motive for going to the EC (genuine question, not being facetious)?
If CCC are found to be in the wrong that could lead to a civil case in which SISU claim lost earnings from CCC.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
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?

I believe as long as the case is filed while still a member it will still be binding. Hence why it was filed when it was, as the UK were due to leave the EU a few weeks later so they had to get it in.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
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.

So what? That's between Wasps and the Council. You don't want that risk then don't buy assets off a public body.
 

Nick

Administrator
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.
So that's when you take issue with the people at fault for the breach if it happens
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

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

With this you really have to see exactly what was agreed to. With a lot of legal stuff it's all about one-upmanship in how carefully you word the document (basically creating loopholes)

So while we're talking about moving goalposts etc, chances are that in fact both sides were using completely different goalposts and the change in wording is Wasps saying "we didn't mean those goalposts, we meant these" or SISU saying "we don't consider this to be legal action". The change in wording is reflecting their original intention, which they realised what SISU had signed up to didn't do. Basically SISU got one over them and when they realised they said "we're not having that" and wanted the agreement rewritten more carefully to encompass what they actually meant.

I was playing pool once with a mate and was completely snookered and he said "if you pot anything here I'll give you a fiver", so I turned around and potted one of his balls over a pocket and demanded a fiver. He never said I had to pot one of my balls......

Wasps may have meant originally they wanted all legal action regarding the Ricoh to stop and none more to be begun. SISU agreed they would stop all legal action against Wasps, which isn't the same thing. Wasps legal representatives should've spotted this, but didn't and when they did they wanted the document rewritten. It all adds to the animosity and distrust and at that point talks were almost certainly irretrievable.

Some would see it as Wasps moving the goalposts and reneging, others would see it as SISU deliberately not playing in the spirit of the game.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
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.

Civil cases don't require the same level of evidence as criminal. Criminal requires definite evidence of wrongdoing, civil just requires "reasonable doubt"
 

Nick

Administrator
With this you really have to see exactly what was agreed to. With a lot of legal stuff it's all about one-upmanship in how carefully you word the document (basically creating loopholes)

So while we're talking about moving goalposts etc, chances are that in fact both sides were using completely different goalposts and the change in wording is Wasps saying "we didn't mean those goalposts, we meant these" or SISU saying "we don't consider this to be legal action". The change in wording is reflecting their original intention, which they realised what SISU had signed up to didn't do. Basically SISU got one over them and when they realised they said "we're not having that" and wanted the agreement rewritten more carefully to encompass what they actually meant.

I was playing pool once with a mate and was completely snookered and he said "if you pot anything here I'll give you a fiver", so I turned around and potted one of his balls over a pocket and demanded a fiver. He never said I had to pot one of my balls......

Wasps may have meant originally they wanted all legal action regarding the Ricoh to stop and none more to be begun. SISU agreed they would stop all legal action against Wasps, which isn't the same thing. Wasps legal representatives should've spotted this, but didn't and when they did they wanted the document rewritten. It all adds to the animosity and distrust and at that point talks were almost certainly irretrievable.

Some would see it as Wasps moving the goalposts and reneging, others would see it as SISU deliberately not playing in the spirit of the game.
So why did wasps enter talks if sisu hadn't signed the right thing?

They must have been happy with that to enter the talks.
 

olderskyblue

Well-Known Member
So why did wasps enter talks if sisu hadn't signed the right thing?

They must have been happy with that to enter the talks.

nick, you've told us ad infinitum that they did this last year without an agreement. However, i think his point is that when it came to the discussions, the understanding of the agreement (that no-one has seen btw) may have been different. It's a possibility, that's all
 

Ricketts

Well-Known Member
With this you really have to see exactly what was agreed to. With a lot of legal stuff it's all about one-upmanship in how carefully you word the document (basically creating loopholes)

So while we're talking about moving goalposts etc, chances are that in fact both sides were using completely different goalposts and the change in wording is Wasps saying "we didn't mean those goalposts, we meant these" or SISU saying "we don't consider this to be legal action". The change in wording is reflecting their original intention, which they realised what SISU had signed up to didn't do. Basically SISU got one over them and when they realised they said "we're not having that" and wanted the agreement rewritten more carefully to encompass what they actually meant.

I was playing pool once with a mate and was completely snookered and he said "if you pot anything here I'll give you a fiver", so I turned around and potted one of his balls over a pocket and demanded a fiver. He never said I had to pot one of my balls......

Wasps may have meant originally they wanted all legal action regarding the Ricoh to stop and none more to be begun. SISU agreed they would stop all legal action against Wasps, which isn't the same thing. Wasps legal representatives should've spotted this, but didn't and when they did they wanted the document rewritten. It all adds to the animosity and distrust and at that point talks were almost certainly irretrievable.

Some would see it as Wasps moving the goalposts and reneging, others would see it as SISU deliberately not playing in the spirit of the game.

How did it end up? Did he pay up?
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
So why did wasps enter talks if sisu hadn't signed the right thing?

They must have been happy with that to enter the talks.

Wasps were happy with it enough to enter talks until they realised/had it pointed out to them that the agreement didn't actually agree to what they wanted/thought it did. Hence they then tried to change it.

As I said SISU got one over them.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
However, i think his point is that when it came to the discussions, the understanding of the agreement (that no-one has seen btw) may have been different.
I'm confused. Are you suggesting wasps didn't know what was in the agreement SISU signed? That it wasn't examined by them and their lawyers, they instead just relied on SISUs word with their trackrecord for being so trustworthy?
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
How did it end up? Did he pay up?

We came to a compromise and he bought me a drink.

I was actually a bit annoyed after cos by potting his ball I'd helped him, when I could've just whacked the white in the pocket and fulfilled the requirements.
 

Nick

Administrator
nick, you've told us ad infinitum that they did this last year without an agreement. However, i think his point is that when it came to the discussions, the understanding of the agreement (that no-one has seen btw) may have been different. It's a possibility, that's all

Where did I say last year? So you think they gave wasps a bit of paper they didn't read before starting talks?
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
nick, you've told us ad infinitum that they did this last year without an agreement. However, i think his point is that when it came to the discussions, the understanding of the agreement (that no-one has seen btw) may have been different. It's a possibility, that's all

Yep, as I said above it's all down to definitions really. How you try and define legal action considering the array of direct and indirect routes is difficult.
 

olderskyblue

Well-Known Member
I'm confused. Are you suggesting wasps didn't know what was in the agreement SISU signed? That it wasn't examined by them and their lawyers, they instead just relied on SISUs word with their trackrecord for being so trustworthy?

An intent to cease legals may have been enough for Wasps to commence talks, and climb down from their previous position of "no talks" and then find out exactly what everyone is prepared to do, re a deal. That's when the real "meanings" of what everyone wants or can agree to kick in. That's when the lawyers have their fine toothcombs ready.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
But there has been reviews etc to see if there was a case to answer.

There’s been 1 Judicial Review, appeals to have a second JR heard, a commercial dispute between Higgs and the club/SISU. They’re all legal proceedings not criminal proceedings. If the EU having investigated the complaint deem no action is required as all was above board then there has neither been a legal or criminal proceeding.
 

Chipfat

Well-Known Member
If no trust is shown around the table a deal will be very hard to find. When lies and deist are also in play nobody will place themselves in harms way. This is a very tough place for all to be in and threats or demands above whats realistic will be made so not to enter into any such agreement's. Its very obvious these do not trust each other, its also very obvious that powers above both parties are very strong in deciding which path each take.

So where and how does it end? its anyone's guess, as nobody on here has the details discussed or what was demanded, just opinions on what we think. Or what we are being fed by all sides to push the spot light or misdirect the fans away from blame, it might be none of the parties really wanted a deal for whatever reason, again who knows. Its just sad and will end up effecting the players here and potential signings and no doubt its the fans that are punished for caring and supporting a club we have done for all if not most of our lives.
 

Hobo

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

You are making them sound reasonable and open to compromise.

People are too hung up on reading media statements and not allowing for what is going on behind the scenes.

Then of course it all comes down to legal interpretations rather than how much smoke each side can blow up each others ass.
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
Civil cases don't require the same level of evidence as criminal. Criminal requires definite evidence of wrongdoing, civil just requires "reasonable doubt"
But still need proof and evidence of an offence. Still a high bar.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top