chiefdave
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?
How are the EC going to fine Wasps if they find CCC to be in the wrong?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.
I'd missed that particular aspect. When did this come out, Chief?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.
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!
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.
He had no interest in making things clear, he was on a mission to paint a particular picture.
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.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.
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.
Are you expecting SISU to publish the legal document they signed? Can't see that happening.Has a definitive agreement that SISU signed been published? Just interested in the wording, and why the shift.
Are you expecting SISU to publish the legal document they signed? Can't see that happening.
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.
If CCC are found to be in the wrong that could lead to a civil case in which SISU claim lost earnings from CCC.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)?
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?
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 happensFactually 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.
Not many are mentioning that they signed to say no more legals going forward from them.
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.
So why did wasps enter talks if sisu hadn't signed the right thing?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.
Civil cases don't require the same level of evidence as criminal. Criminal requires definite evidence of wrongdoing, civil just requires "reasonable doubt"
So what? That's between Wasps and the Council. You don't want that risk then don't buy assets off a public body.
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.
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.
There hasn’t been a criminal case.
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?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.
How did it end up? Did he pay up?
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
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
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?
But there has been reviews etc to see if there was a case to answer.
So if it wasn't met, why did they enter discussions after they said they wouldn't?
But still need proof and evidence of an offence. Still a high bar.Civil cases don't require the same level of evidence as criminal. Criminal requires definite evidence of wrongdoing, civil just requires "reasonable doubt"
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?