New Stadium Announcement!!!!!! (3 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

It was in wasps statement “putting aside the Complaint” im convinced the end goal is to sue the council - if state aid is found the remedy is going to get wasps anyway.

I don’t see how suing the council for damages affects wasps though

Who says it’s just the council they’d sue?

 

---

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

Who says it’s just the council they’d sue?

well that’s the end all legals against Wasps undertaking they’ve signed

 

[mark82]

A few thoughts:
1) When is the next SCG / when will we get an opportunity to question the club about the plans?
2) what is the consensus on here on whether we will get an opportunity to have an input into the design (Sandra Garlick style)? Will we / should we?
3) No Leicester builders should be allowed on site without direct supervision of a City fan. Don’t want no shitty shirts under the stand, as the rumour goes regarding the Ricoh.

Am I getting my hopes up too much?

Me & Pete are talking about trying to get a follow up meeting with the club once this year's plans have been announced so we can put some of these questions.

Regarding the SCG, this is now the supporters forum which is held approximately quarterly. The last one was postponed/cancelled due to the COVID outbreak. Sure there will be one held in the not too distant future. Pete will be representing this board when the time comes.

 

[shmmeee]

well that’s the end all legals against Wasps undertaking they’ve signed

Does “Ceasing” apply to future legals that haven’t started yet is the question. Similarly does an undertaking to cease all action against Wasps relating to reversing the sale of the Ricoh cover a damages claim?

Reading both statements it’s clear what Sisu signed wasn’t what Wasps wanted signing. Considering Sisus record with weasel words I wouldn’t be surprised to see them try and claim they had stopped all action against Wasps because there wasn’t any. Same argument used on this forum incessantly. But when it comes down to legalese you can’t pull that sort of rhetorical trick.

I’m just going with Occams Razor and the info in both statements. It fits and doesn’t require insanity on anyone’s part. Wasps fundamentally want to be left alone in the Ricoh and Sisu fundamentally don’t want that and that’s the issue.

 

[tisza]

Just wondering what's in this for the university?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Universities in a competitive "market" environment - entering all sorts of partnerships (inc sporting).

 

[Sbarcher]

Universities in a competitive "market" environment - entering all sorts of partnerships (inc sporting).

As I said in a previous comment, Warwick Uni could replace Loughborough as being the English Centre of Excellence for sports.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

Does “Ceasing” apply to future legals that haven’t started yet is the question. Similarly does an undertaking to cease all action against Wasps relating to reversing the sale of the Ricoh cover a damages claim?

Reading both statements it’s clear what Sisu signed wasn’t what Wasps wanted signing. Considering Sisus record with weasel words I wouldn’t be surprised to see them try and claim they had stopped all action against Wasps because there wasn’t any. Same argument used on this forum incessantly. But when it comes down to legalese you can’t pull that sort of rhetorical trick.

I’m just going with Occams Razor and the info in both statements. It fits and doesn’t require insanity on anyone’s part. Wasps fundamentally want to be left alone in the Ricoh and Sisu fundamentally don’t want that and that’s the issue.

I’m sure the undertaking referred to all future legals agaisnt Wasps.

initially the undertaking was enough. So one has to feel that wasps were ok with it.

I assume the indemnity came in to cover the state aid potential losses. they want us to sign that indemnity - I think their use of “future legals” is a cover for them not to use the word indemnity

 

[fernandopartridge]

But state aid remedies aren’t designed to punish, they’re designed to put the market back how it was. And either way any remedy would take into account existing legal agreements.A remedy that left Sisu considerably richer and CCC and Wasps out of pocket would rightfully be appealed. And if there’s a legal agreement in place for Sisu to pay Wasps what they’re ordered to pay back then the remedy won’t work as intended either. Doesn’t make sense.

State Aid remedy isn’t the prize for Sisu, it’s the follow up claims. I’d put my house on it. The idea it’s about the state aid remedy comes entirely from this forum and isn’t mentioned in either statement from the parties involved. In fact Wasps explicitly state they’ve set aside the state aid and it’s all about future legals. The CCFC statement is very carefully worded to leave you with an impression but if you read it closely they’re not saying that either.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, I understand remedies. I had written a third para about SISU subsequently claiming damages but I am not sure who they'd claim them from or how such damages would be reasonably calculated.

I struggle to see how they could go after anybody but CCC and how SISU's loss could be reasonably calculated. So, aside from a court claim for the sake of it, I don't think there is a big damages prize dangling at the end unlike you. Therefore, the remedies in themselves come into play.

 

[shmmeee]

I’m sure the undertaking referred to all future legals agaisnt Wasps.

initially the undertaking was enough. So one has to feel that wasps were ok with it.

I assume the indemnity came in to cover the state aid potential losses. they want us to sign that indemnity - I think their use of “future legals” is a cover for them not to use the word indemnity

If that is what it said why does neither side say that? I know we’ve all assumed that about the indemnity but it doesn’t make sense really. As I say any remedy would take account of existing legal agreements.

Just trying to disentangle what was actually said by both parties and forum lore that’s grown since.

 

[shmmeee]

I'm not sure what you're talking about, I understand remedies. I had written a third para about SISU subsequently claiming damages but I am not sure who they'd claim them from or how such damages would be reasonably calculated.

I struggle to see how they could go after anybody but CCC and how SISU's loss could be reasonably calculated. So, aside from a court claim for the sake of it, I don't think there is a big damages prize dangling at the end unlike you. Therefore, the remedies in themselves come into play.

Then you’ve got to explain why Wasps put aside the state aid complaint (which includes remedies) and agreement still couldn’t be reached.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

If that is what it said why does neither side say that? I know we’ve all assumed that about the indemnity but it doesn’t make sense really. As I say any remedy would take account of existing legal agreements.

Just trying to disentangle what was actually said by both parties and forum lore that’s grown since.

The club did say that. Wasps have so far refused to mention or acknowledge the indemnity clause. They’ve stuck behind the vague “legals.” One can only assume that it wouldn’t look good for them - what with them being PR conscious

obviously the state aid complaint didn’t include remedies or they wouldn’t ask for indemnity. It’s like saying “well I know you’ve complained about us but we’ll let that go... but we do want you to cover us.”

SISU want Wasps bust from the remedy, so technically there never will be legals agaisnt them. As you’ve said - it’s a loophole

 

[Nick]

“Despite significant progress being made in the discussions, we have unfortunately been unable to reach an agreement with the owners which, putting aside the complaint to the European Commission, would deliver the fundamental principle that there would be no further proceedings about the ownership of the Ricoh Arena.”

From: Club Statement

(notice how I’ve informed you of something you didn’t know/have forgotten and haven’t made any aspersions about your allegiance or honesty?)

Ah my apologies, it was early. I took it as "they had put the money aside for it". What a fucking knob!

It begs the question why Wasps have always been so desperate for the legal against CCC to be dropped, even before the EU stuff where they may have to hand some money over.

 

[oldfiver]

Ah my apologies, it was early. I took it as "they had put the money aside for it". What a fucking knob!

It begs the question why Wasps have always been so desperate for the legal against CCC to be dropped, even before the EU stuff where they may have to hand some money over.

The question should be asked to CCC - "what indemnity agreements are there between them and WASPS"?
They will try and hide behind commercial confidentiality but WASPS could agree to the publication

There will be some "normal" trading undertakings but none of these should cause a complaint to the EU Court

 

[fernandopartridge]

Then you’ve got to explain why Wasps put aside the state aid complaint (which includes remedies) and agreement still couldn’t be reached.

We've been over this before, without knowing what the wording of the undertaking is we don't know.

 

[Saddlebrains]

Lads.


We've done the legals argument to death. Leave it ffs. Like constantly watching a shit repeat

 

[fernandopartridge]

Lads.


We've done the legals argument to death. Leave it ffs. Like constantly watching a shit repeat

Agreed! I'll stop posting about it as it is depressing

 

[oldfiver]

Lads.


We've done the legals argument to death. Leave it ffs. Like constantly watching a shit repeat

Which "legals" are they then ?

Perhaps Nick could start a seperate thread we could just ignore ?

 

[Nick]

Yeah there is a point.

Instead of letting it get dragged to that, what colour will the seats be? Have they spoken to Hill for a design?

 

[Gibbo]

No thanks

Highfield stadium

Might not get a choice.

 

[matesx]

Might not get a choice.

It'll be something depressing like the "Staples office supplies stadium"

 

[higgs]

Being realistic what has changed this year compared to last year to enable us play at the Ricoh. The goal posts haven't been moved have they?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Nick]

Being realistic what has changed this year compared to last year to enable us play at the Ricoh. The goal posts haven't been moved have they?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Think they have been binned.

 

[Liquid Gold]

Being realistic what has changed this year compared to last year to enable us play at the Ricoh. The goal posts haven't been moved have they?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

You’re going to be so shocked when you find out about The Championship.

 

[señor Santiago]

Efl zone called it..

 

[clint van damme]

Efl zone called it..

so did westendaggro but they're contradicting each other regarding the Ricoh, hopefully EFL zone right.
Going back to SA would take a bit of the shine of recent events.

 

[shmmeee]

The club did say that. Wasps have so far refused to mention or acknowledge the indemnity clause. They’ve stuck behind the vague “legals.” One can only assume that it wouldn’t look good for them - what with them being PR conscious

obviously the state aid complaint didn’t include remedies or they wouldn’t ask for indemnity. It’s like saying “well I know you’ve complained about us but we’ll let that go... but we do want you to cover us.”

SISU want Wasps bust from the remedy, so technically there never will be legals agaisnt them. As you’ve said - it’s a loophole

The club said

“Wasps demanded a further agreement to be signed both by the Football Club and SISU. This agreement introduced conditions that would unreasonably restrict the Club and SISU’s basic legal rights and would commit the Club and SISU to underwrite Wasps’ costs and any future damages. This would put the Football Club at great risk and jeopardise its future and in so doing, undermine the hard-work and success the Club has achieved over the past few seasons.”

Specifically mentioning “any future damages”. Damages aren’t awarded in a state aid case. That’s a future action.

 

[shmmeee]

(Sorry missed the agreement to stop talking about it. Will shut up now)

 

[Legia Sky Blue]

if you accept that 5 teams will bring 5000 and the other 18 average 1500
That is an average of nearly 2000 from away fans

We would certainly get 8000+ home fans even at st andrews
so minimum of 10000 and then the villa/blues games + first game would add another couple of 1000 to the average
so 12000 average minimum subject to crowds being allowed (but that would restrict us wherever we played)

Predicting crowds next season is difficult, particularly given we don't know how or when fans will be admitted in to watch again. Playing BCD initially probably also evens things up for us a bit with our Championship rivals, and means there is less pressure on the club to move back to Cov at this time. In terms of last season we averaged about 6,500, but with our winning form and a couple of expected much bigger crowds, combined with promotion and winning the league, we would have possibly got up to an average nearer 8,000 had the season been played out fully.

Our problem with staying at St Andrews however comes, once crowds are allowed back if we start to lose games regularly. In those circumstances, apart from the hardened few thousand, many will stop going, even at Championship level, particularly to mid week and televised games. I agree that all being well we could expect 8,000+ home fans to start with, but from there it will be events on the pitch that determine our support level. If we were playing in Cov I don't think the possible drop off in support would be so impactful if we struggled, particularly with the new found novelty of playing in the Championship again. My gut feeling is that we will do really well to average 10,000 at St Andrews next season, and that 8,000 will be a more likely average. I only see us averaging 12,000 if we threaten the play offs. By contrast If we were to play in Cov I think we would average between 14,000 and 20,000 depending on success levels.

 

[AOM]

so did westendaggro but they're contradicting each other regarding the Ricoh, hopefully EFL zone right.
Going back to SA would take a bit of the shine of recent events.

Hopefully!
Pretty sure EFL Zone just re-share what they read from other Twitter accounts rather than having an official source though

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

The club said

“Wasps demanded a further agreement to be signed both by the Football Club and SISU. This agreement introduced conditions that would unreasonably restrict the Club and SISU’s basic legal rights and would commit the Club and SISU to underwrite Wasps’ costs and any future damages. This would put the Football Club at great risk and jeopardise its future and in so doing, undermine the hard-work and success the Club has achieved over the past few seasons.”

Specifically mentioning “any future damages”. Damages aren’t awarded in a state aid case. That’s a future action.

I’d imagine “future damages” are any damages required to be paid to the council.

they wouldn’t be asking SISU to underwrite damages per se because the only party who could claim any sort of damage would be SISU. They signed not to do that.

I think it’s a case of semantics

 

[mark82]

Yeah there is a point.

Instead of letting it get dragged to that, what colour will the seats be? Have they spoken to Hill for a design?

We should do them black and yellow to troll Wasps.

 

[mark82]

so did westendaggro but they're contradicting each other regarding the Ricoh, hopefully EFL zone right.
Going back to SA would take a bit of the shine of recent events.

There's nothing decided either way yet. There is still hope, but time is running out.

 

[robbiekeane]

But state aid remedies aren’t designed to punish, they’re designed to put the market back how it was. And either way any remedy would take into account existing legal agreements.A remedy that left Sisu considerably richer and CCC and Wasps out of pocket would rightfully be appealed.

Where have you got this from shmmeee? Like where do you get the bit about taking into account existing legal agreements? Have you just made that up or read it somewhere?

Also you say rightfully be appealed. Not sure how you've got there either. If Wasps were the recipient of illegal state aid, correcting the market would be for Wasps to pay coventry city council the sum which is determined to have been left out of any deal. Alternatively, reverse the sale and then Coventry City council would own the stadium again and I imagine would have to put it for sale again and include everyone offering equal opportunity.

 

[tisza]

Where have you got this from shmmeee? Like where do you get the bit about taking into account existing legal agreements? Have you just made that up or read it somewhere?

Also you say rightfully be appealed. Not sure how you've got there either. If Wasps were the recipient of illegal state aid, correcting the market would be for Wasps to pay coventry city council the sum which is determined to have been left out of any deal. Alternatively, reverse the sale and then Coventry City council would own the stadium again and I imagine would have to put it for sale again and include everyone offering equal opportunity.

Would imagine the other possibility would be Wasps bond holders looking for legal redress (particularly with the current price) as the information attached to the bond sale wouldn't be correct.

 

[SBAndy]

We’re obviously miles away from this point, but if they get to a design point I really hope they include the corporate (or at least some of the corporate) in the main stand. That’s one thing I really loved at St Andrews.