shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Who says it’s just the council they’d sue?
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
well that’s the end all legals against Wasps undertaking they’ve signedWho says it’s just the council they’d sue?
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?
well that’s the end all legals against Wasps undertaking they’ve signed
Universities in a competitive "market" environment - entering all sorts of partnerships (inc sporting).Just wondering what's in this for the university?
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
As I said in a previous comment, Warwick Uni could replace Loughborough as being the English Centre of Excellence for sports.Universities in a competitive "market" environment - entering all sorts of partnerships (inc sporting).
I’m sure the undertaking referred to all future legals agaisnt Wasps.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.
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 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
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.
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 consciousIf 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.
“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.
We've been over this before, without knowing what the wording of the undertaking is we don't know.Then you’ve got to explain why Wasps put aside the state aid complaint (which includes remedies) and agreement still couldn’t be reached.
Agreed! I'll stop posting about it as it is depressingLads.
We've done the legals argument to death. Leave it ffs. Like constantly watching a shit repeat
Lads.
We've done the legals argument to death. Leave it ffs. Like constantly watching a shit repeat
Might not get a choice.No thanks
Highfield stadium
Might not get a choice.
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.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
Efl zone called it..
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
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)
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.
I’d imagine “future damages” are any damages required to be paid to the council.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.
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?
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.
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?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.
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.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.
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?