The questions I’m going with are@mark82 @Sky Blue Pete
As you’ve got access. Could you ask the following clarifying questions?
- Why can’t negotiations continue past the EFL deadline in a similar manner to 2014?
- Have Sisu agreed to end (or not start new) all legal challenges around the sale of the Ricoh to Wasps? If not, is this a condition requested by Wasps?
- Can they release any further detail on “the indemnity” that Wasps say doesn’t exist? How do they account for such a wide disparity in claims between the two parties?
Could you also ask Wasps if possible (though appreciate they seem to not be answering you directly):
- Even if the NDA can’t be dropped without third party approval, could they release details on what exactly they are requesting CCFC/Sisu to agree to? Specifically what the indemnity involves?
You can’t play this game by eliminating negatives (“it won’t bankrupt the club”, etc) as that leaves too many positives. It’s not Guess Who. This is the clear point of contention so let’s get details.
As wasps say there isn't an indemnity. Does this mean CCFC can show this without the need of the NDA.
Good question but then does it end up being an argument about what’s classed as an indemnity?As wasps say there isn't an indemnity. Does this mean CCFC can show this without the need of the NDA.
With all these statements that seem to be contracting each other, maybe it's time for the sports minister to get involved
What other parties are we talking about here I wonder!?!Regarding the suggestion the NDA can't be dropped because other parties need to agree to it. If you believe that surely the easy answer for Wasps is "yes we're happy to drop it if everyone else agrees". Why are they saying no on somebody else's behalf?
A statement last heard in 2014!a sensible Tory
What other parties are we talking about here I wonder!?!
Their protecting CCC as it appears they have an involvement in all this . We know, everyone knows it... the truth will come shortly I guess on what went on behind the scenes. To hot a subject for it to go quiet.
A statement last heard in 2014!
And then we all have our own interpretations of it!Don’t hold your breath. We regularly go back twenty years on stuff to do with the club and council, sometimes even longer.
We’ve been being promised “the truth: coming soon” for at least the last seven.
Ooopppss CCC drop their mates Wasps in it now!That doesn't disprove anything at all.
Boddy says he let them know in writing about the deadline, names who he went to.
Wasps copy and paste "We were surprised".
It effectively just says "It was all SISU" without any actual detail.
Nothing is actually clarified though? If anything they have dropped the council in it.
Wasps don't think it was just a discussion between those 2 though, neither does Dave Boddy.
Personally I'd say would you enjoy it (Covid becomes an issue!) and did you enjoy last season.
Ultimately, if you think next season will be fun, go for it. Now, the current situation / being in Birmingham, all that might be enough for you to think it won't be fun. Only you know that, though.
I suspect the 'truth' in all of this will only come out in 50 years time, if at all, so I wouldn't let that worry you! SISU are trying to run the club cash neutral, the costs will be eye watering, so I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be contributing a fortune to SISU, regardless.
there should only be 2 parties involved . It does not concern anybody else
Retail partners aren't likely to be involved. Their deals are with ACL. Any access to F&B will come from the share ACL currently gets.Wouldn't even the owners be classed as other parties and with both having holding companies and subsidiaries and such just that complicates things. Then there's the retail partners doing food and beverage and such. Arguably the police could be a stakeholder. Then you've got the EFL for planning games. Would all these be on the NDA? It probably is more complex than we initially thought.
Retail partners aren't likely to be involved. Their deals are with ACL. Any access to F&B will come from the share ACL currently gets.
But again if the issue is genuinely a 3rd party that doesn't stop Wasps saying they have no issue dropping the NDA.
Wont' CCFC's deal be with ACL and not Wasps?Retail partners aren't likely to be involved. Their deals are with ACL. Any access to F&B will come from the share ACL currently gets.
But again if the issue is genuinely a 3rd party that doesn't stop Wasps saying they have no issue dropping the NDA.
Wont' CCFC's deal be with ACL and not Wasps?
ACL is part of Wasps. Wasps Holdings own 100% of ACL who own 100% of Arena Coventry 2006, they also own 77% of IEC.Wont' CCFC's deal be with ACL and not Wasps?
They could but that doesn't stop what they have said (basically "it isn't as simple as that) being true. As I said earlier, press them on the specifics, who are the other parties, but saying so might void the NDA itself for all we know.Retail partners aren't likely to be involved. Their deals are with ACL. Any access to F&B will come from the share ACL currently gets.
But again if the issue is genuinely a 3rd party that doesn't stop Wasps saying they have no issue dropping the NDA.
A very curious statement from Waps isn't it? I find it very surprising that there are 3rd parties involved and that they wouldn't want any of the details released, the wording around 'individuals' is also a bit surprising.
I can completely understand that they would want to redact details that were genuinely commercially sensitive but it would surely not be impossible to release a copy of the proposed terms of the deal minus any financial information to clear this up.
Even if they just responded to the "specifics" in the Boddy statement.
"We didn't know there was an EFL deadline"
"We didn't receive anything explaining this"
Either they are bullshitting or Dave Boddy has turned into a PR genius.
I have to be fair and say that the EFL deadline is a red herring in many respects and no barrier to continuing to discuss a return subject to an acceptable deal with Brum.
I have to be fair and say that the EFL deadline is a red herring in many respects and no barrier to continuing to discuss a return subject to an acceptable deal with Brum.
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?