Request to waive NDA - email to Wasps, CCFC & Sisu (1 Viewer)

[Terry Gibson's perm]

Hey @Tom Leach I got a headline for you.

“Sisu willing to come clean, will CCC and Wasps do the same?”

They will get Bridge to write.

 

---

[Nick]

They will get Bridge to write.

I really hope not.

 

[Magwitch]

The majority on here seem to have changed their minds regarding Sisu, perhaps over the coming months/years they will about the Trust. Oh and by the way this includes me.

Not really, but the ground situation is and has to be the priority for us all.
Hiwever I have to say sisu/Sepalla do seem to have adopted a change in policy and more progressive as they were, time will tell on that.

 

[stay_up_skyblues]

Great work (again) both.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

From my reading of it it doesn't seem that events got to the stage whereby a contract was drafted for a return, it was just discussions. In which case there wouldn't be a smoking gun 'this is what was agreed to' piece of evidence. It will be notes written down, which prove nothing from either side.

And frankly I wouldn't believe either one of them.

 

[mark82]

From my reading of it it doesn't seem that events got to the stage whereby a contract was drafted for a return, it was just discussions. In which case there wouldn't be a smoking gun 'this is what was agreed to' piece of evidence. It will be notes written down, which prove nothing from either side.

And frankly I wouldn't believe either one of them.

From conversations I've had there's some truth in Wasps assertion that the commercial deal was close. Pretty much just the indemnities that are the problem, from clubs POV.

 

[Nick]

From my reading of it it doesn't seem that events got to the stage whereby a contract was drafted for a return, it was just discussions. In which case there wouldn't be a smoking gun 'this is what was agreed to' piece of evidence. It will be notes written down, which prove nothing from either side.

And frankly I wouldn't believe either one of them.

It must have got to the paperwork stage where there is stuff to post up, ie:

In fact, they only instructed solicitors to act for them on Monday morning when they were well aware of the Monday 5pm deadline.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

From conversations I've had there's some truth in Wasps assertion that the commercial deal was close. Pretty much just the indemnities that are the problem, from clubs POV.

It's becoming increasingly clear the only thing keeping us from playing in Coventry is the insistence we sign an indemnity.

If Wasps do not want to drop the NDA(s), then it's a reasonable indication that the Club's claims is the most plausible version of events. In this case, pressure has got to be ratcheted up on the CCC and Wasps.

 

[Nick]

It's becoming increasingly clear the only thing keeping us from playing in Coventry is the insistence we sign an indemnity.

If Wasps do not want to drop the NDA(s), then it's a reasonable indication that the Club's claims is the most plausible version of events. In this case, pressure has got to be ratcheted up on the CCC and Wasps.

That's how it has been for years though, only over the last couple of years a lot of people have started realising.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

From conversations I've had there's some truth in Wasps assertion that the commercial deal was close. Pretty much just the indemnities that are the problem, from clubs POV.

That may well be true, but it could all have been verbal up to that point with each side just having taken notes. The following would suggest there is little officially written down.

It must have got to the paperwork stage where there is stuff to post up, ie:

In fact, they only instructed solicitors to act for them on Monday morning when they were well aware of the Monday 5pm deadline.

If they're not instructing solicitors until that late there can't actually be anything concrete to report. You're not going to write anything down without the lawyers.

 

[Grendel]

That's how it has been for years though, only over the last couple of years a lot of people have started realising.

Wasos forum accusing you of calling a wasps fan a peado!

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

That may well be true, but it could all have been verbal up to that point with each side just having taken notes. The following would suggest there is little officially written down.



If they're not instructing solicitors until that late there can't actually be anything concrete to report. You're not going to write anything down without the lawyers.

If that is the case, then I’m sure Wasps will drop the NDA and allow the club to disclose ‘verbal notes’.

If Joy is willing to drop it, and Boddy says that have proof of their claims, Wasps refusing to drop the NDA suggests an admission of some sort of guilt.

 

[skyblueelephant76]

That may well be true, but it could all have been verbal up to that point with each side just having taken notes. The following would suggest there is little officially written down.



If they're not instructing solicitors until that late there can't actually be anything concrete to report. You're not going to write anything down without the lawyers.

It will have been a complex set of discussions. If it's been done properly there will be agendas, meeting minutes and correspondence. They won't just have had a few chats over the phone.

 

[Nick]

Wasos forum accusing you of calling a wasps fan a peado!

 

[tisza]

That may well be true, but it could all have been verbal up to that point with each side just having taken notes. The following would suggest there is little officially written down.



If they're not instructing solicitors until that late there can't actually be anything concrete to report. You're not going to write anything down without the lawyers.

But Wasps were informed in writing several times about the deadline according to Boddy.
Both sides state commercial deal was all but done so. Solicitors had 4 days to get it in writing so not insurmountable.
So what was the deal-breaker?
Did Wasps erroneously think deadline could be extended again or that CCFC would cave under time pressure?

 

[Nick]

That may well be true, but it could all have been verbal up to that point with each side just having taken notes. The following would suggest there is little officially written down.



If they're not instructing solicitors until that late there can't actually be anything concrete to report. You're not going to write anything down without the lawyers.

Boddy has said he has confirmed things in writing to Wasps too.

I doubt it was just a quick chat on the phone.

 

[mr_monkey]

The response from Wasps, or even the lack of one, I think will tell us a lot. As you say if the club are bluffing Wasps will happily agree to drop the NDA and let everything come out. If, on the other hand, they decide they don't want the details in the public domain I think we can all work out the most likely reason.

T

It will have been a complex set of discussions. If it's been done properly there will be agendas, meeting minutes and correspondence. They won't just have had a few chats over the phone.

If there was bugger all boddy wouldn't have mentioned it yesterday and him and joy wouldn't have asked for the NDA to be dropped

Sisu have the smoking gun and a statement already ready to publish

 

[theferret]

It will have been a complex set of discussions. If it's been done properly there will be agendas, meeting minutes and correspondence. They won't just have had a few chats over the phone.

Exactly. Wasps claim no indemnity was requested. All the club have to do is produce a document that contradicts that and it's check mate. Wasps will not lift the NDA, they're up to their cauliflower ears in a pool of bullshit.

 

[Hobo]

It doesn't really matter to me whether one or the other or both are at fault.

The fact is CCFC sharing a stadium with Wasps will not work. They have both had long enough to sort it out and would have by now if it was ever going to happen.

Time for SISU to get serious over getting us our own stadium.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

If that is the case, then I’m sure Wasps will drop the NDA and allow the club to disclose ‘verbal notes’.

If Joy is willing to drop it, and Boddy says that have proof of their claims, Wasps refusing to drop the NDA suggests an admission of some sort of guilt.

I agree that if Wasps don't agree it makes them appear they have something they wish to hide. I hope they do agree and IMO have little option but to do so.

However if that happens I imagine what each releases will be contradictory. Their notes, minutes etc may not say the same thing in which case it still looks like another case of 'he said, she said'. If anything was drafted by each sides lawyers they may not be the same. Each could selectively release something that supports their point of view. For example Boddy could release something that appears to show what he's saying but it's been superceded by another document they choose to keep quiet about, just as Wasps could.

Then you've got the possibility of each side claiming certain things have been falsified. Neither have a track record of being trustworthy.

I very much doubt this would be the clear answer to the question people think it would be. All that can be certain is that this seems to be the final thing that makes any potential working relationship between the two parties totally untenable.

 

[Razzle Dazzle Dean Gordon]

There will have been draft terms and conditions for the deal so if the NDA is dropped we will hopefully be able to see the wording of any problematic clauses and quickly figure out who has been bullshitting/misleading about this.

Props to Pete and Mark for getting on this so quickly, we really need this information to try and get some idea of why we are going to be playing football in fucking Birmingham for the forseeable. Lets hope the Uni boffins have come up with some very quick building mrthods for this stadium!

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I agree that if Wasps don't agree it makes them appear they have something they wish to hide. I hope they do agree and IMO have little option but to do so.

However if that happens I imagine what each releases will be contradictory. Their notes, minutes etc may not say the same thing in which case it still looks like another case of 'he said, she said'. If anything was drafted by each sides lawyers they may not be the same. Each could selectively release something that supports their point of view. For example Boddy could release something that appears to show what he's saying but it's been superceded by another document they choose to keep quiet about, just as Wasps could.

Then you've got the possibility of each side claiming certain things have been falsified. Neither have a track record of being trustworthy.

I very much doubt this would be the clear answer to the question people think it would be. All that can be certain is that this seems to be the final thing that makes any potential working relationship between the two parties totally untenable.

That’s fair enough, and that is a possibility if the gloves were taken off.

The interesting thing is that, so far, we’re the only party willing to provide evidence of their claims. This is significant.

On one hand, you have Wasps claiming we ‘pulled out of negotiations’. Yet, it is implausible for them to not know we had a deadline for the EFL and that it was extended more than once, tells me that this is a completely disingenuous thing to say. At best, it is utterly unprofessional.

Their statement also claimed there was ‘no indemnity on legal action’. Others have pointed this is a clever play on words, since the EU complaint is technically not legal action. Whilst the CCFC insist it was ‘absolutely a requirement’.

We know this was a fact in 2019, and the fact that Wasps have not come out and hinted what the roadblocks were despite a commercial deal being ‘close’. To me, this suggests that again, they’re being completely disingenuous.

Reading between the lines, it certainly looks like Wasps are trying to take us for absolutely fools. We can’t take it anymore.

No more legal, commercial deals close to being agreed. What else’s could possibly be stopping us from playing in Coventry?

We deserve answers.

 

[usskyblue]

TBH ..I don’t give a flyingfuck about the NDA anymore. It’s moot and so is the Ricoh. It’s history, has been for years.

The onus is on SISU now, more than ever.

Our energy needs to be directed firmly at them to follow through on tangible steps towards the new stadium.

It’s the only way forward.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

There will have been draft terms and conditions for the deal so if the NDA is dropped we will hopefully be able to see the wording of any problematic clauses and quickly figure out who has been bullshitting/misleading about this.

Props to Pete and Mark for getting on this so quickly, we really need this information to try and get some idea of why we are going to be playing football in fucking Birmingham for the forseeable. Lets hope the Uni boffins have come up with some very quick building mrthods for this stadium!

I wouldn't be surprised at seeing either side falsifying records or claiming the other had done so. Say Boddy produces a draft he says was received from Wasp's lawyers that included something about indemnity. Wasps claim this is a false document and produce their own without any mention of indemnity. Neither is trustworthy. Neither can be believed or taken at their word.

I've no doubt most on here would instantly say Wasps were the ones lying because of the CCFC interest. For me it could be either (or both to some degree).

But as I say I think Wasps have little choice but to agree to waive the NDA. But it won't be a clear solution.

 

[shmmeee]

You're saying the Dave Boddy statement this evening stating they have evidence to back their argument is euqlly vauge with the Wasps statement?

Sent from my I3113 using Tapatalk

No. I’m not making any judgement on the comparative levels of vagueness.

I’m kinda done giving out free reading comprehension lessons on here TBH. Book an adult learning course.

I’ve literally posted “I agree with this statement, because I too am sick of not knowing anything” and been attacked for it GG SBT.

 

[mark82]

TBH ..I don’t give a flyingfuck about the NDA anymore. It’s moot and so is the Ricoh. It’s history, has been for years.

The onus is on SISU now, more than ever.

Our energy needs to be directed firmly at them to follow through on tangible steps towards the new stadium.

It’s the only way forward.

I agree to a certain extent, but there's still some merit in knowing WTF is going on. As much as we dress it up 5 years at St. Andrews will be detrimental to the club, if only in the short term.

 

[mark82]

I wouldn't be surprised at seeing either side falsifying records or claiming the other had done so. Say Boddy produces a draft he says was received from Wasp's lawyers that included something about indemnity. Wasps claim this is a false document and produce their own without any mention of indemnity. Neither is trustworthy. Neither can be believed or taken at their word.

I've no doubt most on here would instantly say Wasps were the ones lying because of the CCFC interest. For me it could be either (or both to some degree).

But as I say I think Wasps have little choice but to agree to waive the NDA. But it won't be a clear solution.

If they don't agree, it'll be telling.

If documentation is produced that is contradictory there are things that can be done to determine their validity.

 

[usskyblue]

I agree to a certain extent, but there's still some merit in knowing WTF is going on. As much as we dress it up 5 years at St. Andrews will be detrimental to the club, if only in the short term.

Knowing the truth, while it’d be ‘interesting’, isn’t going to get us back in Coventry is it?

And that’s ALL that anyone wants.

Muddying through brinkmanship and bollox will do absolutely zero to help that.

 

[skyblueelephant76]

I wouldn't be surprised at seeing either side falsifying records or claiming the other had done so. Say Boddy produces a draft he says was received from Wasp's lawyers that included something about indemnity. Wasps claim this is a false document and produce their own without any mention of indemnity. Neither is trustworthy. Neither can be believed or taken at their word.

I've no doubt most on here would instantly say Wasps were the ones lying because of the CCFC interest. For me it could be either (or both to some degree).

But as I say I think Wasps have little choice but to agree to waive the NDA. But it won't be a clear solution.

I think you're imagination is getting a bit too overactive. In that scenario you'd have wasps and their lawyers falsifying documents? Or us falsifying something that came from lawyers? It's not going to happen. It's not as easy as you think to hide a trail, especially if there are third parties involved.

 

[mark82]

Knowing the truth, while it’d be ‘interesting’, isn’t going to get us back in Coventry is it?

And that’s ALL that anyone wants.

Muddying through brinkmanship and bollox will do absolutely zero to help that.

If Wasps turn out to be telling the truth then it will allow pressure to be applied to take us back. If CCFC are telling the truth it gives the opportunity to prove to some of those stay away supporters that it's not all Sisu/CCFC at fault and hopefully bring them back. Ultimately we have a divided fan base and the ability to bring more fans in on a regular basis could be important if we're exiled for the full 5 years and, frankly, if we can pressure any side into enabling a Ricoh return then that could be critical to the long term health of the club.

As you say, pushing for progress on the stadium is most important but that doesn't mean that everything else is pointless.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Knowing the truth, while it’d be ‘interesting’, isn’t going to get us back in Coventry is it?

And that’s ALL that anyone wants.

Muddying through brinkmanship and bollox will do absolutely zero to help that.

If we know who’s lying, we know who to put pressure on. That is worth something.

If it is SISU that is lying, then we tell them to cut the BS and agree a rent deal at the RICOH.

If it is Wasps that is lying, we do what we can to get all over social media, the Telegraph, and put pressure on them and the CCC.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

That’s fair enough, and that is a possibility if the gloves were taken off.

The interesting thing is that, so far, we’re the only party willing to provide evidence of their claims. This is significant.

On one hand, you have Wasps claiming we ‘pulled out of negotiations’. Yet, the plausibility of them not knowing we had a deadline for the EFL and that it was extended more than once, tells me that this is a completely disingenuous thing to say.

Their statement also claimed there was ‘no indemnity on legal action’. Others have pointed this is a clever play on words, since the EU complaint is technically not legal action. Whilst the CCFC insist it was ‘absolutely a requirement’.

We know this was a fact in 2019, and the fact that Wasps have not come out and hinted what the roadblocks were despite a commercial deal being ‘close’. To me, this suggests that again, they’re being completely disingenuous.

Reading between the lines, it certainly looks like Wasps are trying to take us for absolutely fools. We can’t take it anymore.

No more legal, commercial deals close to being agreed. What else’s could possibly be stopping us from playing in Coventry?

We deserve answers.

I agree we deserve answers. I'm just not convinced this will lead to us getting them. Just more counter claims and muddying of waters.

As you say things can be very carefully worded. For example:
“We did not require the football club or its owners to sign any indemnity around legal action over the Ricoh Arena"
could be taken as you suggest. It could also be taken that it incorporates future legal action based around the complaint.

Similarly the statement by Boddy:
"Coventry City and its Owners last year, during failed talks for the 2019-20 season, made a written undertaking to irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh Arena. No legal action against Wasps or its Owners exists, and Coventry City and its Owners have again made this same undertaking this year."
could also be said to be carefully worded legalese as it ceases all proceedings against Wasps, but not all proceedings which could have a material effect on Wasps. Similarly it could be pointed out it says legal proceedings relating to sale and lease of the Arena, not legal proceedings in their entirety. Also no legal action exists, but this does not explicitly rule out future legal action. So an agreement could have been signed and SISU start legal action the day after and no legal contract would have been broken.

This is why the legal system is so backed up because there are cases based around the tiniest little interpretations in the wording.

 

[usskyblue]

If Wasps turn out to be telling the truth then it will allow pressure to be applied to take us back. If CCFC are telling the truth it gives the opportunity to prove to some of those stay away supporters that it's not all Sisu/CCFC at fault and hopefully bring them back. Ultimately we have a divided fan base and the ability to bring more fans in on a regular basis could be important if we're exiled for the full 5 years and, frankly, if we can pressure any side into enabling a Ricoh return then that could be critical to the long term health of the club.

As you say, pushing for progress on the stadium is most important but that doesn't mean that everything else is pointless.

The attitudes of SISU, W*sps and CCC won’t change. The relationship between them is toxic. And barring HUGE changes on any one side, the relationship is dead.

As long as these three parties contain the same individuals, we will never play at the Ricoh again. Even if Wasps go fucking bust.

It’s time to move on and push SISU towards the wall they’ve backed themselves in to.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

If Wasps turn out to be telling the truth then it will allow pressure to be applied to take us back. If CCFC are telling the truth it gives the opportunity to prove to some of those stay away supporters that it's not all Sisu/CCFC at fault and hopefully bring them back. Ultimately we have a divided fan base and the ability to bring more fans in on a regular basis could be important if we're exiled for the full 5 years and, frankly, if we can pressure any side into enabling a Ricoh return then that could be critical to the long term health of the club.

As you say, pushing for progress on the stadium is most important but that doesn't mean that everything else is pointless.

If it were to prove Wasps were telling the truth (which as I say anything being confirmed as 'truth' from this is unlikely) why would it allow pressure to be applied to take us back? It would be "you want us to deal with people who have been shown to be untrustworthy? Why would we want anything to do with them?"

 

[mark82]

If it were to prove Wasps were telling the truth (which as I say anything being confirmed as 'truth' from this is unlikely) why would it allow pressure to be applied to take us back? It would be "you want us to deal with people who have been shown to be untrustworthy? Why would we want anything to do with them?"

Because being in Coventry benefits Coventry City.

I suspect Wasps won't agree to waive the NDA anyway but, if they do, documents can be independently checked to verify them. Aside from the forensic side there are 3rd parties who have been involved in discussions who will be able to confirm validity.