Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
They will get Bridge to write.
Hey @Tom Leach I got a headline for you.
“Sisu willing to come clean, will CCC and Wasps do the same?”
I really hope not.They will get Bridge to write.
Not really, but the ground situation is and has to be the priority for us all.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.
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 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.
In fact, they only instructed solicitors to act for them on Monday morning when they were well aware of the Monday 5pm deadline.
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.
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 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.
That's how it has been for years though, only over the last couple of years a lot of people have started realising.
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.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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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!
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
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 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 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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?"
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?