Do local councils have a 'whipping' arrangement like the parties in central government? Perhaps the leaders of the two parties in the council had privately agreed to accept Wasp's proposal and a three line whip was called.This is where somebody needs to do some digging and find out what the people voting were told in the no minutes, NDA meeting to make them all agree.
The relationship had soured before SISU between the football club and the council. SISU then just poured a tanker full of petrol on that.
We have already seen that it was a condition about CCFC not being damaged and how Duggins laughed that off.
It's alright saying Tim Fisher said something nasty and hated the council, look at how actual Council Leaders have behaved. That goes for Mutton, Lucas and Duggins. Does Tim Fisher being a smarmy c**t give a council leader the excuse to be?
You’re a CCFC fan of course you have ties to it. You’re ranting and swearing and throwing out personal insults and bringing family into it. As I said, too emotional for me. You want to talk let’s talk, but cut that shit out.
I am not emotional in the slightest.
I am just pointing out that somebody mentioning particular things and organisations is naturally going to be more cutting. That's fact and human nature.
You are the one who is on every thread calling everything a conspiracy.
Have a rest.
OK I’ll take that as you can’t take the emotion out of it. I’ll not reply on this topic.
It really does. I spent all eternity through Northampton being told I was Tim Fisher, signing up to post here under a comedy pseudonym.
I mean, he's not even Northern ffs!
So just to get this straight.
The council want to be indemnified by the football clubs owners from any consequential outcome relating to the EU complaint, still to be decided?
That was the eleventh hour stumbling block? But was that not always there?
Didn't WASP drop their request for the same indemnity, so talks on a Ricoh return could take place?
So what we are talking about here is the council is still concerned that the EU complaint could go against them, and legal proceedings could follow quickly by SISU resulting in possible astronomical fines, and a re-examination of the deal granted WASP?
I would assume that puts WASP tenure in jeopardy. But if SISU indemnified the council (promising no legal actions against them as a result of the EU decision, and paying any fines etc imposed) then WASP would have no reason for their own indemnity.
In summary then the council have effectively made it impossible for the football club to get a return to the Ricoh. To indemnify the council actions for what may well be decided as illegal state aid would be madness, and financial stupidity to agree such an indemnity.
It's can't blame WASP entirely to allow the council to insist on it, as they are looking at the possibility of any EU decision going against the council which will directly effect their tenure, and may be forced to pay back monies or worse have the lease null and void. While happy to have no indemnity themselves, so long as one exist with the council that would fall on SISU to indemnify all outcomes (which would cover all outcomes effecting WASP that the council would be forced to follow through on) makes sense on their part or is it necessarily?
Clearly in my mind WASP were unable to get such an indemnity with the council themselves to protect them...and niether are CCFC/SISU rightly not willing to do so.
But what is stopping WASP from an agreement to bring the football club back in the interim period regardless of the EU outcome? If it goes against the council and WASP tenure is ultimately in question, so what? They could break that lease at any time and kick us out with just several months notice. Becasue SISU will go after the council anyway if the decision is favourable. I really find it objectionable that WASP are not acting in their own interest short term at least, unless the council have some form of arrangement with WASP that effects the lease they have. I can't imagine any legal justification for such an arrangement. This should have been a negotiation to return to the Ricoh between WASP and their ancillary contractors with no bearing on what the council required. Seems like WASP are being played, manipulated.
In these circumstances WASP are the ones being disingenious unless they come out and tell us differently, and are shooting themselves in the foot. I agree SISU turned down the deal for now, but again nothing stopping WASP from having a rethink.
If the EU decision favours the council, then that's the end of that. WASP will look for a long term deal with CCFC for sure. The council will wipe their brow and breath a sigh of relief, and life will go on until we do actually build our own stadium, or find a deal for the Ricoh that is more sustainable long term, perhaps even buying out a failing WASP model.
That’s a fair point. Could it be that by saying “no action against the council” wasps are protecting themselves while also able to say they are not protected specifically by the indemnity? If so, some of their recent comments seem to have dropped the council in it as they imply it’s because of and for the council. If that was the case you’d expect the relationship between wasps and the council start to sour.
Yeah good point. I’ve never though wasps did anything wrong legally they just looked after their own interests. As you say though they are harmed against any action against the council so like I said above this way they protect themselves while being able to say they haven’t asked for protection in an indemnity.Regarding the sale of the RICOH. What legal action could SISU even take against Wasps alone?
Obviously all action against the CCC impacts Wasps either directly or indirectly. But, I can’t think of what we take Wasps to court over.
My thought exactly- swop the mortgage money for a bond paying 6%. Then you have a few million pound reasons for praying WAsps do well commerciallyWhat if CCC is the largest investor in Wasps Bonds? Wouldn't that explain an awful lot?
No actual evidence, just a thought...
My thought exactly- swop the mortgage money for a bond paying 6%. Then you have a few million pound reasons for praying WAsps do well commercially
I have no idea, but it does sound like it would be rather surprising! I could imagine a small, irrelevant ultimately, amount, but not game changing.I know the council invest money like pensions into weapons etc but would they be actually allowed to do it for Wasps?
I have no idea, but it does sound like it would be rather surprising! I could imagine a small, irrelevant ultimately, amount, but not game changing.
How was it found out they invested in guns?
The investment would have been in bonds, not Wasps. Local Authorities invest in bonds all the time and I think I'm right in saying CCC routinely holds bond investments in it's portfolio.I know the council invest money like pensions into weapons etc but would they be actually allowed to do it for Wasps?
The investment would have been in bonds, not Wasps. Local Authorities invest in bonds all the time and I think I'm right in saying CCC routinely holds bond investments in it's portfolio.
Councils are allowed to invest in bonds and sharesI know the council invest money like pensions into weapons etc but would they be actually allowed to do it for Wasps?
Would it not be a conflict of interest if they invested in Wasps Bonds though?
Feel like somebody would have spotted this by now but if it’s through a couple of layers of funds it wouldn’t be obvious. If that’s the case though there’s every chance it’s accidental and it probably wouldn’t be enough to affect anything as any fund would be split amongst loads of bonds.What if CCC is the largest investor in Wasps Bonds? Wouldn't that explain an awful lot?
No actual evidence, just a thought...
I doubt someone like I can get this information, even though a FOI request. Someone who has ties to the council might be able to find out.Where can we get sight of the portfolio?
I doubt someone like I can get this information, even though a FOI request. Someone who has ties to the council might be able to find out.
An FOI request has been made to CCC on the subject of Wasps Bonds in the past and the answer given by CCC is not the straightforward denial it could have been.
Draft accounts seem to show not holding any bonds but had about 7 million worth last year.(doesn't say what bonds they were)Where can we get sight of the portfolio?
Not necessarily. Gets back to the old "commercial sensitivity" local authorities like to hide behind if they are uncomfortable.Surely investments are public and in the accounts?
Wasn't part of it was used to pay CCC to enable them to clear outstanding bank loan?? If so would be a bit murky plus obviously a poor investment looking at bond price performance.Would it not be a conflict of interest if they invested in Wasps Bonds though?
What was it please don’t ask or I’ll sue huhI think the pcwh threats at the time were to put anybody off the scent - I questioned whether he was on the payroll, and quickly got the lawyers threat
Wasn't part of it was used to pay CCC to enable them to clear outstanding bank loan?? If so would be a bit murky plus obviously a poor investment looking at bond price performance.
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?