So now we know (2 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

I don't think it's a surprise to people on here, but there are still a lot of people who are hanging on everything Wasps say as the absolute truth, because apparently they don't have a history of lying (which is a bizarre claim in itself).

I mean they haven’t lied as far as I can tell. They’ve just refused to break the NDA.

Until we know what’s in the indemnity/promise to not sue we don’t know who’s closer to the truth (I’m guessing both are saying just what they want).

 

---

[mark82]

Just read Gilbert’s twitter. There’s literally nothing there we haven’t been saying for days. Someone ELI5 please?

Reading between the lines, SG has spoken to parties involved that are not Sisu, Wasps or CCFC.

 

[shmmeee]

So let’s get this straight.

The Indemnity covers only the Council. And they are the ones insisting on it.

The Council are the soul reason we are not playing in Cov.

They drew first blood long before SISU came and continue to do so.

That’s not what’s being said?

 

[shmmeee]

Talks broke down as CCFC couldn't sign an indemnity that prevented them from suing CCC in the future. The indemnity didn't include Wasps.

I guess much of this was known, but for me it clears up the conflicting statements of Wasps and CCFC about indemnity.

Ah! It is being said it didn’t include Wasps?

Getting it now!

What time was this on CWR does anyone know? I’d like to listen

 

[Orca]

So let’s get this straight.

The Indemnity covers only the Council. And they are the ones insisting on it.

The Council are the soul reason we are not playing in Cov.

They drew first blood long before SISU came and continue to do so.

We don't yet know if the Council insisted on it or not. There's clearly a chance they asked for it, but there's also the possibility they didn't. Wasps will have to pick up a significant financial bill if CCC are in the wrong. It could have been done independently of the Council.

There's a good chance we'll never know. However, CCC are not on the NDA, so they could clear this up pretty quickly if they chose to. I guess if they don't make a statement on it, or refuse to comment when asked, you can surmise they did ask.

 

[shmmeee]

Would it even be legal for the council to strong arm wasps into holding us hostage in order to grant them protection from legal processes? If it is it seems it would at least be unethical and against the code of conduct for elected officials. If so then you’d think there would be a route of complaint/appeal which SISU would have pursued?

If that’s what happened. No. But there’s no indication of strong arming and I don’t see how they could strongarm a third party business against their will.

 

[Orca]

What time was this on CWR does anyone know? I’d like to listen

Just after 7:30

 

[Johnnythespider]

This isn’t news?

We knew this already. It was blatantly obvious. Have I missed something?

It needs spelling out for some folk

 

[mark82]

We don't yet know if the Council insisted on it or not. There's clearly a chance they asked for it, but there's also the possibility they didn't. Wasps will have to pick up a significant financial bill if CCC are in the wrong. It could have been done independently of the Council.

There's a good chance we'll never know. However, CCC are not on the NDA, so they could clear this up pretty quickly if they chose to. I guess if they don't make a statement on it, or refuse to comment when asked, you can surmise they did ask.

Sounds like a FOI request is needed.

 

[shmmeee]

Just after 7:30

Just listened. Lot clearer now. Wasps dropped the requirement for their own indemnity. If it’s CCC then how is that the state aid remedy as they’d be the recipients of any remedy??

Got to say, can we now hand it to Lego head? He’s done more investigative journalism than all the rest put together and blown this wide open.

 

[Orca]

Sounds like a FOI request is needed.

That was actually said in the piece IIRC. Flupton said something along the lines of Gilbert getting more FOI requests in.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

He didn't say or infer anything about whether the Council had asked for the indemnity. He did use the phrase off the record and that he'd heard it from more than one place. I'd suspect his sources are Boddy and Street.

Don't think the latter. I'd say higher up the food chain on the former.

 

[djr8369]

If that’s what happened. No. But there’s no indication of strong arming and I don’t see how they could strongarm a third party business against their will.

Why would wasps insist on an indemnity to protect the council? Particularly when it is against their interests for talks to fail as they could use the money?

 

[MalcSB]

To be clear. Not on about the NDA. That was always a smokescreen and even if there were more parties wouldn’t have to have stopped Wasps and Sisu releasing what concerned only them

But people seem surprised the indemnity isn’t just against Wasps. That’s been the issue from the start since last year.

But you have been saying this is just a conspiracy theory and to put our tin hats on.

 

[jordan210]

Why would wasps insist on an indemnity to protect the council? Particularly when it is against their interests for talks to fail as they could use the money?

Maybe the council has more interest in wasps than they make out.

 

[MalcSB]

If that’s what happened. No. But there’s no indication of strong arming and I don’t see how they could strongarm a third party business against their will.

Perhaps no strong arming required, perhaps it’s a conspiracy.

 

[torchomatic]

Colour me shocked.

 

[shmmeee]

Why would wasps insist on an indemnity to protect the council? Particularly when it is against their interests for talks to fail as they could use the money?

Well my working theory has been there’s some future legal action planned against the council of the state aid goes against them that will somehow threaten Wasps lease. This fits that I guess. Need to know the details of what it is.

 

[shmmeee]

But you have been saying this is just a conspiracy theory and to put our tin hats on.

No. I’ve been saying the idea that CCC are trying to destroy CCFC for thirty years is a conspiracy theory.

Ive also been saying the idea Gilbert and the CT are part of that plan is a conspiracy theory. Which this kinda proves.

 

[MusicDating]

Boddy said - ' “The principle and concept of an indemnity against Wasps and a third party was absolutely a requirement, and this indemnity would have put the Football Club at substantial risk and jeopardise its very future.'

Wasps then said - “However, Wasps did not insist on an indemnity clause as has been claimed – this claim is simply false. In addition, nothing in the agreement would have put CCFC at substantial risk, as has also been claimed.'

Gilbert then said - ' Multiple sources directly involved in talks (and from different organisations) have said talks failed because Wasps were seeking indemnity / protection not for themselves - but for Coventry City Council.'

 

[MalcSB]

No. I’ve been saying the idea that CCC are trying to destroy CCFC for thirty years is a conspiracy theory.

Ive also been saying the idea Gilbert and the CT are part of that plan is a conspiracy theory. Which this kinda proves.

Would you settle for an 8 year conspiracy?

 

[mark82]

Just listened. Lot clearer now. Wasps dropped the requirement for their own indemnity. If it’s CCC then how is that the state aid remedy as they’d be the recipients of any remedy??

Got to say, can we now hand it to Lego head? He’s done more investigative journalism than all the rest put together and blown this wide open.

Was emailing with him on Tuesday evening with the follow up questions we had sent through to Wasps and some other bits. He's genuinely really committed to getting to the bottom of this.

 

[shmmeee]

Would you settle for an 8 year conspiracy?

No. Do you realise how many councillors there are?

Any conspiracy theory involving that many people is nonsense. It’s where all conspiracy theories fall down.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Boddy said - ' “The principle and concept of an indemnity against Wasps and a third party was absolutely a requirement, and this indemnity would have put the Football Club at substantial risk and jeopardise its very future.'

Wasps then said - “However, Wasps did not insist on an indemnity clause as has been claimed – this claim is simply false. In addition, nothing in the agreement would have put CCFC at substantial risk, as has also been claimed.'

Gilbert then said - ' Multiple sources directly involved in talks (and from different organisations) have said talks failed because Wasps were seeking indemnity / protection not for themselves - but for Coventry City Council.'

All that hangs together if any indemnity is to be provided by SISU rather than the club.

 

[shmmeee]

Boddy said - ' “The principle and concept of an indemnity against Wasps and a third party was absolutely a requirement, and this indemnity would have put the Football Club at substantial risk and jeopardise its very future.'

Wasps then said - “However, Wasps did not insist on an indemnity clause as has been claimed – this claim is simply false. In addition, nothing in the agreement would have put CCFC at substantial risk, as has also been claimed.'

Gilbert then said - ' Multiple sources directly involved in talks (and from different organisations) have said talks failed because Wasps were seeking indemnity / protection not for themselves - but for Coventry City Council.'

This is just arguing over the definition of “indemnity” though.

The argument on here at least has been Wasps are asking for Sisu to pay any money back they’re forced to pay to CCC. This confirms that’s not true. It must be about future legal action against CCC.

 

[skybluesam66]

Would you settle for an 8 year conspiracy?

If you read Fletcher;s book it is certainly well before that

 

[shmmeee]

All that hangs together if any indemnity is to be provided by SISU rather than the club.

This is a very good point.

 

[mr_monkey]

Boddy said - ' “The principle and concept of an indemnity against Wasps and a third party was absolutely a requirement, and this indemnity would have put the Football Club at substantial risk and jeopardise its very future.'

Wasps then said - “However, Wasps did not insist on an indemnity clause as has been claimed – this claim is simply false. In addition, nothing in the agreement would have put CCFC at substantial risk, as has also been claimed.'

Gilbert then said - ' Multiple sources directly involved in talks (and from different organisations) have said talks failed because Wasps were seeking indemnity / protection not for themselves - but for Coventry City Council.'

the most important question now is when was this "3rd party" indemnity added to the talks, was it there at the start or was it added in late in the day (as it was last year but for wasps rather than the council)

 

[MalcSB]

This is just arguing over the definition of “indemnity” though.

The argument on here at least has been Wasps are asking for Sisu to pay any money back they’re forced to pay to CCC. This confirms that’s not true. It must be about future legal action against CCC.

Does it matter? Wasps have lied.

 

[shmmeee]

the most important question now is when was this "3rd party" indemnity added to the talks, was it there at the start or was it added in late in the day (as it was last year but for wasps rather than the council)

But it wasn’t for Wasps last year. Thats why talks broke down. Sisu signed a thing saying not Wasps then at the end of the talks when it came to finalising it Wasps wanted a wider indemnity/promise of no future legal action.

 

[mr_monkey]

But it wasn’t for Wasps last year. Thats why talks broke down. Sisu signed a thing saying not Wasps then at the end of the talks when it came to finalising it Wasps wanted a wider indemnity/promise of no future legal action.

So probably goal posts moving at the end of talks again, these people all need their heads banging together

 

[shmmeee]

Does it matter? Wasps have lied.

Not saying they aren’t disingenuous, but what’s the outright lie? We still don’t know details of the indemnity and how it would impact CCFC. Wasps have said all along they want wider indemnity.

We all suspected they were hiding behind the caterers. That was disingenuous but not technically a lie.

We are all up in arms if they want something that threatens the future of CCFC, but we don’t know if that’s true yet. Would a promise not to sue CCC in the future threaten our future? As I say on here it was out that we can’t stop the state aid case so it was an unfair risk to indemnify it. This confirms it’s not the state aid case but a future action Sisu would take. I fail to see how that threatens CCFCs future. I couldn’t care less if Sisu can’t sue it doesn’t help the club.

 

[skybluesam66]

so - Indemnity or no indemnity - What is the difference between us playing at the Ricoh or not. Irrespective of any indemnity, surely it is in all parties interests for us to be playing at the Ricoh ?

 

[NorthernWisdom]

so - Indemnity or no indemnity - What is the difference between us playing at the Ricoh or not. Irrespective of any indemnity, surely it is in all parties interests for us to be playing at the Ricoh ?

Frankly, I'm not sure next season, it matters where we play.

 

[oldskyblue58]

interesting. A little more clarity

Neither side out right lied or told the whole truth. Quelle surprise.

I also believe there is a time limit of 6 years for any civil court case. a claim against ccc would run out by end of this year In that case I would guess. I assume wasps would be required to participate?