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).
Just read Gilbert’s twitter. There’s literally nothing there we haven’t been saying for days. Someone ELI5 please?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Just after 7:30What time was this on CWR does anyone know? I’d like to listen
It needs spelling out for some folkThis isn’t news?
We knew this already. It was blatantly obvious. Have I missed something?
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.
Just after 7:30
That was actually said in the piece IIRC. Flupton said something along the lines of Gilbert getting more FOI requests in.Sounds like a FOI request is needed.
Don't think the latter. I'd say higher up the food chain on the former.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.
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?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.
But you have been saying this is just a conspiracy theory and to put our tin hats on.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.
Maybe the council has more interest in wasps than they make out.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?
Perhaps no strong arming required, perhaps it’s a conspiracy.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?
But you have been saying this is just a conspiracy theory and to put our tin hats on.
Would you settle for an 8 year conspiracy?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.
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.
Would you settle for an 8 year conspiracy?
All that hangs together if any indemnity is to be provided by SISU rather than the club.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.'
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.'
If you read Fletcher;s book it is certainly well before thatWould you settle for an 8 year conspiracy?
All that hangs together if any indemnity is to be provided by SISU rather than the club.
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.'
Does it matter? Wasps have lied.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.
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.
Does it matter? Wasps have lied.
Frankly, I'm not sure next season, it matters where we play.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 ?
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?