So now we know (1 Viewer)

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
It was always word play mate. “Indemnity” vs “drop the legals”. It’s been that way for a year. They both essentially mean the same thing. Sisu wanted people to think it was paying for the state aid remedy and there’s people in this thread who still believe that, when that’s been proven false.
I think ”proven” is a bit strong, suggested more like.
 

djr8369

Well-Known Member
So unraveling this means that after State Aid thingy Wasps give council mega bucks and go out of business which leaves CCC with a white elephant but 54m in the bank.

SISU/CCFC are unaffected.

The bit I don’t understand is that why have WASPS withdrawn the indemnity clause when they stand to lose the most.

And why have CCC insisting on it when (according to you) they really don’t stand to lose much at all?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I speculated above that wasps will think (or have been told by somebody in government) that the EU case wouldn’t be enforced. Their issue could be the lease being binned off, from which they would be protected by the council insisting no future legal action is taken.

I can’t see quite why the council are trying so hard for there to be no legal action aside from the following:
They’d be found to be in the wrong and look bad.
Wasps leave the city/go bust and the Ricoh is empty.
They just don’t like CCFC.

None of these feel concrete enough.
 

Nick

Administrator
Exactly.
if ever I am up before the magistrates with an open and shut case against me, will you represent me please? Your ability to turn everything to suit your narrative is really impressive.

Dont think you can get away with trying to claim it's a conspiracy and nobody died when you were found next to the body, with the murder weapon and with a note saying why you did it. ;)
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
These arguments are just semantics now. What we have this morning is Lego saying that CCC are working against the club. We don’t know the details but it’s nice to finally have what some of us have known for years in the public domain.

We don’t have that at all? We know Wasps want CCC indemnified. We don’t know why or at who’s request. You’re seeing what you want to see.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Dont think you can get away with trying to claim it's a conspiracy and nobody died when you were found next to the body, with the murder weapon and with a note saying why you did it. ;)

Depends if the prosecution’s case is “hundreds of unrelated people are working together to make this guy murder someone” 😉

(that’s the only one I rise to, promise)
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
I think ”proven” is a bit strong, suggested more like.

I mean nothing’s proven. But if we assume Gilbert and his sources aren’t lying then it’s proven. No indemnity for Wasps means they’d have to pay back any aid with no impact on Sisu.
 

Nick

Administrator
I speculated above that wasps will think (or have been told by somebody in government) that the EU case wouldn’t be enforced. Their issue could be the lease being binned off, from which they would be protected by the council insisting no future legal action is taken.

I can’t see quite why the council are trying so hard for there to be no legal action aside from the following:
They’d be found to be in the wrong and look bad.
Wasps leave the city/go bust and the Ricoh is empty.
They just don’t like CCFC.

None of these feel concrete enough.

I have a feeling about number 2 and 3.

They have gone properly balls deep in with Wasps, in that time CCFC has gone to shit down to League 2 and they have now just won the League to go back into the Championship. It is an absolute nightmare for them because they can't play on negativity around CCFC and take advantage of fans pissed off because we aren't doing well on the pitch.

At the same time, Wasps have done the opposite. Fiddled the books, lost decent players because of promises about training grounds, performances gone downhill, on their 3rd training ground plan while pissing people off at each one (I know we cant talk as its like our stadium).

Now we are in the Championship, we are a much bigger sell than Wasps. We weren't while in League 2.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
I speculated above that wasps will think (or have been told by somebody in government) that the EU case wouldn’t be enforced. Their issue could be the lease being binned off, from which they would be protected by the council insisting no future legal action is taken.

I can’t see quite why the council are trying so hard for there to be no legal action aside from the following:
They’d be found to be in the wrong and look bad.
Wasps leave the city/go bust and the Ricoh is empty.
They just don’t like CCFC.

None of these feel concrete enough.

It doesn’t have to be the council. It can be that Wasps think the council are a weak point that could be exploited.

What we need is someone to get the council to confirm they don’t want it. That would be the smoking gun if they won’t do that. Goes against all the previous statements.
 

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
No it’s very simple. ECJ provides a judgement and asked U.K. gov to abide by it. If we were in the EU there would be penalties for not abiding, but if we aren’t and we haven’t agreed a deal to abide by ECJ judgements (and we won’t because they keep saying it’s the entire point of Brexit), it’s basically an honour system.

Can you imagine the press if we leave the EU with a big fanfare about how Brussels won’t kick us around and then we bankrupt a top level rugby team because Brussels told us to?

I could be wrong, but politicially I just can’t see it.
The alternative is to allow the council to have defrauded local taxpayers whilst, for example, cutting support to dementia sufferers.
 

kg82

Well-Known Member
I’ll try and be clearer. All numbers from my ass:

EU decide that CCC undersold rhe Ricoh lease to Wasps.

Let’s say it was sold for £6m and it shouldn’t been £60m.

Therefore CCC have effectively given Wasps £54m.

EU say “oi Wasps, you need to pay CCC £54m to right this wrong”

Where is the monetary threat to CCC? They stand to gain £54m.

Good explanation for ignorants like me. I have a question. If it was found that the Ricoh was undersold, would there not be a financial penalty for the council? Would they not be held accountable?
 

shepardo01

Well-Known Member
Anybody got their statement from the other day. Can't find it. I did see it posted somewhere...
Only what Gilbert says here;
 

shepardo01

Well-Known Member
"Did not ask for any conditions to be inserted into any possible deal"
We think that is not true dont we.
Wonder if Wasps are biting their tongue?
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Good explanation for ignorants like me. I have a question. If it was found that the Ricoh was undersold, would there not be a financial penalty for the council? Would they not be held accountable?

No. The only fines the ECJ hand out are to member states for repeated breaches of state aid rules. The action they demand is “recovery of the aid”.

An easier one to understand is if it was cash payment rather than undervaluing. Let’s say CCC just handed Wasps £10m in a brown envelope, the remedy would be “give them back £10m”.

State aid cases aren’t designed to punish, they’re designed to restore the market to the state that existed before the intervention.

Where damages come in is in civil cases afterwards (Sisu sue for loss of earnings, or Sisu ask the lease is rules void, or whatever). But that’s a separate legal case, in the U.K. justice system, not the state aid case and the ECJ.
 

djr8369

Well-Known Member
It doesn’t have to be the council. It can be that Wasps think the council are a weak point that could be exploited.

What we need is someone to get the council to confirm they don’t want it. That would be the smoking gun if they won’t do that. Goes against all the previous statements.
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.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
"Did not ask for any conditions to be inserted into any possible deal"
We think that is not true dont we.
Wonder if Wasps are biting their tongue?

No. CCC could simply have told Wasps that a certain action against them would threaten Wasps status at the Ricoh (or, for the less council hatey Wasps employed lawyers who found it out themselves), that doesn’t mean CCC asked for the indemnity, Wasps did.

We need someone to ask the council if they’d be happy to waive indemnity if Wasps would.
 

kg82

Well-Known Member
No. The only fines the ECJ hand out are to member states for repeated breaches of state aid rules. The action they demand is “recovery of the aid”.

An easier one to understand is if it was cash payment rather than undervaluing. Let’s say CCC just handed Wasps £10m in a brown envelope, the remedy would be “give them back £10m”.

State aid cases aren’t designed to punish, they’re designed to restore the market to the state that existed before the intervention.

Where damages come in is in civil cases afterwards (Sisu sue for loss of earnings, or Sisu ask the lease is rules void, or whatever). But that’s a separate legal case, in the U.K. justice system, not the state aid case and the ECJ.
And, I’m guessing, it would be easier for SISU to win something like that if the ECJ case was favourable to them?
 

djr8369

Well-Known Member
I have a feeling about number 2 and 3.

They have gone properly balls deep in with Wasps, in that time CCFC has gone to shit down to League 2 and they have now just won the League to go back into the Championship. It is an absolute nightmare for them because they can't play on negativity around CCFC and take advantage of fans pissed off because we aren't doing well on the pitch.

At the same time, Wasps have done the opposite. Fiddled the books, lost decent players because of promises about training grounds, performances gone downhill, on their 3rd training ground plan while pissing people off at each one (I know we cant talk as its like our stadium).

Now we are in the Championship, we are a much bigger sell than Wasps. We weren't while in League 2.

What does balls deep really mean though? It still implies they threw their lot in and now don’t want to look bad but to me that doesn’t justify their actions over the last few years. This is where it does feel a bit “conspiracy theory” in that I can’t see a rational explanation for how hard CCC have backed wasps and been anti SISU.
 

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
"Did not ask for any conditions to be inserted into any possible deal"
We think that is not true dont we.
Wonder if Wasps are biting their tongue?
Is it possible that as part of the original sale Wasps have to insulate CCC from any legal action. Would be technically correct that they haven’t asked for anything to be inserted into the deal but also why wasps are so desperate to have it.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
The obvious thing here is that if the council haven't requested the indemnity Wasps are requiring on their behalf they will very quickly get a statement out reflecting this. Having gone to the trouble and expense of hiring PR companies to make themselves look like the good guys in this whole mess they aren't going to just sit back and let everything be thrown onto them.

The longer it goes without a statement from them saying they did not request and do not require indemnity the worse it looks for them.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
And, I’m guessing, it would be easier for SISU to win something like that if the ECJ case was favourable to them?

Yeah definitely. We’re thinking even if the state aid remedy isn’t actually carried out (see previous discussion about Brexit), it would be enough to open those cases up for Sisu.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
The obvious thing here is that if the council haven't requested the indemnity Wasps are requiring on their behalf they will very quickly get a statement out reflecting this. Having gone to the trouble and expense of hiring PR companies to make themselves look like the good guys in this whole mess they aren't going to just sit back and let everything be thrown onto them.

The longer it goes without a statement from them saying they did not request and do not require indemnity the worse it looks for them.

It does. If I were Gilbert I’d be straight on the phone asking them to confirm they don’t need indemnity. Not whether they asked for it, that’s full of loopholes. Just a simple “we do not need indemnity, it’s Wasps decision”.
 

Nick

Administrator
What does balls deep really mean though? It still implies they threw their lot in and now don’t want to look bad but to me that doesn’t justify their actions over the last few years. This is where it does feel a bit “conspiracy theory” in that I can’t see a rational explanation for how hard CCC have backed wasps and been anti SISU.

What justifies their actions pre-SISU?

Maybe it was the Wasps promise of this amazing new training facility and all these jobs that sucked them in. Maybe it was the thought of a packed out Ricoh full of Wasps fans and fireworks while they get their freebies in Corporate? What about all the houses their owner was talking about building?
 

Nick

Administrator
It does. If I were Gilbert I’d be straight on the phone asking them to confirm they don’t need indemnity. Not whether they asked for it, that’s full of loopholes. Just a simple “we do not need indemnity, it’s Wasps decision”.

Play them off against each other.
Find inconsistencies.

It's almost like I was pushing that approach in about 2014.
 

Warwickhunt

Well-Known Member
The news is when you hear Simon Gilbert say it, it makes you realise that people are starting to see things ;)
Has CCC upset the Telegraph journo's then? why all of a sudden is Gilbert digging deep with the questions?
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Play them off against each other.
Find inconsistencies.

It's almost like I was pushing that approach in about 2014.
Its taken very little for the house of cards to start collapsing. Imagine if the CT and CWR had actually done some digging years ago.
 

Nick

Administrator
Has CCC upset the Telegraph journo's then? why all of a sudden is Gilbert digging deep with the questions?

He doesn't work for them now.

Tom Leach is doing a good job to be fair, using initiative but Bobby Bridge doesn't want to do the same with Wasps.

Would have been interesting to see how Andy Turner would have approached it.
 

Warwickhunt

Well-Known Member
I have a feeling about number 2 and 3.

They have gone properly balls deep in with Wasps, in that time CCFC has gone to shit down to League 2 and they have now just won the League to go back into the Championship. It is an absolute nightmare for them because they can't play on negativity around CCFC and take advantage of fans pissed off because we aren't doing well on the pitch.

At the same time, Wasps have done the opposite. Fiddled the books, lost decent players because of promises about training grounds, performances gone downhill, on their 3rd training ground plan while pissing people off at each one (I know we cant talk as its like our stadium).

Now we are in the Championship, we are a much bigger sell than Wasps. We weren't while in League 2.
Also is it not the case now that who ever was behind trying to de-stabalise CCFC and buy them out on the cheap cannot now afford a Championship club!
 

Blake

Active Member
It's possible that when wasps agreed to buy the stadium lease, CCC agreed to indemnify wasps for losses and costs suffered by wasps if there were ever an issue with the purchase price or anything else. It's also possible that CCC included a provision in the lease or another agreement that required wasps to obtain an indemnity from CCFC/SISU in any sublease to CCFC/SISU, which would be in favor of CCC. Wasps were probably well aware of the state aid risks, and one can see why wasps might have insisted on this. If CCC were desperate to screw over SISU by bringing a new club in to lease the Ricoh, which seems likely, they may have been willing to have agreed to indemnify wasps. There probably weren't many clubs looking to move, so CCC probably didn't have much leverage.

The best way to look at the word "indemnity" is "make whole", and indemnity provisions tend to be very broad.
 

Frostie

Well-Known Member
What does balls deep really mean though? It still implies they threw their lot in and now don’t want to look bad but to me that doesn’t justify their actions over the last few years. This is where it does feel a bit “conspiracy theory” in that I can’t see a rational explanation for how hard CCC have backed wasps and been anti SISU.

Don't forget they tried to force through an ACL / Wasps takeover of the football club too.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
What justifies their actions pre-SISU?

Maybe it was the Wasps promise of this amazing new training facility and all these jobs that sucked them in. Maybe it was the thought of a packed out Ricoh full of Wasps fans and fireworks while they get their freebies in Corporate? What about all the houses their owner was talking about building?

You’ve also got to consider that since Sisu CCFC have been quite anti council. See aligning with council critics from the start, and apparently Fisher calling them “a bunch of communists” when asked if he’d talk to them I heard yesterday.

CCC just want an easy life. They probably wanted Wasps in because it is a good thing if you take out the impact on CCFC for a second and don’t have strong feelings about franchises. Economically it’s a positive for the city really. They also don’t want to lose the Ricoh to a party they don’t trust.

I mean look, I know for a cast iron fact that while my Dad was leading the council they weren’t anti CCFC, because I was there and I know my Dads a massive CCFC fan (that’s why I am, he got me into them), I know other councillors such as Maton are big, genuine CCFC fans. I don’t know about every single council leader or councillor, but I find it hard to believe they’d actively hate the club and wish it harm. Most are either ambivalent or actively support CCFC.

CCFCs ace in the hole has always been the ability to razzle dazzle locals. Am I naive enough to think my first game being taken into the dressing room and getting signed programs and seeing Oggy in the bath happened for any other reason than the club wanted to curry favour with the council? No not at all.

So for things to have got to this point all sides must have made some pretty major missteps. And let’s be honest, until Robins arrived Sisu were generally seen by all CCFC fans as pretty shitty owners.
 

ceetee

Well-Known Member
No. CCC could simply have told Wasps that a certain action against them would threaten Wasps status at the Ricoh (or, for the less council hatey Wasps employed lawyers who found it out themselves), that doesn’t mean CCC asked for the indemnity, Wasps did.

We need someone to ask the council if they’d be happy to waive indemnity if Wasps would.
That's possibly true. In the workplace and elsewhere you often see people taking actions that they know their boss wants even though he hasn't ordered it. If it goes wrong the boss can say " i didn't tell him/her to do it". No, but everyone knows that's what he wanted
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top