The Ricoh.. (2 Viewers)

oldskyblue58 said:

Awful lot of second guessing going on, so i will add some of my own

Firstly i think it might well turn out that CCFC & Wasps agreed a deal but that SISU had not signed it off. Could a deal still be done? perhaps, but this news greatly risks that not being the case. I am two minds whether we will or wont be at the Ricoh next season. I do think being elsewhere will greatly risk CCFC though.

I suspect SISU could not sign off any contract because it said no more legals, something they knew might well not be the case. To sign would have left them open to legal action

But people need to be really clear these complaints and court actions are not about the well being of CCFC, it is all about the SISU investors and always has been

Having been made aware of the complaint Gilbert had to put it out there, just as any other reporter would have

Technically there is still no legal action going on, but there is a possibility there will be - that will be expensive and time consuming. Up until now then it was possible for both sides to say it was ok to talk. Has it only just become apparent that there is a tangible threat of legal action..... if the decision to complain to EC was February when did Wasps find out, i would think it wasnt until just recently.

I dont have a problem with a time delay between the complaint being made and news now becoming available. If complaint was end of February then by the time the EC have processed it and informed CCC then it is around the right timescale. I would think the news has come from CCC, who i assume are not involved in the rent discussions and therefore not covered by the NDA. I also suspect that CCC were not aware of the complaint until notified by the EC.

At present it isn't legal action but a complaint to the EC that may or may not lead to investigation which in turn may or may not lead to a referral to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). At which point it becomes legal action against CCC. If said legal action is successful for SISU then it gets referred back to the UK courts to implement EU law. That means action in English courts after the ECJ judgement entirely different to both JR's (which were an examination of process primarily). That could take years and could include the requirement for Wasps to repay the state aid deemed to have been received.

To be able to go to the EC you have to show all other avenues of challenge have been exhausted - that box is ticked

An investigation by the EC could take 12 months or more before decided and the case being heard if referred to the ECJ years after that

Going to depend as to how the wording of the complaint has been put as to if the same ground as the JR's is covered or if there is more added

There is not an immediate threat to Wasps but there is a potential financial threat in the future. That could cost hundreds of £1000's to fight and if they lose bankrupt Wasps and seriously affect their owner.

Yes the case, if it goes to the ECJ could take years to arrive at a decision. However the financial danger for Wasps could arrive sooner than that. Recent ECJ case law allows for an interim order to be made in the English Courts to repay (with interest) the state aid prior to the case being decided. That aside such legal action is going to be expensive for all sides

The challenge in the ECJ could seriously hamper the refinancing of the Bond, which has already been hampered by the accounting irregularities (although as the time goes on those decrease in effect assuming no more are discovered). To say that Wasps are not threatened by this is a nonsense. CCC may of course win any case if one is even brought so the threat goes away.

Just because a party fights a case or demands it go away is not an admission of guilt or makes them wrong. At this stage just because a party brings a case does not mean they are right or that their case has any merit at all. The challenge is high risk, but a challenge brought by who? Otium, SBS&L, ARVO, SISU, someone else, some or all of those

A thought comes to mind that this is not just about CCFC. I have had a discussion some time ago where it was suggested that it was a case to establish a principle in a general sense and challenge existing interpretations of law. In which case you would think there is more than SISU involved behind the scenes

Which brings me to another thought. If SISU have outsourced the costs to a litigation buy out fund, CCFC's owners may not actually be in control of where this may lead. Even if they wanted to stop they cant because they have agreed for someone else has conduct of the claims. For the litigation buy out fund, which would take on high risk projects, it is a choice to accept the loss or to carry on with the potential prospect of huge gains in cases other than SISU's. The litigation buy fund would have major funding available, no brainer for them irrespective of what SISU want

Click to expand...

OffenhamSkyBlue said:

But OSB58, is it not the case that SISU (or any of the parties you cite) may have made the complaint to the EC, but it is the EC ONLY who will investigate and deem if any state aid laws have been broken, which might be followed by recovery of such state aid (presumably from Wasps)????
So you hand it over to the EC and they investigate - it's not your legal case against anyone, is it? Would the complainant need to shell out legal costs, other than provision of data?
Or am i wrong?

Click to expand...

chiefdave said:

Only had a quick google but that's how it seems to me. You make a complaint and then that's it. Not like a legal case where you put your side and have to provide evidence, you just point the finger and the EC goes off and does its own investigation.

Click to expand...

Covstu said:

Still think there is a naivety from fans that this whole process would be wrapped up in a week or so. Given the legals over the last x years ( I now forget how long this has been!) both sides will not be saying anything without legal approval so this will take an age just on any extension nevermind sign off.

The rumour has really upset the applecart here and again negatively affected a half decent season which will not bold well for attracting any new players. Ideally we would have CCC stating they haven't received anything which would demonstrate they 'support' of the club but we all know this is not going to happen, maybe Gilbert can clarify his statements instead of using throwaway comments and unsettling the whole situation, equally not going to happen! Head to the pub and let it all blow over.....

Click to expand...

duffer said:

Good detail as ever OSB, but under what grounds could Coventry City Council 'leak' the details of a complaint to the EC about their conduct, to a third party?

This is not legal action and my understanding is that complaints of this kind are confidential. It isn't going to the ECJ, indeed it seems that that route is currently blocked, this decision will be made by the EC.

Even if the EC find that CCC acted outside EU law they don't award damages according to their website.

Good old SISU/CCC, they've improved my knowledge of accounting and English law no end. Looks like we'll need to brush up on EU rules now. Maybe that's what closed seasons are for nowadays.

Click to expand...

oldskyblue58 said:

Having been made aware of the complaint Gilbert had to put it out there

Click to expand...

RoboCCFC90 said:

CCFC statement;

Coventry City Football Club has no comment to make at this time regarding media reports overnight.

Talks continue with Wasps Holdings Limited regarding extending our tenancy at the Ricoh Arena

Click to expand...

RoboCCFC90 said:

CCFC statement;

Coventry City Football Club has no comment to make at this time regarding media reports overnight.

Talks continue with Wasps Holdings Limited regarding extending our tenancy at the Ricoh Arena

Click to expand...

Nick said:

Interesting talks continue, so somebody has been trying to mislead and giving Sky Sports information.

Click to expand...

SkyBlueDom26 said:

Misleading leak according to Les, more BS from Gilbert confirmed

Click to expand...

chiefdave said:

Not sure I agree with that. I would expect a journalist, if being fed information, to question why that information is being passed to them. Is it because someone deems there's a public right to know or is the journalist being played.

That would apply even more when its a story that has in the past involved the media being used in ways I don't deem acceptable personally. In particular the way the Ricoh bail out was supressed. It may well be that this leak comes from the same organisation that previously sought to suppress information becoming public which to me should ring alarm bells for a journalist.

Click to expand...

oldskyblue58 said:

but confirms that the complaint has been lodged earlier this year. Which in essence all that has been confirmed by anyone

Click to expand...

oldskyblue58 said:

but confirms that the complaint has been lodged earlier this year. Which in essence all that has been confirmed by anyone

Click to expand...

covmark said:

Who is telling the media that talks have stalled?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

tisza said:

Are we sure this isn't back to the use of EU funds as part of the original Ricoh building and then subsequent "revaluation" of stadium at what SISU have argued as less than market value? This was part of the original arguments.
In that case is an issue for the European Commission. They were involved with similar football finance issues with some European clubs including Spanish ones.

Click to expand...

OffenhamSkyBlue said:

According to Giblet's academic expert on the radio this morning, the EC rarely get involved in state aid cases like this that are in the past, and that things are normally brought to them in advance of the aid being given. I'd say they are even less likely to get involved with something 15 years old like the building of the Ricoh. It's not about EU money, it's about not recouping PUBLIC money

Click to expand...

tisza said:

The Dutch investigations are focused on state owned football stadia, govt loans, valuations & rental agreements. The Spanish one was about land the Govt undervalued when selling to Real Madrid I think.

Click to expand...

• there has been an intervention by the State or through State resources which can take a variety of forms (e.g. grants, interest and tax reliefs, guarantees, government holdings of all or part of a company, or providing goods and services on preferential terms, etc.);
• the intervention gives the recipient an advantage on a selective basis, for example to specific companies or industry sectors, or to companies located in specific regions
• competition has been or may be distorted;
• the intervention is likely to affect trade between Member States. (NB I don't think the Ricoh issue meets that test)

duffer said:

Who benefits? It's hard to see it as being in SISU's interests, mid-negotiation.

The only other party who should have been aware of it would be the Council, after being asked by the EC for a response.

So either SISU leaked it, to scupper the talks for reasons unknown, or someone at the Council leaked it, in order to alert Wasps and encourage them to pressure SISU to drop it.

I know which one of those looks more likely to me... If so, would that not represent a failure in a duty of confidentiality from a Council officer or representative? Hmm.

In public life, sometimes it's the cover-up that gets you, rather than the infraction!

Click to expand...