Well quite. It’s not unreasonable to think that in two years the issues around the Ricoh won’t be sorted. Cleary further legal action is planned if it’s thrown out as the club want to retain that right, a decision could take longer than that anyway, and even if it’s quicker and positive for Sisu the council can and almost certainly will appeal.
So what happens at that point if Wasps are still solvent and refusing to let us do a deal while the action is ongoing? Do we fold? Surely we should have broken ground on a stadium by now if we were going to have it ready for that point? It’s a massive massive risk and as I say I’m still yet to be convinced of the actual benefit to CCFC of this route. It seems to have become mostly about spiting Wasps and CCC for most, the actual impacts on the club forgotten.
As previously reported, Wasps insisted SISU sign a legal undertaking before they would participate in discussions with CCFC. SISU signed this undertaking in April to irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh Arena. Wasps then entered into commercial discussions with CCFC to allow the Club to continue to play for a limited time; however, not the five years we wanted.
I guess he could say that technically that didn’t rule out future legals.
Isn't that what the irrevocably bit is? Unless I am confusing what it means.
We do anyway if their stated aim is to own their own stadium (as it has been since, well, a time when social distancing among our crowds at Northampton wasn't a challenge!).Yep if we’re at St. Andrews this season we need concrete movement on a new stadium beyond a desire
We do anyway if their stated aim is to own their own stadium (as it has been since, well, a time when social distancing among our crowds at Northampton wasn't a challenge!).
I suppose what we can all agree on is that nobody has to rent you a house.
It'd be lovely, just lovely, if our oft promised stadium progressed beyond half-arsed soundbytes...
Well I’ve just responded to someone comparing a rental agreement if two parties coming together with a divorce
If they were both coming together I doubt they would be getting divorced.
No idea, what’s that got to do with what we’re talking about?
I suppose what we can all agree on is that nobody has to rent you a house.
It'd be lovely, just lovely, if our oft promised stadium progressed beyond half-arsed soundbytes...
As previously reported, Wasps insisted SISU sign a legal undertaking before they would participate in discussions with CCFC. SISU signed this undertaking in April to irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh Arena. Wasps then entered into commercial discussions with CCFC to allow the Club to continue to play for a limited time; however, not the five years we wanted.
Yeah exactly and wasps were happy with that.The important bit there is "relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh". I don't think there has ever been any issue from the CCFC side in agreeing not to take direct action against Wasps for that.
Yeah exactly and wasps were happy with that.
Then it seemed to increased to want to cover all legal action and cover costs and indemnity I think?
stuff
The important bit there is "relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh". I don't think there has ever been any issue from the CCFC side in agreeing not to take direct action against Wasps for that.
I'd agree with this, it's much more adult than the name and mud slinging, it's just the pedantic nature and then accusations of nuance and semantics that then get thrown the other way too. It's just really, really fucking boring and gets used on every thread where stadium/couincil/Wasps are mentioned. I think we all get it, his opinion differs from 80%+ of us, it doesn't require a jump back on every post he disagrees with. It's as tedious as Max/Grendel.Seems to put at least an articulate well structured argument across with reasoning. I don’t agree with a lot of it but can at least debate without getting aggy
Oh I timed that well, use of semantics :emoji_heavy_check_mark:No, the important bit is “against Wasps”, it’s playing semantic games and not a serious attempt at engagement.
It’s playground stuff.
No, the important bit is “against Wasps”, it’s playing semantic games and not a serious attempt at engagement.
It’s playground stuff.
We’ve been over the silliness of this argument. Wasps clearly mean any action relating to reversing the Ricoh sale regardless of whether they specifically are named.
No, the important bit is “against Wasps”, it’s playing semantic games and not a serious attempt at engagement.
It’s playground stuff.
Not quite sure what you're implying but I don't think Wasps have ever asked us to sign away any right to take legal action against any other party other than themselves.
Just indemnify against them
But and it’s important they are and were happy to agree a deal last season and this
Not quite sure what you're implying but I don't think Wasps have ever asked us to sign away any right to take legal action against any other party other than themselves.
Yeah, but that is trying to cover themselves and not the council.
Hence the Question who put them up To it? Be nice for it to go away for who else?
Hence the Question who put them up To it? Be nice for it to go away for who else?
Oh dear.
What's wrong with that statement?
Wasps would have to pay up if the EC found against the council. Essentially it would be obliged to pay back the state aid it received. I can understand their concern as much as I don't necessarily agree with their stance.
I mean clearly not as we didn’t get a deal last season (or have we not moved seasons yet, do you mean the last season at the Ricoh? If so then obviously things changed.).
Look I’m only taking both sides at their word.
Sisu:
“This agreement introduced conditions that would unreasonably restrict the Club and SISU’s basic legal rights and would commit the Club and SISU to underwrite Wasps’ costs and any future damages. ”
That right there is the request to stop all future legal action aimed at reversing the sale. How do we know? Because very rarely for this Wasps and Sisu agreed:
(From Wasps)
“Despite significant progress being made in the discussions, we have unfortunately been unable to reach an agreement with the owners which, putting aside the complaint to the European Commission, would deliver the fundamental principle that there would be no further proceedings about the ownership of the Ricoh Arena.”
Note the words fundamental principle. It’s the basic principle that they care about not who is named specifically.
“Ah!” You say “But Wasps entered negotiations so must have been fine! Sisu agreed to stop the legals!”
Well, no that’s not what is said. Sisu very carefully say
“ SISU signed this undertaking in April to irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps relating to the sale and lease of the Ricoh Arena.”
Wasps say:
“As everyone is aware, we made it a pre-requisite of talks that the owners would stop pursuing proceedings around the ownership of the Ricoh Arena. We understood the owners shared that desire based on the letter it sent to us.”
So what Sisu seemingly did is send a letter agreeing not to sue Wasps, fully intending to continue legal action designed to reverse the sale. Wasps clearly mistook this for meaning what they wanted and started talks. When it came to the details of the agreement Sisu refused to sign the wider ranging request Wasps wanted.
I honestly don’t see how any other reading is possible.
See above post. They very clearly did.
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?