Update from Big Dave (2 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

I am pointing out if i cant understand your 'addressing a point' in a 7 page thread by now its doubtful i ever will.

Yet you still posted. Good for you champ.

I think I’m done here again. Will come back later.

 

---

[mark82]

I honestly don’t get the confusion. This is very very simple:

Wasps see the risk associated with Sisus attempts to reverse the sale damaging their chances to finance and would like that risk to go away.

Luckily the people presenting that risk want something from Wasps, meaning they can do a deal where it goes away. So that’s what they want.

Again, it is very very normal for someone to reach an agreement over a dispute that requires both parties to leave the dispute there. It’s not “doubly bad” it’s standard business practice.

You guys are really trying to make this way more complex than it needs to be.

I will note by the way that the argument has morphed in this thread from “there was no undertaking” to “the undertaking was agreed anyway” to “the undertaking is terrible and should never be agreed” to seemingly now “they only want the undertaking because the council put them up to it”. Hardly the sign of a solid rational argument.

I respect your opinion, I just disagree that Wasps should be entitled to restrict legal action against the council where it wouldn't have an impact on Wasps. I think we both agree that if the EC decision goes against CCC then that would impact Wasps, but there's not a lot that can be done about that now anyway. I'm guessing Wasps are worried about it as by their own valuation the Ricoh is worth circa £51 million and they payed roughly 10% of that (even if you include the loan debt it's still far less). The club absolutely shouldn't indemnify them against that. The only way they should indemnify them is if they get the equivalent share of equity based on what they pay but I doubt that would be agreeable. Wasps shouldn't be able to stipulate is a broad "don't take action against the council" if there is no financial implications to Wasps themselves, I see that as unreasonable. Also unreasonable would be to stipulate that CCFC are unable to take ANY action against Wasps for anything in the future, irrespective of the circumstances.

 

[shmmeee]

The actual only real available route to continue action on this specific point is to agree not to appeal the decision if it went against the council

you’ll I assume want them to agree to that would you?

I honestly can’t understand this post. Sorry. Can you explain?

I have no idea what other weird legal routes are available. I’m not sure it’s relevant. Again, “now accept this agreement and don’t try and do anything in the future to reopen it” is a very normal clause in a settlement. You seem intent on making out like it’s the weirdest and most outrageous request someone could make but that’s just not true.

 

[shmmeee]

I respect your opinion, I just disagree that Wasps should be entitled to restrict legal action against the council where it wouldn't have an impact on Wasps. I think we both agree that if the EC decision goes against CCC then that would impact Wasps, but there's not a lot that can be done about that now anyway. I'm guessing Wasps are worried about it as by their own valuation the Ricoh is worth circa £51 million and they payed roughly 10% of that (even if you include the loan debt it's still far less). The club absolutely shouldn't indemnify them against that. The only way they should indemnify them is if they get the equivalent share of equity based on what they pay but I doubt that would be agreeable. Wasps shouldn't be able to stipulate is a broad "don't take action against the council" if there is no financial implications to Wasps themselves, I see that as unreasonable. Also unreasonable would be to stipulate that CCFC are unable to take ANY action against Wasps for anything in the future, irrespective of the circumstances.

It would impact Wasps. Anything that resulted in the sale *to Wasps* of the Ricoh being reversed would obviously impact Wasps. I genuinely can’t understand how you could make the argument that wasn’t the case?

 

[Garryb80]

Yet you still posted. Good for you champ.

I think I’m done here again. Will come back later.

Let me prepare myself as the excitement will be too much to take

 

[mark82]

Perhaps they should have looked more carefully at the way the deal was structured then.
Either way, if they're convinced it's more sisu bluster they should get City back in to the Ricoh. If they are genuinely worried about the EU complaint then I hope it bites them on the arse and sends them under.

I don't disagree. If something looks too good to be true, maybe it is. I don't know which way the EC complaint will go even if it's ever heard, but due diligence by Wasps at the time must have alerted them to the fact they were putting themselves in the middle of a huge legal battle and adequate insurance should have been sought.

 

[Grendel]

I honestly can’t understand this post. Sorry. Can you explain?

I have no idea what other weird legal routes are available. I’m not sure it’s relevant. Again, “now accept this agreement and don’t try and do anything in the future to reopen it” is a very normal clause in a settlement. You seem intent on making out like it’s the weirdest and most outrageous request someone could make but that’s just not true.

The point is the step that could be made following this decision is the right to appeal the decision so that right would be removed if the decision ruled in the council favour.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Were they involved with trying to takeover then though? Maybe putting clauses in a deal that are never going to be accepted and then keep moving the goalposts makes it look like they haven't forced the club out when they don't play there.

It puts more pressure on the club though, maybe to the point the will sell up.

I don’t know, Eastwood has always been shady at best. What we really need is probably the document SISU said they have signed to have clarity on what they did and didn’t commit to on the legals.

 

[shmmeee]

Right really am leaving for a bit now.

 

[shmmeee]

The point is the step that could be made following this decision is the right to appeal the decision so that right would be removed if the decision ruled in the council favour.

Ah got ya. Yeah maybe. So what?

 

[clint van damme]

You’ve lost me.

There is no issue. Sisu should drop the attempts to reverse the sale and get us back to the Ricoh then ideally build a ground. Yes that is my position.

SISU have signed an agreement to stop any legals, (after the EU complaint was raised), so it seems the complaint is ow the only stumbling block.
However, the EU complaint can't be dropped we've established that.
We are told repeatedly that sisu are pissing in the wind with these pursuits, so if they're running up another blind alley why are wasps stopping the football club from playing in our home town.
If they think the complaint has legs they're not going to stop it so why deny themselves much needed revenue now.
If it does have legs and they get penalised I look forward to an out of town rugby club reimbursing the council tax payers of Coventry the money that is rightfully ours.

 

[Grendel]

Ah got ya. Yeah maybe. So what?

Welk it would surely be reasonable for both parties to agree that would it not?

So I assume you’d accept it would only be reasonable if the council agreed unilaterally to do the same - namely agree not to appeal if the decision went against them?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Right really am leaving for a bit now.

Ah got ya. Yeah maybe. So what?

 

[Nick]

SISU have signed an agreement to stop any legals, (after the EU complaint was raised), so it seems the complaint is ow the only stumbling block.
However, the EU complaint can't be dropped we've established that.
We are told repeatedly that sisu are pissing in the wind with these pursuits, so if they're running up another blind alley why are wasps stopping the football club from playing in our home town.
If they think the complaint has legs they're not going to stop it so why deny themselves much needed revenue now.
If it does have legs and they get penalised I look forward to an out of town rugby club reimbursing the council tax payers of Coventry the money that is rightfully ours.

It's a shame the local media didn't want to follow up on Overson saying that Wasps were involved in takeover bids.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

It was enough for Wasps to start negotiations though until they moved the goalposts?

They were engaging with Wasps, hence they guaranteed no further legal action against Wasps to do with it.

It really isn't semantics, unless you think "No future legal action against anybody about anything" is going to end well?

It really is semantics. "It's not legal action" "it's not against Wasps". The only reason to start that EU investigation is because they intend for it to result in future legal action. It's not like they've done is so they can come back and go "well, that's OK - we just wanted to know. We're not going to pursue it further".

Besides which if we assume that Wasps had received such a guarantee to begin negotiations but knew full well they were already or were about to start a process that can only have been done with the intention of it leading to further legal action, its yet another piece of evidence to the already bulging "SISU say one thing and do another" file. Yet you still harbour this fantasy that if they make an agreement they'll stick with it. It's almost sad how myopic you are on the situation.

 

[mark82]

It would impact Wasps. Anything that resulted in the sale *to Wasps* of the Ricoh being reversed would obviously impact Wasps. I genuinely can’t understand how you could make the argument that wasn’t the case?

Well, not all action would result in the reversal of the sale (in fact, I'm not sure the sale could be reversed by any legal action - even the EC complaint could only result in the extra cash needing to be stumped up). Future action against the council could just be compensatory against the council, that would have no impact on Wasps.

 

[Nick]

It really is semantics. "It's not legal action" "it's not against Wasps". The only reason to start that EU investigation is because they intend for it to result in future legal action. It's not like they've done is so they can come back and go "well, that's OK - we just wanted to know. We're not going to pursue it further".

Besides which if we assume that Wasps had received such a guarantee to begin negotiations but knew full well they were already or were about to start a process that can only have been done with the intention of it leading to further legal action, its yet another piece of evidence to the already bulging "SISU say one thing and do another" file. Yet you still harbour this fantasy that if they make an agreement they'll stick with it. It's almost sad how myopic you are on the situation.

Yes and it was agreed to take no further action against Wasps about the sale of the Ricoh.....

Why would Wasps be worried about further action against the council?

It's not semantics when people are claiming that the Council have nothing to do with Wasps now and aren't involved in any of this.

 

[mark82]

I don’t know, Eastwood has always been shady at best. What we really need is probably the document SISU said they have signed to have clarity on what they did and didn’t commit to on the legals.

Unfortunately most of this argument is covered by a NDA so you won't see proof from either side.

 

[clint van damme]

It's a shame the local media didn't want to follow up on Overson saying that Wasps were involved in takeover bids.

there was a story for a local 'journalist' who actually fancied doing their job properly to get their teeth in to right their but they didn't bother..
Yet amazingly they uncovered the EU complaint just as negotiations over the Ricoh were at a crucial stage. Of course to suggest someone sat on that story and fed it to the press at an opportune moment is another conspiracy theory!

 

[Nick]

there was a story for a local 'journalist' who actually fancied doing their job properly to get their teeth in to right their but they didn't bother..
Yet amazingly they uncovered the EU complaint just as negotiations over the Ricoh were at a crucial stage. Of course to suggest someone sat on that story and fed it to the press at an opportune moment is another conspiracy theory!

It is the same as Andy Turner refusing to investigate the indemnity because nothing had been said about it in public for them to be able to dig at and it was all a theory. (He obviously missed the statement on the CCFC website explaining this).

Its the same as the article from the guy who knew about us moving to Birmingham saying that Hoffman was involved with a Rugby Club (before Overson said it) and again nothing was followed up.

The Wasps director spending thousands in a brothel? Nah just ignored, a City player buying a new car? All over it.

It's almost if they knew about things and know what to touch and what not to touch.

 

[jordan210]

It is the same as Andy Turner refusing to investigate the indemnity because nothing had been said about it in public for them to be able to dig at and it was all a theory. (He obviously missed the statement on the CCFC website explaining this).

Its the same as the article from the guy who knew about us moving to Birmingham saying that Hoffman was involved with a Rugby Club (before Overson said it) and again nothing was followed up.

The Wasps director spending thousands in a brothel? Nah just ignored, a City player buying a new car? All over it.

It's almost if they knew about things and know what to touch and what not to touch.

Do these people all work for the newspaper that publicly announced who was involved in trying to take over the club. When they asked not to go public and then the deal collapsed ?

 

[Nick]

Do these people all work for the newspaper that publicly announced who was involved in trying to take over the club. When they asked not to go public and then the deal collapsed ?

Which one?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Unfortunately most of this argument is covered by a NDA so you won't see proof from either side.

Yeah I thought so. Just so frustrating to see an argument over technicalities and semantics when the key documents are unavailable

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Which one?

Think he’s referring to the ‘Wanda’ takeover

 

[jordan210]

Think he’s referring to the ‘Wanda’ takeover

I do think that might be the one. Im sure they group had asked not to be mentioned publicly so of course our friendly local rag revealed them

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Yes and it was agreed to take no further action against Wasps about the sale of the Ricoh.....

Why would Wasps be worried about further action against the council?

It's not semantics when people are claiming that the Council have nothing to do with Wasps now and aren't involved in any of this.

Let's put it this way.

Someone selling a business. You and another person want it. It gets sold to you. Other person claims they put in a better offer and deserve compensating so sue the person selling the business.

This affects you because it adds uncertainty to your ability to go forward because the action may result in either you having to find more money for the business purchase which wasn't part of your business plan and budgets or having the business removed from you altogether and removing the income stream entirely. The legal action isn't against you, but has a massive effect on your ability to plan for the future and creates uncertainty among potential customers and suppliers making your trading conditions much harder.

I keep on seeing this 'but if they've done nothing wrong they've nothing to worry about". Tell that to the Birmingham Six. The legal system is littered with bad judgements. If it wasn't why would there be a need for an appeals court? Why have convictions been overturned/pardoned years, decades, even centuries later? People quite literally get away with murder. So even if you've done everything by the book and in good faith there's still the chance of some stupid technicality like the signature went slightly outside of the box, thus invalidating it and the contract was never signed.

 

[ccfc1234]

Any updates timescales on the European review? I would like to think given most of the reviews would be paper based the CV19 situation would not have caused a significant delay.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I do think that might be the one. Im sure they group had asked not to be mentioned publicly so of course our friendly local rag revealed them

Yeah, Hoffman had tried to get them in on the deal

 

[Nick]

Let's put it this way.

Someone selling a business. You and another person want it. It gets sold to you. Other person claims they put in a better offer and deserve compensating so sue the person selling the business.

This affects you because it adds uncertainty to your ability to go forward because the action may result in either you having to find more money for the business purchase which wasn't part of your business plan and budgets or having the business removed from you altogether and removing the income stream entirely. The legal action isn't against you, but has a massive effect on your ability to plan for the future and creates uncertainty among potential customers and suppliers making your trading conditions much harder.

I keep on seeing this 'but if they've done nothing wrong they've nothing to worry about". Tell that to the Birmingham Six. The legal system is littered with bad judgements. If it wasn't why would there be a need for an appeals court? Why have convictions been overturned/pardoned years, decades, even centuries later? People quite literally get away with murder. So even if you've done everything by the book and in good faith there's still the chance of some stupid technicality like the signature went slightly outside of the box, thus invalidating it and the contract was never signed.

Hold on, you are saying that if SISU win it may be down to a miscarriage of justice? Imagine if people were saying that they lost because of miscarriage of justice.

Didn't Wasps buy a business already embroiled in legal action, did they do much due diligence or just snap the hand of the council off? Maybe that's why it was a good deal as it was tainted with legal shite.

Again, all of Wasps / The Ricoh struggling seems to be pinned on this legal action and not how they have been running it.

 

[Liquid Gold]

Well, not all action would result in the reversal of the sale (in fact, I'm not sure the sale could be reversed by any legal action - even the EC complaint could only result in the extra cash needing to be stumped up). Future action against the council could just be compensatory against the council, that would have no impact on Wasps.

Thats the thing. S has got his knickers in a twist about reversing the sale of the Ricoh, that isn't possible. Wasps will be massively impacted if the EC complaint goes against them but there is nothing that can be done about that now. Any future legal action against CCC has zero impact on Wasps and is consistent with the "irrevocably cease all proceedings against Wasps" agreement.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

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.

tbf, if people (re)assert the same old same old, and you disagree with the same old, same old... you're going to argue it, aren't you?

Thus contributing further to the same old, same old.

Otherwise it becomes an ideological dictatorship

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I’m not making any conspiracy I’m just asking questions shmmee. What is the relationship between wasps and ccc? Why won’t the council intervene? Cllr Duggins had absolutely no interest in doing anything. The rent was a matter for wasps and ccfc / Sisu to sort. I accept the consequences of the Eu action impact wasps I absolutely do. I just hope the business people and finance experts can calculate a benefit thats fair and reasonable to both

 

[mark82]

Let's put it this way.

Someone selling a business. You and another person want it. It gets sold to you. Other person claims they put in a better offer and deserve compensating so sue the person selling the business.

This affects you because it adds uncertainty to your ability to go forward because the action may result in either you having to find more money for the business purchase which wasn't part of your business plan and budgets or having the business removed from you altogether and removing the income stream entirely. The legal action isn't against you, but has a massive effect on your ability to plan for the future and creates uncertainty among potential customers and suppliers making your trading conditions much harder.

I keep on seeing this 'but if they've done nothing wrong they've nothing to worry about". Tell that to the Birmingham Six. The legal system is littered with bad judgements. If it wasn't why would there be a need for an appeals court? Why have convictions been overturned/pardoned years, decades, even centuries later? People quite literally get away with murder. So even if you've done everything by the book and in good faith there's still the chance of some stupid technicality like the signature went slightly outside of the box, thus invalidating it and the contract was never signed.

In this case, it would be CCC that would be found guilty, and may have done something wrong. As I've said, I understand Wasps concern as they could be on the hook for something that isn't technically their fault. I don't have much sympathy though, they knew what they were getting themselves involved in. They absolutely knew they were putting themselves in the middle of a big legal battle and can't be surprised they are being dragged into it.

 

[Nick]

I’m not making any conspiracy I’m just asking questions shmmee. What is the relationship between wasps and ccc? Why won’t the council intervene? Cllr Duggins had absolutely no interest in doing anything. The rent was a matter for wasps and ccfc / Sisu to sort. I accept the consequences of the Eu action impact wasps I absolutely do. I just hope the business people and finance experts can calculate a benefit thats fair and reasonable to both

It is a bit strange that the council leader showed more passion to keep an Aldi from closing when there is one up the road than he did the city's football club.

Which is more beneficial for the city? (Especially using hindsight with promotion and being in the Championship with the likes of Forest and Derby coming to town and many more away fans)

 

[mark82]

Anyway, negotiations are clearly still ongoing, so let's hope that both sides can move forward together with something that's mutually beneficial.

One day I'd love to go back to only worrying about the football and not trying to understand contract disputes, legal cases and EU complaints.