Wasps pull out...

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2008
25,546
13,888
363
Coventry
So there you have it. SISU agreed to Wasps demands, with an undertaking signed which I find it hard to believe didn't have its wording checked by Wasps legal team to ensure they were happy with it.

Then Wasps changed their demands on a whim. Also casts doubt on Gilbert's claim that Wasps knew nothing about it until he revealed it when the clubs statement refers to it being an issue raised last week.

Find it hard to believe there is a single supporter out there that can still claim Wasps to be blameless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GaryJones

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
Feb 28, 2015
5,858
2,220
163
I suggest you 're read my post and others. They are still pursuing a legal outcome. You are just splitting hairs.
No the are not. The EC may investigate ccc but there is no legal action ongoing.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2013
9,483
2,609
163
Coventry
Okay mate you want to keep peddling the same disproven lines then so be it. Nick's already dealt with you.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
Unfortunately neither you or I are the adjudicator in this matter. Neither is Nick.
 

cc84cov

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2018
7,349
2,994
163
Ok....

So what next groundshare or do we still think the Ricoh will happen ??
 

Nick

Administrator
Feb 25, 2008
111,332
34,658
1,063
Coventry
So there you have it. SISU agreed to Wasps demands, with an undertaking signed which I find it hard to believe didn't have its wording checked by Wasps legal team to ensure they were happy with it.

Then Wasps changed their demands on a whim. Also casts doubt on Gilbert's claim that Wasps knew nothing about it until he revealed it when the clubs statement refers to it being an issue raised last week.

Find it hard to believe there is a single supporter out there that can still claim Wasps to be blameless.
It all falls into place as to why it was leaked. Lying they didn't know about it until Gilbert said.
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2013
9,483
2,609
163
Coventry
They aren't now are they? The commission are.
Splitting hairs my friend. They are the complainants triggering the action. Who knows they might be right? But still the protagonists in keeping action going. Why can't you be honest in assessing the situation?
 

Nick

Administrator
Feb 25, 2008
111,332
34,658
1,063
Coventry
Splitting hairs my friend. They are the complainants triggering the action. Who knows they might be right? But still the protagonists in keeping action going. Why can't you be honest in assessing the situation?
No, only the EC can trigger any action. Sisu have no say at all about it. If the EC decide to take it on, it's them v the council.

I am being honest, that's exactly how it is.

Why would ccfc fans try so hard to defend wasps? Bit strange
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2008
25,546
13,888
363
Coventry
I suggest you 're read my post and others. They are still pursuing a legal outcome. You are just splitting hairs.
Who is pursuing legal action? CCFC and / or any related companies aren't. If they all ceased to exist tomorrow it would not make the slightest difference to the EC investigation.
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2013
9,483
2,609
163
Coventry
No, only the EC can trigger any action. Sisu have no say at all about it. If the EC decide to take it on, it's them v the council.

I am being honest, that's exactly how it is.

Why would ccfc fans try so hard to defend wasps? Bit strange
Have they taken it on or have they been prompted? Yes once it is brought to their attention they cannot drop it as they have to be seen to investigate it. I have no problem with that it is the proper process.

A bit cheap you suggesting I am defending Wasps when I am just pointing out weaknesses in your argument.
 

Nick

Administrator
Feb 25, 2008
111,332
34,658
1,063
Coventry
Have they taken it on or have they been prompted? Yes once it is brought to their attention they cannot drop it as they have to be seen to investigate it. I have no problem with that it is the proper process.

A bit cheap you suggesting I am defending Wasps when I am just pointing out weaknesses in your argument.
They take it on if they feel there is a case.

Where's the weakness in my argument? Anything that would come from that is from the EC.

It's as simple as that. Try reading your own posts, nothing cheap about pointing out the obvious.
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2013
9,483
2,609
163
Coventry
Who is pursuing legal action? CCFC and / or any related companies aren't. If they all ceased to exist tomorrow it would not make the slightest difference to the EC investigation.
Okay let's flip it Dave. What legal obligation have Wasps got to negotiate with SISU CCFC or any other business?
 

Nick

Administrator
Feb 25, 2008
111,332
34,658
1,063
Coventry
Okay let's flip it Dave. What legal obligation have Wasps got to negotiate with SISU CCFC or any other business?
So why not say that? They have none, say that then rather than trying to act innocent and have ccfc fans trying to defend them.

Just say "we don't want ccfc here". Instead they have tried to bullshit, how many times has it been now?

They are demanding sisu or ccfc cover their losses if they are made to pay something back. Imagine being a city fan and still defending that.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2008
25,546
13,888
363
Coventry
Have they taken it on or have they been prompted? Yes once it is brought to their attention they cannot drop it as they have to be seen to investigate it. I have no problem with that it is the proper process.
They will look at it themselves and decide if there is anything to investigate, if not it will be dropped. They aren't going to investigate everything sent their way, people would be firing things in left, right and centre and the cost would be crippling.

So they will only move forward if they have concerns about the use of taxpayers money, how can anyone object to that?
 

RegTheDonk

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2011
2,840
1,088
163
He won't be, because he is pushing the story on their behalf.
If you are suggesting he's using his position to promote an agenda, not be impartial and not probe the other point of view, then perhaps he should be reported as a breach of the BBC charter. He's working for Auntie now, not some hack filled right/left wing biast print corporation who push whatever stance their advertisers want.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2008
25,546
13,888
363
Coventry
Okay let's flip it Dave. What legal obligation have Wasps got to negotiate with SISU CCFC or any other business?
That's not flipping it, that's a totally different issue. But it does perfectly illustrate why the council selling to Wasps was so damaging for the football club.

They have no legal obligation. Of course they should do as the council assured us repeatedly the clubs future was safeguarded but it seems that was another lie and they did nothing to actually ensure that was the case. Even Eastwood himself said "we effectively made a commitment to the council when we purchased the Ricoh that Coventry City would be at the Ricoh for as long as they wish".
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2013
9,483
2,609
163
Coventry
They will look at it themselves and decide if there is anything to investigate, if not it will be dropped. They aren't going to investigate everything sent their way, people would be firing things in left, right and centre and the cost would be crippling.

So they will only move forward if they have concerns about the use of taxpayers money, how can anyone object to that?
Same as,the failed court cases. They are only taken on if there is a possibility of a case being made. Who is objecting to it? My point it is still pursuing a possible legal outcome.

I have never said that it is wrong. I just pointed out it my be why Wasps see it as continuing a legal route, especially if SISU approached the EU Commission.

You are very prickly along with others.
 

Nick

Administrator
Feb 25, 2008
111,332
34,658
1,063
Coventry
Same as,the failed court cases. They are only taken on if there is a possibility of a case being made. Who is objecting to it? My point it is still pursuing a possible legal outcome.

I have never said that it is wrong. I just pointed out it my be why Wasps see it as continuing a legal route, especially if SISU approached the EU Commission.

You are very prickly along with others.
You don't get it, SISU aren't pursing it now are they? The EUC would be if they choose to.

Before, the issue was that Otium were named in it. The goalposts get moved, again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davy67

COVKIDSNEVERQUIT

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2016
2,378
1,325
163
The Cayman Islands.
My own take on recent events.

Lets be clear all parties have got us in to this mess. They have chosen their actions decisions or responses and must own their responsibility for those actions decisions and responses. Do i feel sorry for any of them - absolutely not, i certainly do not feel any party has been hard done by, in fact some parties, in particular SISU & CCC have not been hard done by enough in my opinion.

Like it or not each side is entitled to make their own decisions and have their own terms. If you accept that SISU have the right to go repeatedly to court, then you have to accept Wasps have a right of choice too. The only party that suffers in this is the fans, who appear to have only one choice, how to support the team or not.

The Complaint
Not a "legal case" as yet in terms of English court procedures no but this is the EC, it is a defined legal process enshrined in EU law and regulation. You do not make a complaint to the EC to prove the other side right. You do not make a complaint to the EC if you do not hope or expect to get it heard at the ECJ. EU law is investigation nor adversarial based, so my understanding is that this is much like an application to the High Court in England to have a case heard, but you don't sit in front of a judge to do it. Trying to draw a distinction between a legal case or not is really just playing with words. The clear intention is to get one, and to obtain financial remedy from it afterwards in the English courts.
This is also not a simple letter to the EC saying "you should look at this". It will have been a detailed reasoned statement produced by lawyers, providing evidence, history and context. SISU have made the choice to go this route no one forced them to
The EC investigation has been instigated by SISU. They can not simply wash hands of it and say its not me guv. The process allows the complainant to add evidence at any time, any one think SISU wont? Just because it is the EC investigating doesnt mean it isnt an action brought by SISU. If it gets to the ECJ then you would expect that SISU are represented as complainant.

Timing of the Complaint
We are told the complaint was made in February. I suspect the CCC didn't receive the details until recently and Wasps probably got informed very recently (last week i would guess). I do not think that either were aware of the complaint being made over 2 months ago. I also suspect the CCFC negotiating team (Boddy +?) were not aware either. The complaint was made before the Supreme Court Judgement was passed down, which implies that this was a course SISU always intended to take no matter what happened, they can not have entered into negotiations openly and in good faith. Just to be clear i think CCFC in the shape of Boddy probably did go in good faith.

Complaint issued in February, SISU statement issued 13th March which in part complained about things being done behind their back (not like they were ever innocent of that in the first place) whilst doing exactly that themselves. Classic don't look here look there

Disclosure of the complaint
Clearly this should have been at the earliest opportunity, but in terms of negotiations certainly when those started.( Something else SISU complained about, was that things were not disclosed when they should have been). Everyone knew that any form of legal action by the CCFC owners was going to mean negotiations at serious risk or no talks. SISU knew that. No its not a legal action in the sense of going to court but it is a legal process which has the sole intent of getting it heard in the ECJ. To take part in talks with that hidden in the background will not only destroy any modicum of trust left between Wasps & SISU but also the working relationship at senior level between Wasps & CCFC. I think you do have to ask why so much was made of the alternative ground heads of terms being time critical, was it or was it a deal was needed before the complaint news came out? Not to disclose was a cold calculated decision & risk.

The deal
I am sure a two year deal between CCFC & Wasps was agreed, with probably an option to extend. Pretty certain the reason it would not have been signed was SISU playing with the clause relating to legal actions. I am not sure Wasps have totally closed the door on a deal, but will want some contractual assurances that mitigate any risk from the complaint. I do not think they will get them, the purpose of SISU's actions is to distress Wasps any way they can or to get a settlement. As it seems the complaint can not now be stopped by SISU then the second option seems very unlikely.

RIsk
The case is brought against the Council. It is apparently couched in the same terms as the JR2 case. It is not true to say it does not impact on Wasps. In the JR2 case legal counsel for SISU said that the remedies should include a multi million pound sum to be paid by Wasps. Yes I know SISU have to win first and then take to UK courts. It would be inconceivable to think that such a remedy was not included in the complaint however.
The complaint might be against CCC, but Wasps are clearly impacted from the start, and SISU intend them to be. It impacts in a more general sense because the threat could influence lenders or investors, could affect credit rating assessments, could affect interest rates, could affect refinancing the bond, will certainly increase professional fees to auditors & lawyers, could impact future planning etc. Much of that applies whether there is or isnt a case to prove. Could they have an indemnity against CCC perhaps but if the deal broke state aid rules that makes it an illegal deal so is the contract enforceable?
It could impact even more should the case progress. Going to court is not always a guarantee of the result expected, and it is expensive

To Sum Up
Personal opinions
If it wasnt clear that when SISU say some one has acted behind their back, they are recognising actions they have undertaken themselves it should be
Much of what has gone on since January in the public arena from all parties has been disgraceful and purely designed to distract. Most statements put out bear little scrutiny in truth. The CCC ones have been amateur and the SISU ones nothing more than distraction that some bought in to as the only truth. None of the parties have changed one little bit. The new found acceptance of SISU is misplaced. CCC, never trust politicians.
If it wasn't clear that the club is not important enough to the various parties it should be now. In particular it should be absolutely crystal clear that it is not about the well being of CCFC to SISU, it is only and only ever has been about their investment

Sick and tired of this saga. I might go to a ground share on the odd occasion but not certain of that, at the Ricoh i would have had a season ticket.

Was annoyed yesterday & day before but to be honest now i feel kind of numb to it all, this is not what supporting a football team should be about...... roll on August!
 

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member
Dec 15, 2015
6,851
4,918
163
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

The only reason some people are still blindly defending Wasps is because they have a secret crush on them. These people likey attend, or have attended their games.

Feeling guilty about it they need to overcompensate by trying to justify it.
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
Feb 28, 2015
5,858
2,220
163
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

The only reason some people are still blindly defending Wasps is because they have a secret crush on them. These people likey attend, or have attended their games.

Feeling guilty about it they need to overcompensate by trying to justify it.
Free tickets will blind some people.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2013
9,483
2,609
163
Coventry
So why not say that? They have none, say that then rather than trying to act innocent and have ccfc fans trying to defend them.

Just say "we don't want ccfc here". Instead they have tried to bullshit, how many times has it been now?

They are demanding sisu or ccfc cover their losses if they are made to pay something back. Imagine being a city fan and still defending that.
Imagine them willing to have CCFC at the Ricoh but the owner's trying to cause them financial damage?

It's a mess Nick.

And please stop trying to undermine my status as a city fan with comments like "city fan...defending that?". And others you have started to slip in. Making an observation is not the same as defending.

You are just an observer in this like me. The likelihood is supporting CCFC will cost us more money next year and there are lots of parties to blame. SISU's distressing tactics are just one. But it is what they are about and the one constant. Perhaps they will prove themselves right one day? Who knows?
 

Nick

Administrator
Feb 25, 2008
111,332
34,658
1,063
Coventry
Imagine them willing to have CCFC at the Ricoh but the owner's trying to cause them financial damage?

It's a mess Nick.

And please stop trying to undermine my status as a city fan with comments like "city fan...defending that?". And others you have started to slip in. Making an observation is not the same as defending.

You are just an observer in this like me. The likelihood is supporting CCFC will cost us more money next year and there are lots of parties to blame. SISU's distressing tactics are just one. But it is what they are about and the one constant. Perhaps they will prove themselves right one day? Who knows?
There will only be financial damage if the council are found to be in the wrong.

Let's not pretend other parties haven't tried their best to damage ccfc over the years and take what they can.

I mention it because I can't grasp why a ccfc fan would be so desperate to defend wasps kicking us out.
 

Nick

Administrator
Feb 25, 2008
111,332
34,658
1,063
Coventry
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

The only reason some people are still blindly defending Wasps is because they have a secret crush on them. These people likey attend, or have attended their games.

Feeling guilty about it they need to overcompensate by trying to justify it.
It's even better when they seem to think they have some moral high ground and they are getting one over on sisu.
 

sotonskyblue

Member
Mar 30, 2014
44
14
8
southampton
My own take on recent events.

Lets be clear all parties have got us in to this mess. They have chosen their actions decisions or responses and must own their responsibility for those actions decisions and responses. Do i feel sorry for any of them - absolutely not, i certainly do not feel any party has been hard done by, in fact some parties, in particular SISU & CCC have not been hard done by enough in my opinion.

Like it or not each side is entitled to make their own decisions and have their own terms. If you accept that SISU have the right to go repeatedly to court, then you have to accept Wasps have a right of choice too. The only party that suffers in this is the fans, who appear to have only one choice, how to support the team or not.

The Complaint
Not a "legal case" as yet in terms of English court procedures no but this is the EC, it is a defined legal process enshrined in EU law and regulation. You do not make a complaint to the EC to prove the other side right. You do not make a complaint to the EC if you do not hope or expect to get it heard at the ECJ. EU law is investigation nor adversarial based, so my understanding is that this is much like an application to the High Court in England to have a case heard, but you don't sit in front of a judge to do it. Trying to draw a distinction between a legal case or not is really just playing with words. The clear intention is to get one, and to obtain financial remedy from it afterwards in the English courts.
This is also not a simple letter to the EC saying "you should look at this". It will have been a detailed reasoned statement produced by lawyers, providing evidence, history and context. SISU have made the choice to go this route no one forced them to
The EC investigation has been instigated by SISU. They can not simply wash hands of it and say its not me guv. The process allows the complainant to add evidence at any time, any one think SISU wont? Just because it is the EC investigating doesnt mean it isnt an action brought by SISU. If it gets to the ECJ then you would expect that SISU are represented as complainant.

Timing of the Complaint
We are told the complaint was made in February. I suspect the CCC didn't receive the details until recently and Wasps probably got informed very recently (last week i would guess). I do not think that either were aware of the complaint being made over 2 months ago. I also suspect the CCFC negotiating team (Boddy +?) were not aware either. The complaint was made before the Supreme Court Judgement was passed down, which implies that this was a course SISU always intended to take no matter what happened, they can not have entered into negotiations openly and in good faith. Just to be clear i think CCFC in the shape of Boddy probably did go in good faith.

exacComplaint issued in February, SISU statement issued 13th March which in part complained about things being done behind their back (not like they were ever innocent of that in the first place) whilst doing tly that themselves. Classic don't look here look there

Disclosure of the complaint
Clearly this should have been at the earliest opportunity, but in terms of negotiations certainly when those started.( Something else SISU complained about, was that things were not disclosed when they should have been). Everyone knew that any form of legal action by the CCFC owners was going to mean negotiations at serious risk or no talks. SISU knew that. No its not a legal action in the sense of going to court but it is a legal process which has the sole intent of getting it heard in the ECJ. To take part in talks with that hidden in the background will not only destroy any modicum of trust left between Wasps & SISU but also the working relationship at senior level between Wasps & CCFC. I think you do have to ask why so much was made of the alternative ground heads of terms being time critical, was it or was it a deal was needed before the complaint news came out? Not to disclose was a cold calculated decision & risk.

The deal
I am sure a two year deal between CCFC & Wasps was agreed, with probably an option to extend. Pretty certain the reason it would not have been signed was SISU playing with the clause relating to legal actions. I am not sure Wasps have totally closed the door on a deal, but will want some contractual assurances that mitigate any risk from the complaint. I do not think they will get them, the purpose of SISU's actions is to distress Wasps any way they can or to get a settlement. As it seems the complaint can not now be stopped by SISU then the second option seems very unlikely.

RIsk
The case is brought against the Council. It is apparently couched in the same terms as the JR2 case. It is not true to say it does not impact on Wasps. In the JR2 case legal counsel for SISU said that the remedies should include a multi million pound sum to be paid by Wasps. Yes I know SISU have to win first and then take to UK courts. It would be inconceivable to think that such a remedy was not included in the complaint however.
The complaint might be against CCC, but Wasps are clearly impacted from the start, and SISU intend them to be. It impacts in a more general sense because the threat could influence lenders or investors, could affect credit rating assessments, could affect interest rates, could affect refinancing the bond, will certainly increase professional fees to auditors & lawyers, could impact future planning etc. Much of that applies whether there is or isnt a case to prove. Could they have an indemnity against CCC perhaps but if the deal broke state aid rules that makes it an illegal deal so is the contract enforceable?
It could impact even more should the case progress. Going to court is not always a guarantee of the result expected, and it is expensive

To Sum Up
Personal opinions
If it wasnt clear that when SISU say some one has acted behind their back, they are recognising actions they have undertaken themselves it should be
Much of what has gone on since January in the public arena from all parties has been disgraceful and purely designed to distract. Most statements put out bear little scrutiny in truth. The CCC ones have been amateur and the SISU ones nothing more than distraction that some bought in to as the only truth. None of the parties have changed one little bit. The new found acceptance of SISU is misplaced. CCC, never trust politicians.
If it wasn't clear that the club is not important enough to the various parties it should be now. In particular it should be absolutely crystal clear that it is not about the well being of CCFC to SISU, it is only and only ever has been about their investment

Sick and tired of this saga. I might go to a ground share on the odd occasion but not certain of that, at the Ricoh i would have had a season ticket.

Was annoyed yesterday & day before but to be honest now i feel kind of numb to it all, this is not what supporting a football team should be about...... roll on August!
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
18,794
20,096
263
There will only be financial damage if the council are found to be in the wrong.

Let's not pretend other parties haven't tried their best to damage ccfc over the years and take what they can.

I mention it because I can't grasp why a ccfc fan would be so desperate to defend wasps kicking us out.
And surely if wasps are forced to make a payment to the council it is ultimately reimbursing the Coventry tax payer money they are owed.
Why would any Coventrian be against that?
Why would any Coventry councillor be against that?
 

Nick

Administrator
Feb 25, 2008
111,332
34,658
1,063
Coventry
And surely if wasps are forced to make a payment to the council it is ultimately reimbursing the Coventry tax payer money they are owed.
Why would any Coventrian be against that?
Why would any Coventry councillor be against that?
Exactly, is a massive IF though.

Seems some would be against it.
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
Feb 28, 2015
5,858
2,220
163
And surely if wasps are forced to make a payment to the council it is ultimately reimbursing the Coventry tax payer money they are owed.
Why would any Coventrian be against that?
Why would any Coventry councillor be against that?
Exactly its money that should be spent on vital services

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
 

sotonskyblue

Member
Mar 30, 2014
44
14
8
southampton
You do have to wonder what Mark Robbins makes of this. When he met Joy(feb/march?) did she mention any of this? I doubt it very much but you would expect the impact of a possible ground move to have a significant impact on any future playing budget.Even if the complaint was submitted after the Joy/ Robins meeting it was very clearly on SISU,s agenda. I,m sorry but I believe OSB is correct in his assertion that SISU never have never will care a jot about CCFC, its all about the money and anything else is collateral damage