CCFC staying in Birmingham

[westwaleswasp]

Rather predictable, sadly.
I guess it is in SISU's interests to distress us by any way they can, even if they hurt their own interests....

[NellyWellyWaspy]

In effect, CCFC and Wasps had made an agreement. Wasps, as always, insisted on a don't sue us indemnity, and who could blame them?

But, as that is SISU's business model (to use anyone they make an agreement/deal with), end of talks.

I cannot see a new stadium happening. Warwick Uni are mad to even start talks with them. As an Alumni, I shall be contacting them to express my disappointment at the total lack of good sense, but, knowing that the uni is run by a bunch of old farts who have as much common sense as those at the RFU, I can see it more likely failing due to pure incompetence by them.

[Dgwasp]

Reading the statement and then looking at the storm that it has whipped up on SBT it is clear that this has been released solely to have such an effect.

A couple of questions; Boddy, apparently is a salt of the earth honest guy, who has previously commented that he has a good working relationship with us and the relationship breakdown is further up the tree... How can that be so if we've been nothing but disruptive and dishonest. So I ask, which is it? Was it a good working relationship or a difficult one. For such an honest guy this is a mixed message.

If indeed we were intentionally stalling and taking time to respond, if CCFC were genuinely trying to negotiate a return to Coventry, why release plans for a new stadium during such a crucial few days?

Talks did fail for the same reason as before, and as before SISU have no intention of CCFC playing in Coventry unless they can continue the underhanded tactics of distressing Wasps.

Remember, all this talk about honesty when CCFC signed a waiver to any future legal action knowing full well that they had secretly raised a complaint to the EU, which is not against us directly but certainly affects us and destabilises us.

This isn't looking pretty for either side and washing dirty laundry in public is absolutely unprofessional.  It is a cheap PR stunt as far as I can see.

Apologies, rant over.

[MarleyWasp]

I doubt Boddy wrote that. Most likely a PR company wrote it and attached his name as he's trusted more than Sepella or Fisher.

[Shugs]

The narrative on this needs re-aligning for me. The football club has zero leverage. We legitimately own the stadium and from what I understand football revenues are immaterial at best. That being the case this isn't a discussion where both sides need an agreement. The football club dances to our tune or doesn't play at the Ricoh. That's life, it's that simple. If I were Wasps I'd stop the soft, balanced statements with only thinly veiled pointers to the truth and just publish the deal and say take it or leave it.

[Brandnewtorugby]

What the hell does "The principle and concept of an indemnity against Wasps and a third party was absolutely a requirement" even mean? Principle and concept? Indemnity for what? Requirement to do what?

Suggests they could not say "We were required to sign an indemnity around legal action over the Ricoh Arena"

[RogerE]

So the discussions were covered by a NDA, which gives either side a chance to accuse the other without having to supply proof.

Now the discussions have failed and it looks like they won't start-up again,and CCFC will "soon get their own stadium" why not let both sides publish and be damned, to show who is telling the truth?

[jamestaylor002]

For anyone interested. Absolutely bang on response by Wasps here.

https://www.wasps.co.uk/news/clarification-statement/

EDIT: I think I will try and stay away from social media on this subject from now on!

Sent from my SM-A715F using Tapatalk

[Neils]

Dignified response.
I think they had to respond in some way after the SISU blame statement and that, to my mind, goes far enough.
How anyone can trust the football club owners beggars belief but let Wasps have nothing more to deal with them.

[Shugs]

On balance I think this was the right thing to do. I wouldn't dignify them with any further statements after this one. This isn't a two way negotiation - they need us, we don't need them.

[Vespula Vulgaris]

I think there are a few important things we can take from this.

We have read the comments made by representatives of CCFC in recent days and debated whether we wished to lend them any credibility by responding or to get drawn into a public war of words. However, we believe it is important to defend ourselves against the accusations levied at us, and to address and clarify certain points.

I think this is really nice.  We all know that Wasps tend not to get involved in this sort of thing, or to post publically on much, so the fact that they are making an effort to be straight with us is a big deal.  Here's hoping it is a sign of things to come!

One point we have remained firm on throughout negotiations is the need to protect ourselves from future further litigious behaviour, directly or indirectly, by CCFC's owners.

I think this likely holds the key to the whole thing. I am willing to bet money that there will be a response from CCFC saying that they were happy not to sue Wasps, but the "indirectly" point is a big one.  If they successfully manage to sue the city council for having sold the Ricoh to wasps then who will the council be legally obliged to pass that on to?  Wasps.  They may not be suing Wasps but they are directly attempting to distress Wasps by legal action.  Personally I don't think it is too much to ask them not to sue their landlord or sue someone else that will directly impact on their landlord.  SISU obviously disagree. 

The fact that Wasps have even mentioned this make it pretty clear this was a big deal.  SISU have attempted to screw Wasps in the courts before, and won't promise not to do it again. 

But even with this the fact that we weren't seeking indeminity, just an agreement not to attempt to bankrupt us seems pretty reasonable to me.

We believe CCFC owner’s call to waive the NDA is nothing more than a tactic to distract fans. Their implication, that Wasps has something to hide, is defamatory. As they are more than aware, the NDA was signed by several parties who trusted in the enduring integrity and spirit of the agreement for the protection of their commercially sensitive data and of the independent individuals involved. It is misleading to suggest that it is simply up to Wasps to waive the NDA. We see this as nothing more than an attempt to publicly pass on the blame.

I suspect the only reason this is even in there is because CCFC have already broken the NDA by mentioning it exists.  I have no doubt that there were other bodies involved, whether they were well known individuals or corporate entities with an interest in the negotiations. They may well not want their discussions being made public, and so to imply that Wasps are somehow the bad guys by sticking to a legal agreement they made is preposterous.  I sign NDAs all the time when dealing with clients, it isn't a big deal.  Even if it was entirely Wasps doing it is still pretty standard practice.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that if Wasps did break the NDA as requested that SISU would then attempt to sue them for that as well!

All in all I am proud of my club for releasing this statement.  I suspect the instinct was to batten down the hatches and simply keep quiet, and they did not do that.  It speaks of integrity and bravery way beyond the liars of SISU.

[MarleyWasp]

A large part of my job involves being lied to, so I'd like to think I'm pretty good for seeing things for what they are.

When a tenant has had lots of complaints made about them, nothing you'd class as danger to put the neighbours at risk, but serious enough when you look at the number and length of time this has gone on to be putting their tenancy at risk, they often make an allegation that the complainant has threatened them or made an offensive comment. You know from experience that they always have their phone in their hands and have filmed you whenever you've gone to see them, yet when you ask if they have a recording of the threat they always say their phone wasn't working or that they accidentally deleted the footage.

That, in my opinion is what is happening here. Sisu had no intention of bringing CCFC back to the Ricoh, but having won over a lot of fans after they pratted about until they had to announce where they were playing last year, they thought they'd do it again, making up something knowing full well the NDA covers too many organisations for them all to agree to waive the NDA. This way they can win over the less intelligent and generally more vocal CCFC fans and blame Wasps for a deal not being reached when the only barrier is they never wanted a deal in the first place.

[AKWasp]

A lot of fans from both sides who have had balanced conversation have made this point:

It wouldn’t be the first time SISU have tried to distress an owner of the Ricoh in an attempt to acquire it on the cheap.

It smells like an attempt to get CCFC fans on side by making the right moves towards a new stadium and blaming us for all the wrong in the past.

It would be an absolute travesty for a hedge fund to destroy a sporting institution much older than the one it owns, purely from its own greed.

Let’s hope that the Karma from SISU trying to financially distress a charity comes back around.

[InBetweenWasp]

It's a bit of a mess really.

We know from the Wycombe days that renting a stadium just doesn't work financially and for predictability and longevity you really need to own a stadium.  I'm sure it's no different for Football.

It seems like the CCFC fans are been in a state of flux for 5+ years and I think really all they're looking for it to find out definitively:

-- Have the Council acted disingenuously in the sale of the Ricoh to Wasps and the subsequent 250-year lease extension? (Commercially, the sale itself seemed sensible - The lease for a relatively modest fee seems a bit more suspect but I don't know enough about it to know whether it's normal to get such a lease in these scenarios)

-- What plans do SISU/CCFC have to play their football in Coventry, with their own Stadium

The answers, either way, are almost at a point where they're irrelevant.  I think most fans just want to know the truth, then move on with their own stadium.

[Rossm]

Though I have been opposed to it in the past, I think now is the time to start removing CCFC legacies from the Ricoh, though I'd keep the seats until they actually need renewing. I like the colour and of course it would be an unnecessary expense.