And So It Goes On...........and On................and On

[Rossm]

Ricoh Arena talks still ON insists Coventry City chief

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/coventry-city-ricoh-wasps-groundshare-16409547

[Heathen]

Mark Robins needs to get his facts right :

 He said: “I would like to say first and foremost, I am deeply disappointed for our supporters who had hoped, quite rightly, that we would be playing our home games at the Stadium that was built for Coventry City to play in.

“Secondly, it is a complete and utter disgrace that the Ricoh Arena, which again, was built as the home of Coventry City Football Club, is owned by a Rugby Club that has its roots in Buckinghamshire. How can that happen?

“Coventry is ‘City of Sport’ in 2019 – this is an absolute joke.”

[Neils]

Not a &€£$#€£ clue.

[Vespula Vulgaris]

I'm sure people running Wasps down help the situation massively.

Not...

[BG]

I'm sure people running Wasps down help the situation massively.

Not...

Wasps or CCFC? If Wasps, why? If anything, this statement doesn't really help things apart from stir up even more bad blood amongst some of the sky blue supporters.

The fact the CCFCemployees have put their names to the statement makes me think it was signed off by the CCFC boss and possibly even higher up than that.

I'm struggling to believe that the stumbling block is anything other than the recently revealed EU commission complaint.

The only other thing that I could think it might be is a something to do with the amount Wasps want CCFC to pay in rent.

The rumour is that CCFC were only paying £100k, but this amount may have been a condition put on Wasps as a part of the sale (to try and help CCFC get back on their feet). The season just gone was a 1 yr extension of the original contract.

Perhaps Wasps have asked for something similar to what  Brum FC have (rumour again) asked for.

An agreement may be reached during the summer but as both leagues' fixture lists will have to be finalised soon, it seems very unlikely.

[Neils]

The Wasps statement suggests they had (at least temporarily) put aside the EU application. I suspect Wasps did increase the rent but probably imposed other conditions which SISU but possibly not the football club found unpalatable.

[Rifleman Harris]

I think the CCFC statement (Robins is only the mouthpiece in this case) is precisely aimed at pointing the finger at a 'bad guy'.  Wasps is the obvious one as we own the ground and won't agree to their terms.  It diverts the blame for all this from the true villains, SISU.  The statement basically says it is wrong that we own the ground, but omits the reasons that this eventually came to pass. It's just their (rather effective) PR push.

[Rifleman Harris]

The Wasps statement suggests they had (at least temporarily) put aside the EU application. I suspect Wasps did increase the rent but probably imposed other conditions which SISU but possibly not the football club found unpalatable.

I think we were looking for SISU to indemnify us against the fall out of a successful case.  As they want us out and are actively trying to distress Wasps they wouldn't agree to that.

[Raggs]

The Wasps statement suggests they had (at least temporarily) put aside the EU application. I suspect Wasps did increase the rent but probably imposed other conditions which SISU but possibly not the football club found unpalatable.

I think we were looking for SISU to indemnify us against the fall out of a successful case.  As they want us out and are actively trying to distress Wasps they wouldn't agree to that.

Basically if they agreed to it, it'd be the end of them, rather than the end of us, should the courts decide we have to pay £27m extra. In fact, Wasps may just survive such a thing (sell half the Ricoh), but CCFC probably wouldn't.

[BG]

I think the CCFC statement (Robins is only the mouthpiece in this case) is precisely aimed at pointing the finger at a 'bad guy'.  Wasps is the obvious one as we own the ground and won't agree to their terms.  It diverts the blame for all this from the true villains, SISU.  The statement basically says it is wrong that we own the ground, but omits the reasons that this eventually came to pass. It's just their (rather effective) PR push.

The statement has been made by 2 employees of CCFC, Tynan Scope and Mike Reid. I suspect the comment by Robbins has been added to the article at the end to give it a bit more gravitas and probably comes from a different conversation at a different time.

It does come across as finger pointing though.
 

[Rifleman Harris]

The Wasps statement suggests they had (at least temporarily) put aside the EU application. I suspect Wasps did increase the rent but probably imposed other conditions which SISU but possibly not the football club found unpalatable.

I think we were looking for SISU to indemnify us against the fall out of a successful case.  As they want us out and are actively trying to distress Wasps they wouldn't agree to that.

Basically if they agreed to it, it'd be the end of them, rather than the end of us, should the courts decide we have to pay £27m extra. In fact, Wasps may just survive such a thing (sell half the Ricoh), but CCFC probably wouldn't.

I agree, they couldn't agree to that...but I thought that was the sticking point. Maybe along the lines of if you aren't suing us and you are confident that your actions won't impact Wasps (which was the intent of the 'no more litigation' clause), then you would be happy to agree to indemnify Wasps.  Clearly Sisu know damned well that the outcome could impact Wasps, as that is their intent, and so could never agree to those conditions.

[BG]

The Wasps statement suggests they had (at least temporarily) put aside the EU application. I suspect Wasps did increase the rent but probably imposed other conditions which SISU but possibly not the football club found unpalatable.

I think we were looking for SISU to indemnify us against the fall out of a successful case.  As they want us out and are actively trying to distress Wasps they wouldn't agree to that.

Basically if they agreed to it, it'd be the end of them, rather than the end of us, should the courts decide we have to pay £27m extra. In fact, Wasps may just survive such a thing (sell half the Ricoh), but CCFC probably wouldn't.

I wonder what the effective outcome would be if the EU commision ruled that it was state aid.. (I've read somewhere that sporting developments/funding tend to be exempt from the EU interpretation of "State Aid")

What could the EU commision do?

Presumably it will rely heavily on whether we are still part of the EU when the decision is made though?

A quick search has turned up this.

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-commission_en

The important bit is

Enforces EU law

    Together with the Court of Justice, ensures that EU law is properly applied in all the member countries.

[Neils]

If I remember correctly it comes back to the UK courts BUT CCC can appeal that judgement at EU level so roll on for decades.

[BG]

What's slightly confusing is SISU couldn't appeal the decisions made in the UK courts because the European Court of Justice isn't appelate (whatever that means??).

So how can the EU commision make a decision, then ask the EU court to make UK courts to reverse their original decision, if they weren't in a position to do so in the first place?

I did a search on the EU commisions website but it only lists cases where they've made a decision not ones that have been lodged.

It seems they make a lot of decisions on mergers.. i.e. not letting Asda/Sainsbury merge but possibly letting Fiat/Renault merge (errr???)

[Marlow Nick]

What's slightly confusing is SISU couldn't appeal the decisions made in the UK courts because the European Court of Justice isn't appelate (whatever that means??).

So how can the EU commision make a decision, then ask the EU court to make UK courts to reverse their original decision, if they weren't in a position to do so in the first place?

I did a search on the EU commisions website but it only lists cases where they've made a decision not ones that have been lodged.

It seems they make a lot of decisions on mergers.. i.e. not letting Asda/Sainsbury merge but possibly letting Fiat/Renault merge (errr???)

My understanding is that they made two different complaints.
The first was to the UK courts saying that Coventry Council had an process that did not allow a fair competition for a valuable asset. In this case they are the complainant seeking damages since they were unable to bid and lost out.
Their complaint to the EU is that Coventry Council provided an illegal business subsidy. In this case they are not a complainant asking for personal compensation (they're not allowed to be) but they are a whistle-blower claiming that Coventry Council gave a UK business an unfair business advantage against EU competition law.
Subtle difference!