Big News

[westwaleswasp]

Yes- but that does not mean we have to start making profit - because almost none of the league does. We certainly need stability.

[Vespula Vulgaris]

I have to say this, I’m afraid. Shouldn’t Wasps sort out their own financial issues before taking on more expense in the form of players?

I'm not sure not having players is a good way to sort the club. Getting more players in and starting to win is exactly what we need. Along with more conferences, more concerts, and fewer litigious tenants.

[WonkyWasp]

It's harsh but it's business

[SBSam]

I have to say this, I’m afraid. Shouldn’t Wasps sort out their own financial issues before taking on more expense in the form of players?

I'm not sure not having players is a good way to sort the club. Getting more players in and starting to win is exactly what we need. Along with more conferences, more concerts, and fewer litigious tenants.

You know I didn’t mean no players.

I don’t think your tenants had the intention of being litigious but if a landlord’s acts of omission result in financial loss, they are likely to be.

[Shugs]

To suggest they are not litigious is frankly laughable. It’s their modus operandi. Always has been and always will.

[Rossm]

To suggest they are not litigious is frankly laughable. It’s their modus operandi. Always has been and always will.

Batter in court?? LOL.

[SBSam]

To suggest they are not litigious is frankly laughable. It’s their modus operandi. Always has been and always will.

Batter in court?? LOL.

Agree with the LOL. But still don’t think they returned to Coventry with litigation in mind.

[NorthYorksWasp]

Maybe not with ‘litigation in mind’ but SISU have ‘previous’ and it would be no surprise to anybody if that’s the route they took.

[SBSam]

Maybe not with ‘litigation in mind’ but SISU have ‘previous’ and it would be no surprise to anybody if that’s the route they took.

IF wasps have not kept to the terms of the lease agreement and IF CCFC suffer financial loss, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to seek to recover that loss from Wasps. I’m sure you would expect Wasps to do so if the positions were reversed.

Let’s hope there’s no points deduction, can you imagine the size of the claim if promotion was missed by less than the number of points deducted?

[WonkyWasp]

But surely  ccfc  weren't our tenants when any agreements  were made with the CGs?  I would hope, however, that when the proposed tenancy agreement  was later (many many months later) finalised that surely CCFC were aware of the forthcoming 7s matches, and when?

[Shugs]

Maybe not with ‘litigation in mind’ but SISU have ‘previous’ and it would be no surprise to anybody if that’s the route they took.

IF wasps have not kept to the terms of the lease agreement and IF CCFC suffer financial loss, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to seek to recover that loss from Wasps. I’m sure you would expect Wasps to do so if the positions were reversed.

Let’s hope there’s no points deduction, can you imagine the size of the claim if promotion was missed by less than the number of points deducted?

I don’t think you need to worry about that.

[SBSam]

But surely  ccfc  weren't our tenants when any agreements  were made with the CGs?  I would hope, however, that when the proposed tenancy agreement  was later (many many months later) finalised that surely CCFC were aware of the forthcoming 7s matches, and when?

Wasps were obviously aware of when the CGs were being held and still said publicly that a new pitch would be installed. Surely it would have been for Wasps to have made clear that there might be an issue and reflect that formally in the lease, rather than end up with two mutually exclusive agreements. I think wasps were surprised at the amount of damage caused to the pitch, certain rugby fans seemed to be, and similar events in football stadia didn’t result in a pitch unsafe for football. But perhaps those pitches had been adequately maintained beforehand. I’m not sure that caveat emptor applies here.

[SBSam]

Maybe not with ‘litigation in mind’ but SISU have ‘previous’ and it would be no surprise to anybody if that’s the route they took.

IF wasps have not kept to the terms of the lease agreement and IF CCFC suffer financial loss, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to seek to recover that loss from Wasps. I’m sure you would expect Wasps to do so if the positions were reversed.

Let’s hope there’s no points deduction, can you imagine the size of the claim if promotion was missed by less than the number of points deducted?

I don’t think you need to worry about that.

I’m trying not to - the points deduction I mean which no doubt isn’t what you mean. But you are probably right.

[Neils]

But surely  ccfc  weren't our tenants when any agreements  were made with the CGs?  I would hope, however, that when the proposed tenancy agreement  was later (many many months later) finalised that surely CCFC were aware of the forthcoming 7s matches, and when?

Wasps were obviously aware of when the CGs were being held and still said publicly that a new pitch would be installed. Surely it would have been for Wasps to have made clear that there might be an issue and reflect that formally in the lease, rather than end up with two mutually exclusive agreements. I think wasps were surprised at the amount of damage caused to the pitch, certain rugby fans seemed to be, and similar events in football stadia didn’t result in a pitch unsafe for football. But perhaps those pitches had been adequately maintained beforehand. I’m not sure that caveat emptor applies here.

THe agreement for CCFC to play at the CBSA would have stipulated the Concert date, the CWG period of exclusivity and the WRLC period (yet to play) so they certainly will have known about it all. A bit like knowing about all the S Stand builder work last season. It is not for the greater Wasps entity (whatever that is) to liaise with the EFL - that is a CCFC responsibility. This cock up would suggest that the "Please sir our pitch will be in use early in the season so can we have a venue adjustment in August" didn't occur or they were given a flea in their ear. Wasps have played a blinder not knowing what a pitch is though

[SBSam]

But surely  ccfc  weren't our tenants when any agreements  were made with the CGs?  I would hope, however, that when the proposed tenancy agreement  was later (many many months later) finalised that surely CCFC were aware of the forthcoming 7s matches, and when?

Wasps were obviously aware of when the CGs were being held and still said publicly that a new pitch would be installed. Surely it would have been for Wasps to have made clear that there might be an issue and reflect that formally in the lease, rather than end up with two mutually exclusive agreements. I think wasps were surprised at the amount of damage caused to the pitch, certain rugby fans seemed to be, and similar events in football stadia didn’t result in a pitch unsafe for football. But perhaps those pitches had been adequately maintained beforehand. I’m not sure that caveat emptor applies here.

THe agreement for CCFC to play at the CBSA would have stipulated the Concert date, the CWG period of exclusivity and the WRLC period (yet to play) so they certainly will have known about it all. A bit like knowing about all the S Stand builder work last season. It is not for the greater Wasps entity (whatever that is) to liaise with the EFL - that is a CCFC responsibility. This cock up would suggest that the "Please sir our pitch will be in use early in the season so can we have a venue adjustment in August" didn't occur or they were given a flea in their ear. Wasps have played a blinder not knowing what a pitch is though

I think they do, but chose the wrong option to present (out of grass, sand, clay or snow).

Apparently you can’t play rugby on asphalt, big softies 😀