VV, that was indeed a good post, however I don’t think there was any inkling of further legal action from CCFC leading up to the bond redemption date.
Probably not, but during the five years after Wasps moved to Coventry Sisu had them in the High Court twice, The Court of Appeal twice, the Supreme Court once, and even attempted to take the spurious case to the EU Commission. So having a tenant who has already attempted to sue you six times in five years isn't a good look.
If a company (and stress the if) end up financially penalised because another company has not abided by a contract, is it that unreasonable to pursue some recompense - and none of us know whether that will happen - we are working on a balance of probabilities given some history. I was very angry about the pitch situation and will only see two home games by the end of September and I do think Wasps handled it very badly.
As we don't know what the agreement was it's very hard to make a reasonable comment in any way on this. But let's for the sake of argument assume there is a case to be made about the pitch.
It's probably fair to say that the hottest heatwave in history, a large concert, and the commonwealth games all coming together made the pitch what it was. If a new pitch had been relaid before the Rammstein gig it would have ended up in exactly the state the old pitch was. It wouldn't have rooted, it would likely have bare patches, and it would be no safer than the current pitch was. Because let's face it, laying a new pitch wouldn't have stopped the concert, it wouldn't have stopped the heatwave, and it wouldn't have stopped the CG.
But the actual question is was Wasps obliged to provide a suitable pitch anyway? This is where it gets tricky. It seems CCFC knew about the concert, and they knew about the CG. The heatwave I think surprised us all. They also knew there were no plans to re-lay a pitch, despite what may have been said earlier. The pitch, in whatever state it was in, was committed to the exclusive use of the CG until the 14th August. CCFC however wanted the pitch earlier than that. Whose issue is that? It feels to me as if CCFC were fully aware that there might be an issue with access to the ground at the start of the season, and it was ignored. It sounds to me as if the uproar about the state of the pitch was deliberately created to distract from the fact that the people who run your club agreed to hold a home match in a ground they already knew they had no access to and no right to us on that date.
The pitch quality sucked from a football perspective, I get that. But do you really believe that anything else was ever on the cards?
And as to how it was dealt with, you'll have to go a long way to persuade me that the discussions wouldn't have been more productive behind closed doors in a way that didn't paint either side as being "to blame". Unless of course publically paiting Wasps as the party at fault was deliberate to cover up CCFC's fuck up.
Always a Wasp