Would you get an ST next season if ...... (1 Viewer)

[dongonzalos]

I'm sure they are sleeping safe and sound.

Keep on fighting wasps battles for them if you wish.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

So you think suggesting they are using their position as a landlord to force SISU to drop legal action is fighting Wasps battle for them.
How exactly am I fighting their battle for them?

It's just pointing out the bleedin obvious.

What's more important to them
our tiny contribution to their revenue or attempting to stop our owners action that may seriously impact on their valuation of the Ricoh. Which in turn would seriously jeapordise their £35 million bond scheme?
That will be the priority, if it also strengthens their bargaining stance all the better for them.

Are you fighting their battle by suggesting that they are merely using the legal action as an excuse, so that they can be in a better negotiating position?

I really don't get your logic.

 

---

[stupot07]

So you think suggesting they are using their position as a landlord to force SISU to drop legal action is fighting Wasps battle for them.
How exactly am I fighting their battle for them?

It's just pointing out the bleedin obvious.

What's more important to them
our tiny contribution to their revenue or attempting to stop our owners action that may seriously impact on their valuation of the Ricoh. Which in turn would seriously jeapordise their £35 million bond scheme?
That will be the priority, if it also strengthens their bargaining stance all the better for them.

Are you fighting their battle by suggesting that they are merely using the legal action as an excuse, so that they can be in a better negotiating position?

I really don't get your logic.

I maintain, there will be no retrospective action that will impact wasps or their bonds, it will be a smack on the wrists and a fine at worst for the council.

You know what you're doing, you do it all the time.

And I maintain that if sisu don't drop thr action, wasps will change their stance and give us another short term deal.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[slowpoke]

To answer your question...No

 

[dongonzalos]

I maintain, there will be no retrospective action that will impact wasps or their bonds, it will be a smack on the wrists and a fine at worst for the council.

You know what you're doing, you do it all the time.

And I maintain that if sisu don't drop thr action, wasps will change their stance and give us another short term deal.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I don't give a rats ass about Wasps. They mean nothing to me, which allows my judgement and opinions on their actions to be less clouded.
You despise them, so your opinions on their actions is often heavily influenced by that.
So when someone's opinion on them is different to yours. You assume that they are defending Wasps. When in reality they are just pointing out what it is likely. Wasps are doing and why.

 

[stupot07]

I don't give a rats ass about Wasps. They mean nothing to me, which allows my judgement and opinions on their actions to be less clouded.
You despise them, so your opinions on their actions is often heavily influenced by that.
So when someone's opinion on them is different to yours. You assume that they are defending Wasps. When in reality they are just pointing out what it is likely. Wasps are doing and why.

Oh, the you despise wasps line again....

Anyway I will leave you to it.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[oldskyblue58]

The Lease dealings - as I see it. Might highlight the problems SISU will have with their case

- The lease at the Ricoh owned by ACL (2006) Ltd (term 49 years 364 days) plus under leases in name of ACL
- ACL (2006) Ltd owned by ACL
- The principle of an extended lease and the sale of shares was agreed by Council 7/10/2014
- The Charity agreed sale of its shares to Wasps 17/11/2014. Separate deal and terms from the CCC one - but seemingly connected transactions
- The lease extension created 29/01/2015
- the original lease dated 02/06/2006 and lease extension plus casino lease & ACL under-leases charged against the bond issue 13/05/2015
- Lease & extension actually owned by ACL (2006) Ltd which is owned by ACL which is now owned by Wasps Holdings. Think how important it became as to who owned what when CCFC hit administration, its the same principle. Wasps might own ACL group but Company Law will have ACL (2006) owning the original lease and its extension - that's important for the issue of no public sale
- should the extension fail then the remaining term of the original lease owned by ACL (2006) is still in place. ACL still has the right to be there for the remainder of the original lease

The 250 years is an extension of the original lease. It could only be offered to the owner of the original lease - ACL 2006 - which still had over 40 years left on it. To get an extension then you have to own the original. As such the extension is not an open market transaction as it can not be offered in public sale without the removal of the ACL (2006) lease - not planned to happen until 2056. What happened in previous discussions with SISU on ownership or that it was never offered are not relevant (are a smokescreen) did they ask for it, did they structure a deal to get it?

The value of the lease extension is not the value to Wasps/ACL it is the value to CCC at the time of disposal. This would usually be based on the discounted cash flows that the Council would receive over the period of the lease. Not sure but thought I saw that CCC would receive a nominal/peppercorn, rent or ground rent.

If CCC are receiving an annual amount then the disposal value is not actually £1m but £1m plus the rental incomes plus the social benefits of the deal

The value that Wasps place in their accounts in security for the bonds is not the same or even the basis of the value for CCC when they disposed of the long lease. It has no bearing whatsoever on the value to CCC of the lease at 07/10/2014 because CCC were not nor ever had traded from the site so did not derive the direct benefit of those income streams. CCC derive the benefit of the income from the head lease itself - a peppercorn rent and a lease premium paid by ACL

The intention to create the long lease was there Oct 2014 but the long lease did not in law exist until after Wasps took 100% control of ACL Group and then completed it in January 2015

As far as the share disposal goes then, CCC/Charity are not duty bound to sell to SISU, CCC as far as we know never received an offer in 2014 from SISU (didn't Seppala say she wouldn't interfere?), SISU had stated publically and in court that ACL was worthless (now argue it was worth something), are share disposals covered by same rules as land disposals (imo they are not)?

The JR2 deals with complaint against CCC how could that unpick the Charity sale? That leaves Wasps very much in place in the very unlikely event the original sale by CCC is wound back.
The council can point to the social and economic benefits that at the time a Wasps purchase could bring ..... its hard to argue that subsequently such benefits have not happened to some degree at least.

Any way that's my take on it - If SISU press on with JR2 then I can not see them winning, or anything changing, almost seems to me that they are hoping for a payment just to go away

 

[chiefdave]

I don't believe thats an option either. Too much time has moved on since that decision, and it wouldn't be in the public interest, given the bonds are intrinsically linked to the lease.

If a judge decides the sale was done incorrectly I don't think it would be too hard to reverse the lease extension. In that scenario I can't see much thought being given to any issues it would cause Wasps given they would have been one of the parties found guilty.

I suspect wasps already know this, they would gone through it all with a fine tooth comb when doing due diligence, but its a handy excuse to use, given everyone hates sisu.

That's the key. Wasps knew what they were doing, as did the council, and they knew SISU would likely look at every detail to see if there was an option for legal action. So why start talks and then suddenly pull out citing 'legal noise'? Its an excuse and people are so focused on SISU they know they just have to go 'SISU bad' and they can get away with pretty much anything.

I have trouble with the idea that a party potentially in the wrong applies pressure to attempt to prevent legal scrutiny. SISU may be an extreme, in that they don't really need a reason to start action, but if you start dictating who can and can't use valid legal processes to scrutinise the actions of public bodies its a slippery slope.

While we can all debate the moral side of things or even attempts to circumvent the correct process at the end of the day a ruling will be made on the technicalities of the law. If Wasps and CCC are certain they have acted correctly then there should be no issue, things can proceed in the knowledge that they will win any legal action. However if they are concerned they could lose then surely we shouldn't be allowing them to apply pressure to have legal action stopped?