Nick
Administrator
That would be a massive IF and it would also mean there was wrong doing.
I don't think the sale can be reversed.
Wasps billing CCFC for pitch repairs after Wycombe game (24 Viewers)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
That would be a massive IF and it would also mean there was wrong doing.
I don't think the sale can be reversed.
pastythegreat
Well-Known Member
No more sit ins, more like run ons! We'll keep running on your pitch until a)you agree to an extension or b) you fuck of back to London!
Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk
I think nothing would happen to the WASPS purchase if it can be shown CCC were "at fault"
Unless it can be shown that WASPS were in some form of agreement with CCC that faciltated the "fault"
pastythegreat
Well-Known Member
Surely IF it was an illegal sale it has to be reversed!
If you bought a phone in the pub and it turns out it was stolen, would the old bill allow you to keep it?!?! Why should something like this be different?
Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk
Nick
Administrator
I'm no expert, but I don't think it would be as extreme as that.
Dont the FL monitor the pitch condition each game?
There could be 11000 witnesses at the Court then?
pastythegreat
Well-Known Member
No, tbf I'm just assuming and you know what happens when we assume?
It makes an ASS of U and ME!
Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
Potentially, I have no idea.
Would make sense though. The FL can't check if an owner is suitable enough but they do count every blade of grass in 92 stadiums before kick off!
Nick
Administrator
And their manager
Nick
Administrator
Wouldn't the ref look at it and report back?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Well, if it was all illegal then we should be thankful for British Justice if JR2 is successful. And surely, Wasps should be fairly confident that it was all legal and above board.
And, I'm not Nick.
Nick
Administrator
He quoted me I think!
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Italia will be along in a minute to tell us how we should thank them for it.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
So have they asked for some money, the club have said no, and that's the end of it?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Sorry, wasn't looking.
pastythegreat
Well-Known Member
Haha sorry! Speaking to 2 people at the same time never was my strong point
Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk
pastythegreat
Well-Known Member
Actually it was nick I was talking to!
Nick- why does it threaten their money?
Me - that post!
Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
Aren't they owned by a Maltese Hedge Fund? The currency of Malta is the Euro, so maybe straight into the Wasps owners pockets?
Just lighting the blue touch paper...laters....
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I assume Wasps are responsible in the contract for the damage to the pitch through matches and they are taking advantage of this to try to get Cov to pay up.
christonabike
Well-Known Member
Didn't the Wycombe manager moan about the state of the pitch? That's before people went on it!
Cheeky fookers!
Cheeky fookers!
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
JR2 only relates to the 50% sold by Coventry City Council so it leaves Wasps with at least 50% of the stadium.
The purpose of JR2 is to investigate the CCC actions, going to be hard to force Wasps out if they acted in good faith. It would be CCC that would bear the brunt of any financial circumstances.
Say the total share sale was undervalued by 5m then how do you get Wasps to pay that if they acted in good faith. Not to mention the CCC arguing that the other benefits gained in their opinion of Wasps being here were adding worth to what Coventry got from the deal.
Surprised that a few fans could cause that much damage to a poor pitch. Making operational matters public really doesn't help the relationship. Unless it was in the contract then I would be saying sorry but no
The purpose of JR2 is to investigate the CCC actions, going to be hard to force Wasps out if they acted in good faith. It would be CCC that would bear the brunt of any financial circumstances.
Say the total share sale was undervalued by 5m then how do you get Wasps to pay that if they acted in good faith. Not to mention the CCC arguing that the other benefits gained in their opinion of Wasps being here were adding worth to what Coventry got from the deal.
Surprised that a few fans could cause that much damage to a poor pitch. Making operational matters public really doesn't help the relationship. Unless it was in the contract then I would be saying sorry but no
Nick
Administrator
Does the 250 year stuff not come into it also?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Yes apparently
take away the 250 year extension and the original lease remains owned by ACL who are owned by Wasps. I think if they are claiming that the 250 year lease should be offered to the public then it is a nonsense because only ACL can extend the lease while ACL own the original lease.
Is the value of the lease more than £1m? Well is the £1m the only financial benefit CCC receive or does the extended lease create right to an annual fee for the next 250 years? Is there an open market value to a lease extension that cannot actually be offered to the open market? What income did CCC have a right to under the original lease? Got to ask those sort of questions
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
Got to make you think though of all the cost cutting that the rugby club is doing, and the cost of their bonds on a downward path for the last four months, things could not be as rosy as some would like it to be seen.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
They can argue the value of the 200 year extension. By anyone's estimation £5K a year is a long way from the £500K a year charged for the original lease.
Suspect that as the lease now surpasses the lifetime of the stadium and the extension was agreed at the same CCC meeting as the sale it will be argued that Wasps were sold, to all intents and purposes, something equating to the freehold. If the judge buys that argument then there's rules CCC should have followed around the sale. That will come down to the small legal details and the judges interpretation.
There's a document on the CCC website somewhere that states the value of the freehold increases greatly as the lease comes to an end, that was referring to the original lease. You could therefore make an argument that any lease extension being sold at this point should at least match that projected future value to ensure best return to the taxpayer.
Joy Division
Well-Known Member
Do we know if this is actually true or is this based on a Les Reid story?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Straight away it will be costing them time money and effort reviewing it legally.
In the future it presents a risk. If in the unlikely event SISU win. An unlikely remedy option for a judge is the contract length of the lease 40 years to 250 and the ability to reverse the decision by a public entity namely the council.
Pressure SISU to drop the legal action = no risk
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
They could argue the value CD yes. But so I should imagine can CCC to include the social benefits. Still comes down to a lease extension could only ever have been sold to one party - ACL - which does not necessarily enhance the value with 40 years left on the lease it could well depress it. Also if CCC now receive an annual lease payment you would have to factor that in by discounting the future revenue streams to get a present value of that. The decision will be based as at January 2015 what happens in 40 years is not relevant - what was the value in 2015
It is to all intents and purposes freehold in valuation terms yes, is it legal terms? that's probably something very different. The freehold still exists. It is still owned by CCC. The lease gives you different rights to holding the lease 40 years or 250 years
The extension was agreed in principle at the Council meeting. probably dependent on Wasps getting the 50% Charity share, was the lease deal finalised then or was it approved so it could be progressed. The lease didn't exist until January 2015.
Is the £1m a one off payment or are there other income streams CCC benefit from?
More than anything else JR2 is going to depend on the sequence of events
It is to all intents and purposes freehold in valuation terms yes, is it legal terms? that's probably something very different. The freehold still exists. It is still owned by CCC. The lease gives you different rights to holding the lease 40 years or 250 years
The extension was agreed in principle at the Council meeting. probably dependent on Wasps getting the 50% Charity share, was the lease deal finalised then or was it approved so it could be progressed. The lease didn't exist until January 2015.
Is the £1m a one off payment or are there other income streams CCC benefit from?
More than anything else JR2 is going to depend on the sequence of events
Nick
Administrator
Or just do what they want and say SISU loud enough = no bad press or backlash.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Do you believe Wasps have not paid lawyers to review what implications this legal action has for them?
Do you believe that there are no remedy options available to the Judge if SISU won that could adversely affect them?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
They'd have some difficulty wouldn't they? Have any papers even been filed on it?
Nick
Administrator
Do I believe you are trying your best to justify Wasps trying to charge the club for the pitch?