Neither of the Wasps valuations should impact on the JR, although no doubt it will be argued that it should. The extension did not exist, there was an intention yes but no actual extended lease to purchase as part of the net worth of ACL in October 2014 (extension not signed until January 2015 so was created then)
Could ACL have afforded on its own the purchase of the extension prior to the Wasps deal? But how when they had no funds? How when by common consensus ACL was in 2014 a lame duck white elephant on the brink of going bust?
Wasps bought ACL as it was, not as it would be under their ownership. ACL owned and still owns the leases. Only ACL could buy a lease extension, it was worthless in the open market to any other entity because you had to own the original lease to get the extension. The lease acquired by ACL was dependent on Wasps being able to acquire the Charity shares as well, which was a separate deal or portrayed as such (it can be shown to have different timing and terms). The sale by the Charity is not subject to the JR - but they are classed as interested parties in the CCC case.
A judge will deal with what was at the time of the CCC decision, and the worth to CCC of what was in 2014 even if they got it wrong in originally setting up ACL with a 50yr lease not a 250 year lease, He will not deal with what it later became valued at under someone else's ownership or investment or what was later created. He will consider the logic, the chronology, the facts to the decision at the date it was taken. The JR deals with the procedures used by CCC in arriving at the decision, and if they were reasonably based on recognised valuation models then it will be hard to overcome the decision made
Say the value to CCC could be based on the net present value of the additional income streams it would receive from the extended lease. I don't think they would have been receiving much, just a ground rent perhaps. For example the net present value of say £50000 over 250 years at 5% interest is £1m. instead of getting £50k pa they got a one off £1m
Councils are allowed to value things in terms other than monetary, so was the value to CCC £2.77m plus £1m for the lease?
What was wrong was not giving ACL the long lease in the first place. If they had done that then it may have opened up all sorts of possibilities, including for CCFC. But that has never been challenged by anyone, and it is well past going to court on that aspect.
Even SISU's appraisal of ACL in court was that ACL was in a mess and all but worthless. The ACL situation had not improved by the time of the 2014 decision. Indeed Seppala is quoted as saying she would not interfere with the CCC sale, and never bid at that time. SISU can not have it all ways.
It was set up wrongly in the first place imo but that set up I think means SISU will fail in their legal case
This has been carefully choreographed to arrive at a particular outcome, with least amount of challenge
