It's LOSE ffs.
Ignoring CCFC or SISU for one minute....
Has the council demonstrated to the local taxpayer that it achieved value for money in the deal it made to sell its share of ACL to Wasps and the subsequent 250 year lease extension? Or was the way they went about it a deliberate fudge to try and avoid those duties?
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
So what if it's lose. Is your point so invalid that you have to get all petty over a simple spelling mistake as if it somehow validates your point and argues against mine? Grow up FFS.
What's it got to do with a company that operates from a tax haven anyway? If they're so bothered about about the tax payer getting value for money why do they operate from a tax haven? If that's their angle it's being done with a huge slice of hypocrisy.
What duty are you on about exactly? If you're talking about how they offloaded it you tell me what the guidelines are for offloading a half share in a quango. With regards to the lease again what are the guidelines? Also how are you measuring value? The case seems to be claiming it to be monetary. Chief Dave made it his full time job to scour the rules and regulations on this and all he could turn up was something on offloading freehold not leases and in there I remember it stating that value for money didn't just have to be measured in monetary terms. So you tell me what is something that many people would have you believe was a worthless white elephant (you were probably one of them) and said tax haven company have just spent millions on arguing it was worthless worth? In both monetary terms but also social terms? If that's the basis of their argument now they got a couple of million for something apparently worthless. Got a historical debt repaid to the taxpayer. You could argue that they brought/secured jobs to/in the area. You could argue that they brought social benefits to the area. You could argue that extending the lease relieves the taxpayer the cost of redevelopment of the site as I doubt that the Ricoh has a 250year design life. There's dozens of ways that you can measure value. Haven't the council gifted loads of sites over the years to developers? Most recently the Co op site I believe. Isn't it true that every council in the country does this? Isn't it true that they do this completely within government guidelines because value to the taxpayer is measured in more than just monetary terms and when it comes to abandoned buildings (which is essentially what he arena was) the playing field changes.
This case is weaker than JR1 if you ask me, it also completely contradicts the claims of JR1 as far as I can tell. It also can do nothing to benefit CCFC win or lose (happy now) and in fact can only do the opposite. Why would I champion that as a CCFC fan? Why would you?
Take CCFC and SISU out of it as you ask. Where's the citizens of Coventry on this? Have they demonstrated about it? Are they looking for blood? Are they screaming for "justice" to be done? Or are they indifferent and/or accepting of the deal? Who's exactly saying that the council didn't get value for money? Aside from a few nut cases on here and a few other places with a grudge and a company that operates from a tax haven and therefore have no right to take the moral high ground.
