I'm not a legal beagle but the cynic in me says it's yet another opportunity for court hours to be billed somewhere at exhorbitant rates. The legal process really does look after its own.OK so can someone explain something to me without this turning into yet another "SISU arse licker / council lover" slanging match ......what is the point of tomorrow's preliminary hearing? Sounds like the real action will take place at the start of May.
I don't understand from that article what is being decided tomorrow or how they may have a bearing on the May hearing.
Thanks.
There must be some excuse to hold it though, a pretext if you will. Maybe it's something to do with the format of the May hearing. I suspect there won't be much exciting news tomorrow.I'm not a legal beagle but the cynic in me says it's yet another opportunity for court hours to be billed somewhere at exhorbitant rates. The legal process really does look after its own.
If only !The judge is going to say that CCFC will be awarded £50m in compensation but it is 100% watertight that the money is for CCFC and SISU can't have it. The money must be spent on the infrastructure of the club and has to be on a stadium with a built in academy, training ground and community hub as that is what we "missed out on" due to the deal and Wasps being here.
SISU can keep ryton to do as they please.
The judge is going to say that CCFC will be awarded £50m in compensation but it is 100% watertight that the money is for CCFC and SISU can't have it. The money must be spent on the infrastructure of the club and has to be on a stadium with a built in academy, training ground and community hub as that is what we "missed out on" due to the deal and Wasps being here.
SISU can keep ryton to do as they please.
There must be some excuse to hold it though, a pretext if you will. Maybe it's something to do with the format of the May hearing. I suspect there won't be much exciting news tomorrow.
BRING PONTICELLI ON AS SURPRISE WITNESS
If the appeal into JR2 is May what are they doing tomorrow? Is it just going to be a 5 min thing where its formally opened and adjourned?
the farce continues. Sisu claiming wasps should pay another £30m whilst at the same time trying to negotiate a deal for us to stay at the ricoh
the farce continues. Sisu claiming wasps should pay another £30m whilst at the same time trying to negotiate a deal for us to stay at the ricoh
And if I was them I know I would be shutting the door in their face!Apparently suing someone for £30 million, (effectively trying to destroy their business) Doesnt affect you attempting to negotiate into a long term business deal with them.
Personally I find that somewhat surprising.
Looks like today will be a bit of a non-event. Seems all it is for is the judge to tell all sides what the next hearing is going to cover.
Apparently suing someone for £30 million, (effectively trying to destroy their business) Doesnt affect you attempting to negotiate into a long term business deal with them.
Personally I find that somewhat surprising.
Judge Irwin says there has to be a sensible time period for possible mediation before that hearing.
CCFC’s lawyer says the “land transfer was used to wash out the council loan”.
He’s referring to the remainder of a £14.4million loan that the Ricoh Arena company owed the council at the time of the Wasps takeover.
He says the lease extension was used to raise money in the form of bonds by Wasps which paid off the council loan making it a “neutral element”.
CCFC’s QC is referring to elements of a report by council finance officer Barry Hastie.
He is arguing that the report shows Higgs received more than the value of the shares for the Ricoh Arena and therefore he is not arguing that the council received less than the shares were worth when viewed “in isolation”.
CCFC QC reiterates he is not arguing that Wasps underpaid for the shares in the stadium. He says it appears they overpaid - referring to the fact the council valued their 50 per cent shares in the Ricoh Arena at £0 for two successive years in their annual accounts.
However, he believes the value of the overall transaction, once the lease extension is taken into account, shows that Wasps were sold the stadium on the cheap.
He says “the real value of the transaction is in the land transfer”.
CCFC QC now referring to the expert evidence they wish to have admitted.
He wants a statement from independent financial expert Mr Pilgrim to be allowed.
The point of this is to critically analyse the valuation placed on the deal by KPMG - who were recruited by the council to provide independent advice ahead of the sale to Wasps.
There’s another statement from a marketing expert by the name of Mr Rathbone.
The point is to underline how CCFC believes the council failed to appropriately market the stadium prior to sale and achieve an adequate value.
CCFC QC says they asked Wasps whether they were willing to hand over specific information on Friday.
He says Wasps said they were not obliged to hand over information and they didn’t have some of the information requested anyway.
He says: “Wasps appear to be taking a cagey stance in relation to what actually happened.”
He is arguing Wasps should be told to comply with the court’s “duty of candour” as an “interested third party”.
Wasps lawyer Ms Morris is now on her feet.
She says “our position is not caginess”. She adds “we are an interested party, not a respondent”.
CCFC QC intervenes to point out that Wasps are listed as respondents in this appeal process.
She goes on to reject the “insinuation there has been some avoidance or impropriety” .
She now goes on to argue why Wasps should not be obliged to hand over documents to CCFC’s legal team.
She argues that Wasps is a private organisation and it would be impractical to say any private party who has had any financial dealings with the council is subject to the duty of candour.
She says there are concerns that public proceedings have been used in the past to obtain documents which are then subsequently used in private claims.
If the judges rule that its the whole transaction that is to be ruled on don't SISU 'win' either way? Its either been sold on the cheap, in which case the issue of damages and Wasps paying the difference comes up, or they've paid the correct amount which would bring the bond security valuation in to question.If SISU win, what happens?
It could as long as the correct process was followed I would have thought. Properly market it for sale and who knows how many interested parties there might be.however it could never ever be sold for less than £50 million