Yeah, well, my tablet crashed. What can I say.ha wondered who would be the first didn't think it would be you
I've heard that now Compass are pulling out, SISU have filed a claim against them for underfilling the Balti pies. Nothing like trying to curry favour with the judiciary.
Maybe.... Possibly...Nice to get a definitive answer!
OK the case is about the valuation at the time of the deal. But, as the Ricoh was a 50% council owned asset, surely any potential sale should have gone out to tender and not sold in secret without getting the best deal for the public purse. I'd have thought this would have been a better case to argue in court rather than a valuation debate.
OK the case is about the valuation at the time of the deal. But, as the Ricoh was a 50% council owned asset, surely any potential sale should have gone out to tender and not sold in secret without getting the best deal for the public purse. I'd have thought this would have been a better case to argue in court rather than a valuation debate.
Surely there would only be one other customer and they had already given their answer several times?OK the case is about the valuation at the time of the deal. But, as the Ricoh was a 50% council owned asset, surely any potential sale should have gone out to tender and not sold in secret without getting the best deal for the public purse. I'd have thought this would have been a better case to argue in court rather than a valuation debate.
I still can’t see the case that Sisu are trying to win here.
As CCFC/SISU
Surely there would only be one other customer and they had already given their answer several times?
I giving it much thought I applied common sense.How do you know there would only be one other customer?
Surely that is the point of tender, to let other interested parties register an interest in the sale so you can work out any social benefit you may receive from selling the company that runs the stadium.
If common sense came in to it the ground would never have been sold to a rugby club from London.I giving it much thought I applied common sense.
In reality though, the council had a choice between an offer from Wasps, that may have been conditional and dealing with Sisu who they knew would hold them to ransom if they became the only potential buyer.If common sense came in to it the ground would never have been sold to a rugby club from London.
The reality is nobody can say for certain that if the sale was properly marketed, rather than being carried out in secret, there would not have been other interested parties. If there were the return for the taxpayer would have been increased, thats something that should be a key concern for the council in any sale.
In reality though, the council had a choice between an offer from Wasps, that may have been conditional and dealing with Sisu who they knew would hold them to ransom if they became the only potential buyer.
Good to see you back posting on topic. Did you see the play offs at all?Is the court case Tuesday still going ahead, has gone very quite ??
The problem was though that Sisu through their pompous representative Fisher had said they wouldn’t pay anything near it. Mix that up with Seppalla previously saying they were after the freehold and it was only going one way.Could they have used the Wasps offer to do the right thing and form a valuation to sell to the football club it was built for? For me, the council have done more lasting damage than Sisu. This decision will impact us once Sisu are long gone.
If you read a David Conn Piece from23rd of December 2014 Mr fisher said They did not regret failing to buy the Ricoh , saying they could not agree to taking it on the way Wasps had done . He is the mouthpiece for the people who now say that Wasps should pay a lot more . No way were they ever going to buy it . Sisu don't do buying they do breaking up. I do hope his comments are read out in court , because those remarks sum them up . We don't want it but you should pay more for it . They were outflanked when they thought they were the only show in town . I wish they would just GO they have dragged my club down and continue to do so.Could they have used the Wasps offer to do the right thing and form a valuation to sell to the football club it was built for? For me, the council have done more lasting damage than Sisu. This decision will impact us once Sisu are long gone.
People think that if Wasps go that CCFC will just take over and all will be hunky dory.If you read a David Conn Piece from23rd of December 2014 Mr fisher said They did not regret failing to buy the Ricoh , saying they could not agree to taking it on the way Wasps had done . He is the mouthpiece for the people who now say that Wasps should pay a lot more . No way were they ever going to buy it . Sisu don't do buying they do breaking up. I do hope his comments are read out in court , because those remarks sum them up . We don't want it but you should pay more for it . They were outflanked when they thought they were the only show in town . I wish they would just GO they have dragged my club down and continue to do so.
A confidentiality clause is most certainly not the usual way for a council to do business. Its the exact opposite of transparency for the taxpayer.Dave due to the way Sisu had behaved trying to reduce the value of the Ricoh to nothing the taxpayers getting even less The council had to act . The confidentiality clause is a usual thing that done when deals are being done I believe as for other parties maybe bidding it was common knowledge that the Council wanted it off their hands and no one else had come forward with a offer
Given the state of relations at the time, I'm pretty sure they'll have double, triple, quadruple checked everything legally and procedurally before acting. If they didn't, they're absolute morons!