Court Case Thread! June 2018 (11 Viewers)

[wingy]

We were repeatedly assured by the council it was doing just fine when we weren't there. And at the point at which ACL was sold to Wasps we were playing there. If you recall the council made a big deal about repairing the relationship and building trust so we could potentially achieve stadium ownership.

CCFC knew
They still came back
They wanted to come
They had to come back.

 

---

[chiefdave]

CCFC knew
They still came back
They wanted to come
They had to come back.

Irrespective of that it can't be claimed Wasps paid a low price as the stadium was stood empty when at the time it was sold we had already come back.

 

[bezzer]

Assuming the private mediation resulted in nothing?

 

[Nick]

Irrespective of that it can't be claimed Wasps paid a low price as the stadium was stood empty when at the time it was sold we had already come back.

That's what I don't get.

The council meeting was a full month after we returned.

 

[skybluetony176]

about the process rather than the outcome.

But the suggestion is that a different process would have achieved a different outcome. The NEC sale doesn’t back that up. I doubt that anyone could argue that LDC didn’t get more pound for pound than Wasps did for the Ricoh. If you’re talking about value for money to the taxpayer it would seem that the NEC sale is a far bigger candidate for a JR than the Ricoh is.

 

[Nick]

Assuming the private mediation resulted in nothing?

Dont think they have mentioned it yet, strange as you would have thought they would reference it first.

"right you dopey pricks, mediation did nothing so here we are..."

 

[tisza]

But the suggestion is that a different process would have achieved a different outcome. The NEC sale doesn’t back that up. I doubt that anyone could argue that LDC didn’t get more pound for pound than Wasps did for the Ricoh. If you’re talking about value for money to the taxpayer it would seem that the NEC sale is a far bigger candidate for a JR than the Ricoh is.

surely the suggestion is that the NEC process enabled them to select the best option that emerged from the process. The process enabled a choice of options from which they selected the LDC bid. It's not just about whether SISU could have produced a more attractive option but whether other 3rd parties could have improved the returns with an alternative deal.

 

[skybluetony176]

It seems every intermediate judge after the initial knockbacks who send the case forward to the actual hearing end up appearing misguided in their judgement or mistaken.

Fact is the judge was listening to an appeal hearing where all he heard was an argument for an appeal. Over the next couple of days a panel of 3 judges are in a full hearing. Key words being full hearing. That means that they are being presented with the full arguments and counter arguments and can discuss amongst themselves the finer details of them to inform a joint and balanced consensus on what is opinion, what is fact and what that reflects on the case regardless of who it favours.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

Let’s be honest with ourselves... in the recent histeria of winning the Checkatrade and a promotion season.... we’ve all missed this.

 

[skybluetony176]

surely the suggestion is that the NEC process enabled them to select the best option that emerged from the process. The process enabled a choice of options from which they selected the LDC bid. It's not just about whether SISU could have produced a more attractive option but whether other 3rd parties could have improved the returns with an alternative deal.

Doesn’t mean Wasps still wouldn’t have been the preferred bidder though. SISU’s argument is supposition. They did say it contravenes EU and U.K. law earlier in the day but I can’t see any reference to which particular law(s). You’d have thought that was important to that point. Unless of course it’s more supposition.

 

[Nick]

Fact is the judge was listening to an appeal hearing where all he heard was an argument for an appeal. Over the next couple of days a panel of 3 judges are in a full hearing. Key words being full hearing. That means that they are being presented with the full arguments and counter arguments and can discuss amongst themselves the finer details of them to inform a joint and balanced consensus on what is opinion, what is fact and what that reflects on the case regardless of who it favours.

The judge said it was some of the Council's evidence that swayed him to grant it as well.

Will be interest to see if anything "new" comes out.

Can see it being the same as every other time, a couple of things which may look shady but nothing illegal.

 

[Sky Blue Harry H]

Are we going to get a '5 things we learned from today's hearing' headline in the CET?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Wasps effectively paid £18m for the short lease when they took on ACL. That was the value in the accounts of ACL.

At 31/05/2014 the ACL balance sheet showed net assets of 6.8m in the accounts to 2015 ACL made losses which would have decreased the Net asset position. Wasps paid 5.5m plus some add ons for ACL

Strutt & Parker valued the 250 year lease in April 2015, and by that time ACL had a long term lease in place from Wasps Rugby which adds value to the asset held by ACL

Wasps bought ACL not the lease in October 2014 - that's all assets less all liabilities of ACL

The lease extension for 250 years came in to being 15 January 2015. It could only be extended to the benefit of the current owner of the lease ACL, whilst ACL existed there was no open market to sell it to (for at least 39 years)

The lease is charged against the bonds issued May 2015

 

[vow]

Are we going to get a '5 things we learned from today's hearing' headline in the CET?

I'll give you 5 guesses.

 

[skybluetony176]

The judge said it was some of the Council's evidence that swayed him to grant it as well.

Will be interest to see if anything "new" comes out.

The only law anyone has found on here that could be remotely contrived to law surrounding the sale of ACL was one Dave pulled up and that was specifically about freehold sales and specifically said that the council had to gain best value for the taxpayer. Value also didn’t have to represent a monetary amount IIRC it could be measured in terms of social benefits etc. Don’t recall it stating an exact process either to obtain this “best value” either. Dave may remember more than me though.

It would be interesting to know what laws SISU think have been broken. Surely that’s pretty easy to define and then specific points in law can be determined. Which afterall is supposed to be the point of a JR. This seems much the same as the scattergun approach of JR1 which as we all know was a fruitless waste of time that achieved nothing but damage for the club.

 

[Nick]

 

[Nick]

“Everyone knew”
Mr Thompson is continuing to speak.

He says “everyone knew” on 7 October that the 250-year leasehold was going to be offered.

He says valuations were taken to support third party financing arrangements.

He says “that there is a very real discrepancy” between the market value and sale value.

Live: Ricoh Arena row back in the Court of Appeal

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Who’s there? Joy? Timmy? Laura???

 

[Captain Dart]

Who’s there? Joy? Timmy? Laura???

 

[tisza]

Doesn’t mean Wasps still wouldn’t have been the preferred bidder though. SISU’s argument is supposition. They did say it contravenes EU and U.K. law earlier in the day but I can’t see any reference to which particular law(s). You’d have thought that was important to that point. Unless of course it’s more supposition.

still about process not outcome. Maybe Wasps still end up being preferred bidder but not relevant to SISU argument. Can't know the best answer if the question isn't openly available.

EU law part could be about does 250 year lease equal effective ownership and if it does then the use of central grants to fund stadium building mean could be obliged to follow an open bidding & selling process.

 

[tisza]

Barry Hastie - does open up the possibility for some great headlines if council lose.

 

[Nick]

“Deliberate marketing campaign"
Mr Thompson said the new paperwork presented by Sisu’s team showed a “deliberate marketing campaign conducted by a local council” against Sisu.

He said there was a “total absence of transparency” and argued the whole process was “unfair” and “without regulatory approval”.

He said this had led to “an absurd situation of an historic football club in a major UK city reduced to the licensee of its own ground”.

Joy Seppala statement
Mr Thompson is showing the judges a witness statement from Sisu chief executive Joy Seppala. He says she is an “expert” in the financial aspect having been in control of the club for a decade.

It is not being read out in court.

READ IT OUT!

 

[fernandopartridge]

Not sure there is much value in that argument, it was a short term tenant before the sale (though the reasons why it was only a short term deal are not clear, perhaps that could be expanded upon)

 

[Nick]

Not sure there is much value in that argument, it was a short term tenant before the sale (though the reasons why it was only a short term deal are not clear, perhaps that could be expanded upon)

Yeah it seems a bit off track, especially as the Judge could say "I thought you were building one anyway".

 

[Captain Dart]

The arguments are relying on ever more unrealistic scenarios.

 

[matesx]

im bored to death of all this but who do we want to win?

 

[Otis]

im bored to death of all this but who do we want to win?

England obviously.

If not, I have a soft spot for Mexico.

 

[better days]

im bored to death of all this but who do we want to win?

Not the lawyers
But unfortunately they will
As always

 

[Astute]

Again it wasn't unused as we were back here playing before the council meeting to agree the sale.

So Wasps had taken over the arena before they took it on?

 

[oldskyblue58]

these surely cant be the best arguments that SISU can come up with can it? There must be something else surely? other than

infamy, infamy they've all got it in for me ........

 

[Nick]

So Wasps had taken over the arena before they took it on?

Not sure what you mean?

CCFC were back at the Ricoh before the council had even met to agree a deal, so it wasn't unused.

 

[Colin Steins Smile]

CCC couldn't force Higgs charity to do business with SISU for their 50%. What does SISU QC expect CCC to do? Interesting question.

 

[Nick]

Updates seem to have stopped now, maybe fallen asleep.

 

[capel & collindridge]

im bored to death of all this but who do we want to win?

CCFC

 

[matesx]

CCFC

so SISU?