The never ending court story (10 Viewers)

[Nick]

The risk is that sisu have a history of taking people to court, the specifics of any future case are purely hypothetical until such a case starts.
Put it this way, if a mate of yours ran a buisiness, and he told you a hedge fund called sisu wanted to do a deal with him, would you say go ahead mate, what could go wrong, or would you say run a mile mate, do not talk to them, they have a history of frivolous litigation, and I’d advise against i?

You aren't getting it though.

They could still go down the legal route (not that I agree with it) whether they give us a deal or not. They could have done all the JR stuff.

Doing a deal with CCFC makes no difference.

Meanwhile, you have tried to justify a £1m rent and being kicked out.

 

---

[fatso]

You aren't getting it though.

They could still go down the legal route (not that I agree with it) whether they give us a deal or not. They could have done all the JR stuff.

Doing a deal with CCFC makes no difference.

Meanwhile, you have tried to justify a £1m rent and being kicked out.

Ok let me put it this way, if wasps say “we aren’t going to talk to sisu/ccfc regarding any new tenancy agreement”.
What possible cause for new legal action would sisu/ccfc have?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Whatever happens at some point next summer the rental contract ends and CCFC right to even enter the site ceases. Wasps don't have to make any effort, or formally evict CCFC. The arrangement simply ceases to exist with no legal recourse for CCFC. There is no option contract to renew

Whole load of brinksmanship going on and PR on all sides cranking up to use an expression from here. They are all positioning themselves to play the cards they have.

I am sure ideally Wasps want CCFC there, (financial and reputationally) i am also pretty certain that the CCFC owners want the club to be there (again financial & reputational). Wasps want the cash flow and SISU need to maintain asset value (the team doing well will have favourably affected that to some degree but the SISU get out relies on being able to sell a viable CCFC on doesnt it?)

Going to be hard to prove deliberate action if the contract simply comes to its natural end. There is no legal right to demand renewal

Could the council have inserted a clause to guarantee CCFC right to be there - unlikely, just think of the implications for any landlord of that - nice idea though. It could also be the case that it would have put a duty on CCFC to remain and that didnt tie in with SISU thinking at the time when attempting to apply pressure (somewhere in my memory i thought it was said it was CCFC that wanted a 2+2 deal)

We are back where we have been for a decade, with a who has the biggest balls contest............ and the CCFC fans in the middle the ones to really suffer made even worse because for the first time in ages we have a team, succeeding, worth seeing and being proud of

 

[Nick]

Ok let me put it this way, if wasps say “we aren’t going to talk to sisu/ccfc regarding any new tenancy agreement”.
What possible cause for new legal action would sisu/ccfc have?

They could have done the 2 x JRs even if CCFC weren't at the Ricoh.

You aren't getting that if they really want to go on and on with legal action (which I am not saying they should) than they can with or without CCFC at the Ricoh. Wasps kicking CCFC out doesn't mean no more legal action, if anything you would think it would open them up to more.

After trying to push the "Wasps should charge a million" it's now at "if they kick CCFC out there can't / won't be any legal action". It isn't like that.

You have said yourself if they did a deal they would be petty and try and find reasons for legal action, yet you don't think it would happen if they kicked CCFC out?

 

[stupot07]

The legal action is around the councils decision making to sell the stadium to wasps at a knockdown fee, despite already agreeing the 250 year lease which increased its value. They can pursue that with the supreme court whether we are tenants or if we're forced out and playing in Northampton.

Ok let me put it this way, if wasps say “we aren’t going to talk to sisu/ccfc regarding any new tenancy agreement”.
What possible cause for new legal action would sisu/ccfc have?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Nick]

Going to be hard to prove deliberate action if the contract simply comes to its natural end. There is no legal right to demand renewal

It wouldn't be that hard.

If CCFC refused to discuss it for example then the contract would expire and if CCFC hadn't even tried to renew it's safe to say the blame is at their door. If CCFC try to renew it and Wasps were to just outright ignore it or refuse to discuss it then you can prove the intention from either side.

Of course there isn't any legal obligation and nobody can force Wasps to, but what does this mean?

The commitment that any deal relating to the Ricoh Arena would not be approved unless the following three tests were satisfied:
(1) A good deal for the City
(2) The security and future of Coventry City Football Club
(3) The security and future of Coventry Rugby Club

The training complex in the city has already not happened either.

 

[stupot07]

I believe Oxford pay £500,000/year + costs to Kassam ( well, his Firoka Group actually) for a 3-sided stadium. Could be the going rate?

Do they rent it for just 6 hours, x 25 times a year?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[oldskyblue58]

It wouldn't be that hard.

If CCFC refused to discuss it for example then the contract would expire and if CCFC hadn't even tried to renew it's safe to say the blame is at their door. If CCFC try to renew it and Wasps were to just outright ignore it or refuse to discuss it then you can prove the intention from either side.

Of course there isn't any legal obligation and nobody can force Wasps to, but what does this mean?

Said by the council wasnt it? Cannot see how it is legally binding on Wasps unfortunately.

It is an intention not an enforceable contractual agreement between Wasps & CCC

If the contract ceases then there is no legal recourse Nick, we can all point the finger of blame at Wasps but it wont change the reality or the damage done to CCFC & the SISU investment. I was thinking more in terms of what legal action could be taken in terms prejudicing rights by a deliberate act or inaction. Not sure i see any

Frankly i am more worried by the contents of the rest of that post. Quite a stark thought really ...... contract to even be there simply ceases to exist , no action needed..... that is a vulnerable position to be in when things going so well on the pitch.

I still think a one year arrangement will happen though

 

[fatso]

They could have done the 2 x JRs even if CCFC weren't at the Ricoh.

You aren't getting that if they really want to go on and on with legal action (which I am not saying they should) than they can with or without CCFC at the Ricoh. Wasps kicking CCFC out doesn't mean no more legal action, if anything you would think it would open them up to more.

After trying to push the "Wasps should charge a million" it's now at "if they kick CCFC out there can't / won't be any legal action". It isn't like that.

You have said yourself if they did a deal they would be petty and try and find reasons for legal action, yet you don't think it would happen if they kicked CCFC out?

The jr’s weren’t against wasps, they were against the council and their undervaluation of the Ricoh and the issue of whether the undervaluation represented state aid to wasps.
Wasps aren’t kicking ccfc out, they are just threatening to not renew the contract
(the result would be the same granted, but they would not be acting illegally)
If you don’t agree, then can you please explain why not renewing the lease would open wasps up to new legal issues,

 

[Nick]

Said by the council wasnt it? Cannot see how it is legally binding on Wasps unfortunately.

If the contract ceases then there is no legal recourse Nick, we can all point the finger of blame at Wasps but it wont change the reality or the damage done to CCFC & the SISU investment. I was thinking more in terms of what legal action could be taken in terms prejudicing rights by a deliberate act or inaction. Not sure i see any

Not saying there is legal action just because they didn't give a new deal. It's more that they would probably find something else to start some sort of legal action about.

Of course that won't mean Wasps have to give CCFC a home for life, it is looking just like empty words / bullshit to give Wasps and easy ride when they moved.

 

[Nick]

The jr’s weren’t against wasps, they were against the council and their undervaluation of the Ricoh and the issue of whether the undervaluation represented state aid to wasps.
Wasps aren’t kicking ccfc out, they are just threatening to not renew the contract
(the result would be the same granted, but they would not be acting illegally)
If you don’t agree, then can you please explain why not renewing the lease would open wasps up to new legal issues,

Who has said Wasps would be acting illegally?

I haven't said not renewing the lease would open them up based on just that, I am saying that just because we weren't there it doesn't mean that SISU (who you said yourself would be petty) wouldn't and couldn't find something to start legal action against.

Kicking CCFC out (or not renewing the contract if you want to spin it like that) doesn't mean there's a sudden end to any legal nonsense.

I have never said that any legal action would and could just be because they didn't renew the contract.

 

[fatso]

Whatever happens at some point next summer the rental contract ends and CCFC right to even enter the site ceases. Wasps don't have to make any effort, or formally evict CCFC. The arrangement simply ceases to exist with no legal recourse for CCFC. There is no option contract to renew

Whole load of brinksmanship going on and PR on all sides cranking up to use an expression from here. They are all positioning themselves to play the cards they have.

I am sure ideally Wasps want CCFC there, (financial and reputationally) i am also pretty certain that the CCFC owners want the club to be there (again financial & reputational). Wasps want the cash flow and SISU need to maintain asset value (the team doing well will have favourably affected that to some degree but the SISU get out relies on being able to sell a viable CCFC on doesnt it?)

Going to be hard to prove deliberate action if the contract simply comes to its natural end. There is no legal right to demand renewal

Could the council have inserted a clause to guarantee CCFC right to be there - unlikely, just think of the implications for any landlord of that - nice idea though. It could also be the case that it would have put a duty on CCFC to remain and that didnt tie in with SISU thinking at the time when attempting to apply pressure (somewhere in my memory i thought it was said it was CCFC that wanted a 2+2 deal)

We are back where we have been for a decade, with a who has the biggest balls contest............ and the CCFC fans in the middle the ones to really suffer made even worse because for the first time in ages we have a team, succeeding, worth seeing and being proud of

Exactly, well put.

 

[fatso]

Who has said Wasps would be acting illegally?

I haven't said not renewing the lease would open them up based on just that, I am saying that just because we weren't there it doesn't mean that SISU (who you said yourself would be petty) wouldn't and couldn't find something to start legal action against.

Kicking CCFC out (or not renewing the contract if you want to spin it like that) doesn't mean there's a sudden end to any legal nonsense.

It wouldn’t put a stop to the existing case, But I’m saying it Would put a stop to any future unconnected legal cases. Quite what those cases would be are anyone’s guess, but as Tim fisher says, sisu’s M.O. is battering people through the courts.

 

[Nick]

It wouldn’t put a stop to the existing case, But I’m saying it Would put a stop to any future unconnected legal cases. Quite what those cases would be are anyone’s guess, but as Tim fisher says, sisu’s M.O. is battering people through the courts.

So SISU are petty, want to pointlessly drag people through the courts but kicking CCFC out would suddenly put a stop to that?

 

[letsallsingtogether]

I'm more surprised that if it is just bs or pr it gets swept under the carpet so easily.

Same as the council leader openly lying.

I never voted them in and defiantly won't be voting for them this time around.
Other then they what else can we do?

Funny thing is I do blame them all just blame Sisu more.

 

[fatso]

So SISU are petty, want to pointlessly drag people through the courts but kicking CCFC out would suddenly put a stop to that?

Allowing the existing tenancy to expire and not renewing it, would protect wasps from any future NEW litigation from sisu.

If Wasps have zero dealings with sisu, what possible reason could sisu have for taking them to court, if you know of any please tell me.

The already existing JR could of course rumble on for years. But as a buisiness wasps would reduce their risk/exposure.

I’m not saying I want this to happen, I’m just pointing out exactly what the owners of wasps WILL be discussing.

 

[fatso]

I never voted them in and defiantly won't be voting for them this time around.
Other then they what else can we do?

Funny thing is I do blame them all just blame Sisu more.

That last line certainly rings true, The whole saga is a pile of shit.

 

[Nick]

Allowing the existing tenancy to expire and not renewing it, would protect wasps from any future NEW litigation from sisu.

If Wasps have zero dealings with sisu, what possible reason could sisu have for taking them to court, if you know of any please tell me.

The already existing JR could of course rumble on for years. But as a buisiness wasps would reduce their risk/exposure.

I’m not saying I want this to happen, I’m just pointing out exactly what the owners of wasps WILL be discussing.

Hold on.

You are saying that you have no idea what they would take them to court about if they did a deal but as they are petty and love court action they would find something yet if they didn't do a deal it would suddenly all stop and they suddenly wouldn't be petty and scrape about to find any pointless court action they could?

They would probably resort to going through any old paperwork, looking for anything Wasps did that could possibly affect CCFC and try for things like that. Not saying that they should, I am just saying that kicking CCFC out doesn't put a stop to any potential legal action. (from people who you think would go out of their way to find something if they did do a deal)

You have already said you want Wasps to charge CCFC (or as you think, SISU) a million a year in rent.

 

[fatso]

I guess they could go through old paperwork looking for straws to clutch at.
That’s not being petty though, that’s downright bloody minded !

 

[MalcSB]

The wording would be along the lines of, “we won’t discuss any new deal with you while we are still involved in litigation with you”
That’s not blackmail, just a statement of fact.

Blackmail is a statement of fact - I will do or not do something unless you do or don’t do something else.

 

[Nick]

I guess they could go through old paperwork looking for straws to clutch at.
That’s not being petty though, that’s downright bloody minded !

That's the thing, you can't say they would go out of their way to find something to start pointless legal action against them if they did a deal but then say it will all stop if they kicked CCFC out and refused to deal with them. If anything, they would probably be more likely to go out of their way and twice as pointless.

 

[Adge]

That's the thing, you can't say they would go out of their way to find something to start pointless legal action against them if they did a deal but then say it will all stop if they kicked CCFC out and refused to deal with them. If anything, they would probably be more likely to go out of their way and twice as pointless.

Are you really buying this “We want to talk to the landlords as the Ricoh was always the preferred option” cobblers on the night before the last court case?
You are always accusing the trust and other fans groups cranking things up, but isn’t that what Ccfc (Sisu) done on that occasion to get the fans onside just in case?

 

[Nick]

Are you really buying this “We want to talk to the landlords as the Ricoh was always the preferred option” cobblers on the night before the last court case?
You are always accusing the trust and other fans groups cranking things up, but isn’t that what Ccfc (Sisu) done on that occasion to get the fans onside just in case?

Nope, I pointed out the time it was transparent and far too blatant.

If they were going to do / say that, it should have been at the very start of the season, not the night before the outcome of the court case.

They could have gone with "new season, new players, first thing's first let's sort the Ricoh".

Do I believe that CCFC will want to do a deal to stay at the Ricoh? Yep, can't really see many other options at the minute.

 

[Adge]

Nope, I pointed out the time it was transparent and far too blatant.

If they were going to do / say that, it should have been at the very start of the season, not the night before the outcome of the court case.

They could have gone with "new season, new players, first thing's first let's sort the Ricoh".

Do I believe that CCFC will want to do a deal to stay at the Ricoh? Yep, can't really see many other options at the minute.

Correct. So hats off to you Sir. :emoji_thumbsup:

 

[Captain Dart]

Sounds like theyre getting screwed as we have done in the past. Doesn't make it the going rate.

That's why they want to move.

 

[shmmeee]

Somewhere to play football next season (P.S. Can't stand Wasps and what has happened - but we have few cards to play, We can pretend we'll walk away, which would damage Wasps, but ultimately it will be us who will have to blink first - gutted as I am to think it)

This is exactly the problem in a nutshell. Any basic level chess player should’ve seen it ending up like this. We gambled everything on the idea the council wouldn’t be able to find a buyer and we’d be able to starve them out from Northampton and we got it spectacularly wrong. Everything else flows from there.

Increasingly the court case looks like nothing more than the desperate flailing of someone who doesn’t like losing rather than a coherent plan for the future of the club.

 

[Captain Dart]

This is exactly the problem in a nutshell. Any basic level chess player should’ve seen it ending up like this. We gambled everything on the idea the council wouldn’t be able to find a buyer and we’d be able to starve them out from Northampton and we got it spectacularly wrong. Everything else flows from there.

Increasingly the court case looks like nothing more than the desperate flailing of someone who doesn’t like losing rather than a coherent plan for the future of the club.

The football business appears to be on a 3-5 year time frame with the development players & academy (secure till 2023 & likely beyond without issues). It is going quite well.
But the ground issue and litigation really needs to be resolved (as does the fate of Ryton, though its less important in the grand scheme of things).
This uncertainty is disaffecting a chunk of the potential fanbase (including me), sorry if that upsets some people but that is the way it is.

Finally, SISU are not the sort of organisation that usually holds on to the companies they buy long term, is CCFC a record?
I would like to hear something about their exit strategy or a believable statement of their aims for the club that shows some ambition.

 

[cc84cov]

The decision to sell the ground was taken because sisu had made public their intention to buy land and build their own stadium. What do you think the council were going to do with an empty stadium?

Yep they got caught out trying to be smart...daft idiots

 

[duffer]

The risk is that sisu have a history of taking people to court, the specifics of any future case are purely hypothetical until such a case starts.
Put it this way, if a mate of yours ran a buisiness, and he told you a hedge fund called sisu wanted to do a deal with him, would you say go ahead mate, what could go wrong, or would you say run a mile mate, do not talk to them, they have a history of frivolous litigation, and I’d advise against i?

Good question. Hypothetically then...

If my mate ran a business, let's say an unprofitable rugby club that owned a football stadium and had other tenants like hotels and a casino. And let's say that he was 37m or so in the hole with 5% interest or more to pay on it every year. And there was a local football team that wanted to rent the stadium for a six figure sum every year, and some of their fans were also his fans. Let's also say that that this football club had been renting the stadium for a couple of years without issue and never missed a payment, and he could get a deposit just in case.

Then in those circumstance I'd say he'd be an absolute idiot not to do a deal - regardless of the club's litigation history, because the simple fact is that there's bugger all to litigate about in a new deal.

If the club don't stick to their side he could keep the deposit and boot them out. He'd just have to make sure the contract was tight which is why I'd suggest he should get decent solicitors (and also perhaps insure against future litigation costs if he was really paranoid). That would be my advice to my mate. He's not really in a place where he can be turning down the money, and alienating a key part of his own (dwindling) fan base and other tenants isn't going to help him get out of his own debt crisis.

Of course if he wanted to shoehorn another issue into it, possibly for PR purposes so that he didn't look like the bad guy, or maybe to give him an excuse to raise the rent, then I'd advise him to fire up the old PR machine and get people writing articles in the papers and on the forums to try to make it look like any failure was all down to the other side's intransigence. (the Boris approach, as it's known).

I hope that helps my hypothetical mate - or maybe you had a different scenario in mind?

 

[duffer]

Allowing the existing tenancy to expire and not renewing it, would protect wasps from any future NEW litigation from sisu.

If Wasps have zero dealings with sisu, what possible reason could sisu have for taking them to court, if you know of any please tell me.

The already existing JR could of course rumble on for years. But as a buisiness wasps would reduce their risk/exposure.

I’m not saying I want this to happen, I’m just pointing out exactly what the owners of wasps WILL be discussing.

But you're starting your argument from a fallacy. In what way does renting to SISU expose them to legal action unless Wasps breach the contract? There are no JRs in commercial law. Like other commercial leases you have cast iron terms, a short lease period and/or break clauses if you sense risk, and a deposit against the failure to pay the agreed rent.

The rent strike last time ended up with CCFC going into administration and losing the funds in escow. These aren't difficult cases to win in a commercial sense, the only thing that's still being argued about is whether the council behaved appropriately. Conversely, Wasps not renting to CCFC exposes them to potentially hostile publicity and diminished profits.

What Wasps owners are probably talking about is how they can apply pressure for SISU to drop the current case and/or substantially increase the rent, without them looking like the bad guys if SISU walk away...

 

[fatso]

Good question. Hypothetically then...

If my mate ran a business, let's say an unprofitable rugby club that owned a football stadium and had other tenants like hotels and a casino. And let's say that he was 37m or so in the hole with 5% interest or more to pay on it every year. And there was a local football team that wanted to rent the stadium for a six figure sum every year, and some of their fans were also his fans. Let's also say that that this football club had been renting the stadium for a couple of years without issue and never missed a payment, and he could get a deposit just in case.

Then in those circumstance I'd say he'd be an absolute idiot not to do a deal - regardless of the club's litigation history, because the simple fact is that there's bugger all to litigate about in a new deal.

If the club don't stick to their side he could keep the deposit and boot them out. He'd just have to make sure the contract was tight which is why I'd suggest he should get decent solicitors (and also perhaps insure against future litigation costs if he was really paranoid). That would be my advice to my mate. He's not really in a place where he can be turning down the money, and alienating a key part of his own (dwindling) fan base and other tenants isn't going to help him get out of his own debt crisis.

Of course if he wanted to shoehorn another issue into it, possibly for PR purposes so that he didn't look like the bad guy, or maybe to give him an excuse to raise the rent, then I'd advise him to fire up the old PR machine and get people writing articles in the papers and on the forums to try to make it look like any failure was all down to the other side's intransigence. (the Boris approach, as it's known).

I hope that helps my hypothetical mate - or maybe you had a different scenario in mind?

Love it, good reply!
But let’s just suppose, said rugby club was getting £100,000 per season rental income from their tenants, everything started out well, then one day, said tenant decided to take out a legal case against the landlord, for some frivolous reason or other, and withold its rental as a result.
The landlord, having no specialised knowledge of law, was inclined to take on the services of a professional legal team who practised buisiness litigation, and who promised to defend the rugby clubs interests, However, their services were invoiced at the rate of £20,000 per week.
It didn’t take long for the ongoing legal fees to completely wipe out the rental income from the entire period of the lease, along with the original deposit, and then some.
Which then resulted in the rugby club becoming financially distressed, and falling behind with its tax liabilities etc etc, to the point that it could no longer afford to own the freehold of its own stadium, which put its very future in jeopardy.
It later transpired that the tenant had a previous history of carrying out the very same tactics on to previous landlords, which led the fans, sponsors, and investors of the rugby club to ask “why was such a risky tenant allowed to share the facility” and “ why was no due dilligance carried out” and “were any references sourced” to which the rugby club could only reply “we needed the money, so we turned a blind eye to the obvious risks” and “we didn’t want to upset the locals”

 

[duffer]

This is exactly the problem in a nutshell. Any basic level chess player should’ve seen it ending up like this. We gambled everything on the idea the council wouldn’t be able to find a buyer and we’d be able to starve them out from Northampton and we got it spectacularly wrong. Everything else flows from there.

Increasingly the court case looks like nothing more than the desperate flailing of someone who doesn’t like losing rather than a coherent plan for the future of the club.

Similarly, the council have gambled the future of the CCFC on Wasps being a roaring success and on their cheerful good nature being sufficient to guarantee the club a home in the city. Don't tell me that's a coherent plan either, because it's clearly not.

There was always a better strategy, which was the one the Council suggested at the time the club move back - build trust and then see if there was a deal to be done.

Can you imagine if the SISU were offered, publicly, the same deal as Wasps, and then refused to take it. The internet would melt and taking the club out of the town again would see an even worse result than Northampton.

Instead though, having got themselves into a hole with a £14m bail-out, the Council took a deeply unethical option and sugar-coated it with a complete fiction, "The club will be OK".

SISU might be crap at chess but I wouldn't trust the Council to win at noughts-and-crosses.

If the club moves again or is simply unable to prosper because of all of this, then just complaining about SISU is ignoring some key facts.

 

[Captain Dart]

What Wasps owners are probably talking about is how they can apply pressure for SISU to drop the current case and/or substantially increase the rent, without them looking like the bad guys if SISU walk away...

I would guess they're doing nothing for the moment except waiting to see what SISU will do.
I'd guess there is still 7 months before pressure starts to mount from the league to confirm the venue.

 

[chiefdave]

Does anyone remember the Council saying that the main criteria for the sale to Wasps was that it wouldn't detrimentally impact CCFC? We're seeing now what a crock of shit that claim was...

Annoys me that the local media don't pick them up on that. At least make them admit is was BS as they wanted to get one over on the club by selling to Wasps.

 

[duffer]

Love it, good reply!
But let’s just suppose, said rugby club was getting £100,000 per season rental income from their tenants, everything started out well, then one day, said tenant decided to take out a legal case against the landlord, for some frivolous reason or other, and withold its rental as a result.
The landlord, having no specialised knowledge of law, was inclined to take on the services of a professional legal team who practised buisiness litigation, and who promised to defend the rugby clubs interests, However, their services were invoiced at the rate of £20,000 per week.
It didn’t take long for the ongoing legal fees to completely wipe out the rental income from the entire period of the lease, along with the original deposit, and then some.
Which then resulted in the rugby club becoming financially distressed, and falling behind with its tax liabilities etc etc, to the point that it could no longer afford to own the freehold of its own stadium, which put its very future in jeopardy.
It later transpired that the tenant had a previous history of carrying out the very same tactics on to previous landlords, which led the fans, sponsors, and investors of the rugby club to ask “why was such a risky tenant allowed to share the facility” and “ why was no due dilligance carried out” and “were any references sourced” to which the rugby club could only reply “we needed the money, so we turned a blind eye to the obvious risks” and “we didn’t want to upset the locals”

My thanks mate, but again, what frivolous reason? There's a contract for the rugby club to supply the facility, and the football club to pay the rent due. it's pretty straightforward and there's all sorts of protection for landlord in law and against his costs. You'll note that SISU, even with all of their legal experts, didn't take ACL to court to avoid paying the rent on some made up contractual grounds, they just stopped paying the rent and when it did get to court were subsequently wound up.

The rugby club is already financially distressed; their fans, sponsors, investors and other tenants aren't going to be best pleased if CCFC walk away, and it'll make the council look pretty bad too!