Legals Update This Week / SISU Lose chance to appeal (20 Viewers)
- Thread starter SkyBlueDom26
- Start date
Otis
Well-Known Member
Why a 'joyous celebration?'
I always thought the Trust were looking for a Joy-less one.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
Not saying it’s correct but surely the sort of Avenue the owners will persue if their quest is to take a very long term view of litigation ?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
There'll be all kinds of avenues.
I mean, c'mon. What in their past behaviour suggests this is it? Their open letter positively screams that they'll carry on, too. It'll be more of a shock if they don't!
Reading between the lines the concern was that junior planning officials hadn’t followed due process
eastwoodsdustman
Well-Known Member
I’d be surprised that they’d let anyone other than the top dog deal with anything sisu put in. They’d be stupid if they haven’t
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
But what would they get out of appealing that?
They surely wouldn't be looking at the sort of pay outs JR1 and 2 could have yielded if successful?
They surely wouldn't be looking at the sort of pay outs JR1 and 2 could have yielded if successful?
Skybluefaz
Well-Known Member
Plus wasps would not be an interested party so they could still deal with us
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Tie up CCC and it's arguably their best negotiating position.
Forever_Blue
Well-Known Member
They’ll be typing up some bollocks this morning no doubt, end of the day they’re pretty much fucked now.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
If SISU put half as much effort into actually building a ground as they did into the smoke and mirrors we’d be into our 3rd season at the Fish Bowl
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
SISU will surely appeal, they won't stop until there is no option they can chase or they would of stopped ages ago
Who to? The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, nowhere else for them to go.
Forever_Blue
Well-Known Member
SISU have already been told they have to pay the costs for CCC, it was in the supreme courts summing up letter.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
This is a possibility but i do not see what would be gained from it. A judicial review is a review of procedure, and i would guess a successful challenge would result in CCC being asked to re run their procedures in line with proper conduct. There might be some small financial loss that has been caused so far that SISU might have a case for claiming but i doubt it is significant, SISU have already said they have limited their expenditure so far because of lack of response
What such an action does not do is distress Wasps, which in my opinion has been the focus of the latest actions. Such an action would not tie Wasps in to JR3 because it would be about something unrelated to Wasps. So i would think any action if there is to be any would be through the civil courts focusing on how Wasps had attempted to distress CCFC by their actions, had tried to wrest ownership away and the resultant financial loss caused to ARVO & SBS&L - not a massively strong case despite what is said in this forum - but it doesnt have to be because it wraps Wasps up in expensive, costly time consuming legal actions
Wasps could still offer CCFC new terms and include a clause making any deal dependent on an end to legal challenges (past present & future) for their purchase of ACL and the lease. From their point of view I would allow a few days to see what SISU response is then offer a reasonable deal for 5 years on a take it or leave it basis. That would include a rent rise but access to a proportion of the associated match incomes like F&B & Car parking. From a CCFC point of view I would want no rent rise and full access to the profits on F&B and Car parking - but i don't think that is going to be on the table.
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
European court is the next step for them still i think
Forever_Blue
Well-Known Member
We should have 100% profits from F&B and parking for when CCFC play, makes total sense to me.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
With respect to the last point-could a one off fee be paid in order to access those?
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
How many more times? They have not LOST at the Supreme Court (merely been denied leave to appeal, as there is no arguable point of law of public importance), therefore they cannot go to the ECJ.
That is my understanding - legal experts feel free to correct me.
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
Just not to the council or wasps.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Don't see why not, after all we keep being told the benefit of having CCFC there is minimal so shouldn't be a problem to pass those minimal profits over.
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
Would that fee be in relation to what wasps paid? Or would it be similar to the 34 million Gidney wanted?
Edit: I was wrong, it was 24 million
Last edited:
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Hopefully be a better offer than when Gidney said we could buy them back for the remainder of the original 50 year lease for something ridiculous like £32m
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Come on it was only £24 million
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Doesn’t the European courts deal with EU law rather than our own sovereign laws? Isn’t a judicial review a review into our own sovereign laws? Not sure what jurisdiction the European courts would have on JR2. Unless they use the arguments from JR1 in Europe I’m struggling to see what they’re going to take to Europe exactly. Not sure what they’d be a civil case on given they’ve been battered in both JR’s and JR2 has been deemed by the highest court in the land to have no point in law. JR3 on woodlands seems even more far fetched than JR1 & 2 as no formal procedure has been undertaken and planning has its own appeal process through central government. Surely that would all have to be tested to a conclusion before a JR could be started on the procedure used to reach that conclusion?
Not seeing where this can go now for there to be more proceedings. Not saying that won’t stop SISU trying though as each case has had less merit than the previous and it hasn’t stopped them yet.
Not seeing where this can go now for there to be more proceedings. Not saying that won’t stop SISU trying though as each case has had less merit than the previous and it hasn’t stopped them yet.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Bargain! Surprised we didn't sign up.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Yes that is a possibility, but more so if it were a long term deal. For a five year deal whilst apparently building a new stadium i would suggest access is better reflected for CCFC in the monthly rent
As to the other posters comments - Do you not think that just as CCFC will want to minimise costs and maximise income that Wasps would not want to do the same. As they own the rights to incomes and the lease at the ground the level of charges or access will be set by Wasps in their favour not CCFC's. The choice CCFC have is to accept, try to negotiate or walk away. Wasps are certainly not going to just give parts of it away, and as i understand it see the current deal as undervalue, whether or not CCFC or its fans see differently. CCFC are in a weak position to make demands
If Wasps see the current deal as undervalue, and are looking to increase their own turnover & importantly net profit then it isnt too much of a leap to think a price hike for any new deal is on the cards is it? The alternative is a ground share somewhere outside of the City. Not saying it is best for CCFC just that realistically that is what i see happening.
Just another thought but just as Wasps have been saying for over a year no deal unless no legals, then Wasps have had over a year to prepare for CCFC not being there. Their Plan A might be having CCFC there but what is Plan B if CCFC not there
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Wonder why the club hasn't released a statement yet? They have been fairly quick recently
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
The club has it was basically no comment nothing to do with us its the owners. SISU have yet to comment