fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The justification for protecting the council's long term asset looks a bit off now they've sold it.
No News from Court of Appeal (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter lamtara2006
- Start date
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
not really because at the time of the decision neither of the parties interested had come up with a deal that was of interest to the Council or indeed the charity for that matter. The stakeholders had to make decisions on what actually was at the time not something that may or may not happen in the future
Clearly as was pointed out previously the owner of Wasps did not take over until April 2013, before that Wasps were in financial turmoil incapable of mounting a realistic bid, even when wasps were taken over they were looking at multiple sites in any case
Clearly as was pointed out previously the owner of Wasps did not take over until April 2013, before that Wasps were in financial turmoil incapable of mounting a realistic bid, even when wasps were taken over they were looking at multiple sites in any case
Which is the very point I was trying to make.
But it's down to whether or not Wasps were known as a potential buyer at the time the loan was issued.
Unless of course ACL were on the brink of insolvency at that time, but that's not what we were told.
Could that decision not have been to leave everything as it were for a period of time? Suspend negotiations and cool off a few months?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It'd be interesting to see what the repayment terms of the remainder of the loan are. Assume the 'small profit' has been written off.....
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Wonder whether Wasps sought investors to buy out the loan?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I thought the judgement was made on the basis that the judge believed that ACL could have got the loan commercially if CCC hadn't arranged a loan for them?
SISU distressing ACL I thought was an observation that the judge made rather than the basis of his judgement?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
No. It's a bit more subtle than that - there is a recognition that some private investors might and some might not. The judge isn't making that direct judgement. Hence why the evidence SISU submitted that basically outlined why a private investor wouldn't make the loan wasn't considered.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
So basically SISU claimed it to be illegal state aid because they or ARVO wouldn't have made the same offer?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
No. They claimed it illegal state aid because a private investor wouldn't. The evidence they put forward from an expert wasn't permitted by the judge however. Whether that same evidence would be seen as new a second time who knows.
skybluefred
New Member
From what we have seen they are not very good at "Court Battering" either.
they have distributed several funding prospectuses in the past couple of months
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Can you post a copy up?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Sorry, my post really means found.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
But didn't the judge point out that this was irrelevant as it's an existing investment? (Been a while since I read the judgement may be off slightly).
I think it was fairly obvious to most with an untainted view of this that it was never illegal state aid. Just the cheerleaders like yourself and Grendel with more wishful thinking.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
There was a backlog in dealing with all the cases including this case, it's hoping to be sorted ASAP, no timescale given.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk