It's certainly because so much of #2 will overlap with #1. Losing #1, as will surely happen, will be like entering #2 in a situation whereby you've lost the first leg of a two-leg semi-final 7-0.
But there's certainly wisdom in waiting until the existing process has run it's lengthy course
Would be a bit silly to start another now to be fair. Let's say the oral hearing succeeds and by some miracle the ACL loan is deemed state aid, where does that even leave Wasps? (anyone?)
Obviously, if the first one fails, they can extend their pressure. I'm not sure how it would impact to be fair. If the loan to ACL was legal, the sale to Wasps can still be illegal. Especially considering the main point from JR1 was that the council held a stake in ACL so didn't have to act like other investors. Whereas JR2 would likely be about whether CCC favoured Wasps over Sisu for non-applicable reasons.
To be honest, seems a bit silly as the two offers were different enough for there to be a solid claim that the Wasps deal was more in line with the aims of the Charity and CCC (the ticket money to AEHC, other community stuff, the fact that bringing in Wasps will have a regenerative effect (arguably, which is all that's needed)). It doesn't matter whether people think one offer was better or not, as long as a reasonable person could claim the decision was based on the bids. Which they can, no question. JR1 made it clear that a local authority can make political decisions.
Edit: this is why the Reid stuff coming out about what Ann Lucas thought about Sisu is irrelevant. She's perfectly allowed to hate Sisu and feel it's not in the best interests of Coventry to deal with them. Again, talking legally WRT the JR, not morally, or whatever.
