Found this Dave which seems to indicate s123 of the 1972 Local Government Act is not so clear. Don't think either of us would be surprised by that
in any case section 123 seems to relate land disposals so is it relevant?
It certainly isn't clear that's for sure. Section 123 does seem to relate to land disposals however there are cases that quote section 123 that aren't land but assets which confuses things.
CCC disposed of shares in ACL then granted a lease extension to an existing tenant. Was best value gained? were valuations done? Could anyone else be invited to have the long lease? Is the order in which things got done vital in determining any challenge?
Going through the regulations is mind numbing stuff and I lost the will to live. What I did find was several councils have written their own guides for staff on asset disposal to ensure they don't fall foul of regulations. They all state the same process. Get a valuation and advertise the sale.
In terms of the order of things they could argue that the lease extension was sold to a sitting tenant however the question then would be when was that first discussed. If it was before the sale of ACL I think you would move into an area where questions would need to be asked as you could argue that constituted one deal.
Whilst I can perhaps see the argument for confidential discussions to get a deal done, I am not convinced by such arguments after it has been. In any case the article seems to make clear that all interested parties should be contacted with a view to getting them to put in a detailed bid. Was that done? Were there only 2 potential bidders? Did shareholder agreements mean neither stakeholder wanted to sell to SISU so a bid from them was not likely to succeed? Did SISU actually reject making a bid?
It does seem the actual discussions can be confidential but as you say you still need to ensure best value and that everyone is aware of the sale.
So what constitutes best value in this case? - I have no idea to be honest because it isn't just about pounds sterling it would seem
The first thing I guess would be the valuation. If the sale price matches the valuation (assuming the valuation stands up to
scrutiny of course) then the council are on solid ground. If it doesn't then there needs to be questions asked as to why it was sold under value.
The first JR would seem to have been short circuited by the loan being repaid. That could leave CCC open to a penalty from the EU if they lost. Compensation payable to SISU/ARVO/SBS&L is not necessarily so clear cut and likely to take years to settle -assuming they win their case.
The second JR is not so clear as that even because we do not know the details yet. However as CCFC/SISU had moved away and any contractual obligation broken then the path to compensation would seem even more tenuous than for JR1. Is that perhaps why the club were allowed/invited back on a day rent basis?
Having read up more I can almost see where SISU were coming from with the first JR. European rules seem stricter and appear to term any involvement with a private comany on a non-commercial basis as a subsidy and therefore state aid. I'm surprised SISU didn't get someone to give evidence saying they wouldn't have offered a loan to ACL on the same terms, similarly CCC could have shown evidence a commercial loan was available on the same terms.
The second JR seems to have a lot more scope to cause problems for CCC. If SISU can show CCC have sold ACL under value and / or not notified all potential interested parties things could get interesting.
Of course even in the event SISU do win you have to wonder what they will actually get out of it.
In my opinion this could all be cleared off if CCC would come out with some detail. The more they try to hide behind confidentiality the more it looks like they have something to hide.
