Search results

not unless you can pay the annual finance costs of a mortgage or loan you don't.......... but i get your point The £750k in the example doesn't include any capital repayment btw In CCFC's case there is no capital sale proceeds to throw in to the pot to finance at least in part the build

I agree the stadium being sold is a big handicap. But even with two teams there, increased turnover etc Wasps have failed to make it work so far. The stadium only works in my opinion if there are two teams there at the top of their sport, it would have been no different with just CCFC there it...

The club has it was basically no comment nothing to do with us its the owners. SISU have yet to comment

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...

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...

Not sure if they could because Wasps are the other half of the transaction..... any judgement against CCC would affect Wasps

i think you are most probably right

partly but also from the fans pressure to stay at Ricoh now there are no current legals ....... so Butts alternative put out there. If they go again with the legals and no option at BPA that would be a disaster. For now Wasps & CCC are in a position that they will feel UK courts have proven them...

Well Wasps can not at present say stop the legal actions and we talk.... there are none (yes i know there may be in future but that could be dealt with in any draft agreement as a condition) They could offer heads of terms dependent on no more legals SISU can choose to stop the legal actions...

true but it is a chink of light ................

I was thinking the Supreme Court judgement ...... if that goes against SISU then there are technically no legals going on .......... opportunity to talk perhaps? .......... pressure to stay at Ricoh ? .....

That would be my understanding too Just a thought but if SISU appeal kicked out doesn't that mean there are no legals going on ....... perhaps an opportunity to talk?

I wonder if it ties in with any other news that is due?

I cant find anything more current than this about 3G or 4G pitches. But it seems to rule them out EFL could face legal threat over artificial pitch debate The PFA voted 94% against artificial pitches.

I wouldn't think that a drop in value was unusual the same time as the FCA announce an investigation. The trades are automatic according to the LSE site so are triggered by preset criteria. Still doesn't seem to be much market for the bonds the value fall triggered by sale of 125,000 bonds in 5...

Must say i thoroughly enjoyed my day at CRFC, but i usually do :) Pity about the result, CRFC should have closed the game out. That said i was far from impressed by the referee and assistants. Safe in the Championship and already building for next season cant complain at that...

But that was as a director of Alan Higgs Centre Trust which wasn't involved in the Ricoh saga at all ....... it ran the Sports centre

That is to buy time to put the CCC loan in place i believe, at least that is how i read it But also in those same emails is the following "CCC is prepared to accept the Sisu offer of £5.5m as the value which they would have to meet should they exercise their right of preemption." So were they...

there is danger in relying on what SISU said about the heads of terms that were agreed 02/08/2012 between SISU & CCC. To start with Heads of Terms are not legally binding This is what the Judge decided in JR1 I have explained, the SISU plan had terminally stalled by the end of August 2012...

Actually State aid was only one of the grounds. The judgement handed down by Hickinbottom also dealt with "failure to take in to account material considerations" and "irrationality" of the loan made The State Aid claim - Judgement said it was not State Aid and that claim failed "In the...