Nick
Administrator
I know there isn't much we can do about it but it wasn't empty when the council voted on whether they should even sell it or not.
Because the valuation on the sale was made when it was empty. And if the sale never went ahead the arena would have stayed empty.
Not good news for us. But there is nothing we can do about it.
can anyone give me a 5 bullet point summary of latest developments please
can anyone give me a 5 bullet point summary of latest developments please
Thanks mate1. Joy has said she was targetted by a Council PR Campaign
2. SISU said everything was one transaction
3. Council bloke said he would understand that but Higgs were involved too
4. SISU said they want Wasps to pay loads of money to the council, if not they would have half the stadium
5. Didn't learn anything "new" or what the "new evidence" seemed to be. Pretty boring.
Lost another pint
I actually wanted a quick summary of the court case as I'm too lazy to read up on it.
I maybe wrong but the way i see it civil action against wasps or council is only an option if sisu win the JR.
How would you value the extended lease anyway?
You couldn't base it on current tennants look at ccfc. A yearly contract who is to say we will be playing at the ricoh next year never mind when the extended portion of the lease starts.
ACL if struggling could have applied to extend its lease at the Ricoh to make itself more attractive to a takeover, particularly if Higgs wanted out.
It would also mean credit would be easier to get so that they could get better terms doesn't it?
To extend the lease - would the Higgs Charity be required to provide any funding?ACL if struggling could have applied to extend its lease at the Ricoh to make itself more attractive to a takeover, particularly if Higgs wanted out.
I want to sleep with Beyoncé but neither has any realistic chance of happening.
I think that's about right , however the lease was owned 50/50 with the council and his charity , both party's had to agreed to the sale or it was no deal , SISU had fell out with the charity leaving the council to find someone they and the charity could deal with , the problem seems to be why was it so secret, I think its been explained that the council did not have to take the highest money offer only , there are other factors that can come into playSo the crux of the argument seems to be how can the valuation be based on the arena having a short lease if once you’ve purchased ACL you can simply extend the lease without cost and effectively add value?
What was the scenario SISU were offered, was it different to what Wasps were offered?
To extend the lease - would the Higgs Charity be required to provide any funding?
Valuation
James Goudie QC, representing Coventry City Council, is speaking again now.
He is dealing with criticisms made by Sisu’s QC that KPMG did not provide an independent market valuation of the asset and that it valued the asset in isolation.
He says the KPMG report details the scope of the work the valuers undertook.
Mr Goudie says KPMG were doing a number of things and “while they were doing some things that were not a valuation...does not take away from the fact that one of the things they were doing was a valuation”.
Charity Commission legislation is quite clear regarding investment and it is the duty of the trustees to seek a maximum return, If Sisu's offer was more in financial terms than Wasps they have arguably failed their duties as trustees of registered charity, a preference over who they deal with does not come into it.I think that's about right , however the lease was owned 50/50 with the council and his charity , both party's had to agreed to the sale or it was no deal , SISU had fell out with the charity leaving the council to find someone they and the charity could deal with , the problem seems to be why was it so secret, I think its been explained that the council did not have to take the highest money offer only , there are other factors that can come into play
Charity Commission legislation is quite clear regarding investment and it is the duty of the trustees to seek a maximum return, If Sisu's offer was more in financial terms than Wasps they have arguably failed their duties as trustees of registered charity, a preference over who they deal with does not come into it.
"Singular lack of interest"
Mr Goudie is asked by Lord Justice Leveson if the judges should pay any attention to the fact that the claimants had shown interest in buying the stadium.
He says the claimants interest was an “interest of a very different nature because of their existing licence at the stadium”.
He adds: “As far as that was concerned although there was a good deal of general knowledge on what their approach was...there really had been a singular lack of interest shown.”
I can't see it.Might just be me, but those most recent phrases from the judge make me think that he feels there is a case to answer here. It's certainly not as open and shut as some seem to think, imho.
Wasps' offer exceeded valuation
Mr Goudie says Wasps’ ultimate offer exceeded KPMG’s first valuation.
He said: “We say the fact KPMG was conducting an official market valuation...Is sufficient to dispose of the particular criticism that they didn’t provide an independent market valuation.”
State aid
Mr Goudie says rules around state aid state that a public authority will not grant state aid if it first obtains an independent market valuation and then sells in line with that market valuation.
He says that is “exactly what the council did in this situation”.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?