Sisu didn’t argue that the Ricoh was worthless and no commercial lender would have lent to them because of that then?
But we knew that the value was taken from when the arena was empty and unused. And a big loan was also outstanding that had to be serviced.Oh dear. Sounds like the judge is telling SISU that they’re pissing in the wind. Sounds like the mediation suggestion in the last round was trying to do SISU a favour, or the club at least.
But the lease couldn't be extended until it was taken over by someone. If SISU had taken the lease on they would have had the same rights as Wasps. How could SISU ever negotiate extending the lease when they were not willing to pay or take on the loan that was outstanding?You're comparing apples with pears. SISU's argument was that ACL on a 40 odd year lease was worthless and would have struggled to raise the finance on the open market. It's a different proposition to ACL with Wasps and a 250 year lease.
But the lease couldn't be extended until it was taken over by someone. If SISU had taken the lease on they would have had the same rights as Wasps. How could SISU ever negotiate extending the lease when they were not willing to pay or take on the loan that was outstanding?
No. Sure it was straight after but arranged before they took over. It all moved too quickly.Wasn't the lease extension done before the takeover was completed?
But the lease couldn't be extended until it was taken over by someone. If SISU had taken the lease on they would have had the same rights as Wasps. How could SISU ever negotiate extending the lease when they were not willing to pay or take on the loan that was outstanding?
You're comparing apples with pears. SISU's argument was that ACL on a 40 odd year lease was worthless and would have struggled to raise the finance on the open market. It's a different proposition to ACL with Wasps and a 250 year lease.
No. Sure it was straight after but arranged before they took over. It all moved too quickly.
But that is where negotiating gets you.
No. Sure it was straight after but arranged before they took over. It all moved too quickly.
But that is where negotiating gets you.
You're comparing apples with pears. SISU's argument was that ACL on a 40 odd year lease was worthless and would have struggled to raise the finance on the open market. It's a different proposition to ACL with Wasps and a 250 year lease.
Wasn't the lease extension done before the takeover was completed?
Why couldn't it be extended when ACL was owned by Higgs and CCC?But the lease couldn't be extended until it was taken over by someone.
Both were agreed at the same council meeting which is why the judge who sent this to full trial said it had to be considered as one transaction. Something this judge seems to have ignored.Wasn't the lease extension done before the takeover was completed?
Couldn’t have been. Wasps didn’t own ACL before the takeover so therefore didn’t have any legal rights to extend it. They had to purchase ACL first to do it.
Which is how CCC have been in court before. Keep it to what the case is about and not change it as they go along. IIRC they have to keep to what it is about in a JR.I don't think they're saying otherwise are they? They are saying that the whole deal was contingent on the lease extension, the council arguing otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme though on the face of it what they have done isn't illegal.
Because by law you can't extend a lease that isn't yours. And the freeholder can only charge a certain % of the value to extend a lease.So that begs the question if it was arranged before they took over, why didn't they charge for it with a 250 year lease. The other question is why didn't they give a 250 year lease years ago which meant ACL wouldn't struggle so much and therefore CCFC wouldn't be paying millions in rent as ACL wouldn't be as reliant.
"Material impact on competition"
Mr Thompson says the new 250 year lease was granted by the council without prior market valuation of the stadium. He says the effect of the transaction had a material impact on the rest of the competition.
He said the stadium was independently judged to be worth between £46.9m and £48.5m.
Because by law you can't extend a lease that isn't yours. And the freeholder can only charge a certain % of the value to extend a lease.
Yes we should have had a lot longer lease from the start. But as the rent was the amount to cover the outstanding loan the rent payable would have been about the same.
Why would Higgs put more money into something they wanted their money back from when nobody at the time wanted it?Shouldn't the first thing to be dealt with have been what happened with the mediation that was ordered?
Why couldn't it be extended when ACL was owned by Higgs and CCC?
Both were agreed at the same council meeting which is why the judge who sent this to full trial said it had to be considered as one transaction. Something this judge seems to have ignored.
Only a few minutes in and we've already got the grounds for SISU's next appeal.
Why would Higgs put more money into something they wanted their money back from when nobody at the time wanted it?
When taken over by Wasps.Didn't the lease get extended / approved while Higgs still owned it though?
And ACL was owned by who?The lease was ACLs though?
Because by law you can't extend a lease that isn't yours. And the freeholder can only charge a certain % of the value to extend a lease.
Yes we should have had a lot longer lease from the start. But as the rent was the amount to cover the outstanding loan the rent payable would have been about the same.
When taken over by Wasps.
As I said arranged but not finalised until afterwards.It was done in the same council meeting wasn't it, before Higgs had even accepted a bid?
From my understanding of the law is valuations are made at the exact time of sale. The fact the lease was extended, even 1 minute after the sale is immaterial.....assuming that had a positive impact on valuation of an asset. What is written in the contract of sale is the key element, if the extension of the lease is not in there, then it cannot be considered.
As I said arranged but not finalised until afterwards.
Difference
Mr Thompson wants all elements of the sale considered together.
He said: “It was a single transaction and was envisaged as such, it just happened to take three months for some reason.”
But Justice McCombe says the council did not have a 250 year lease to sell at the time and that is why the valuations before and after the lease extension could not be compared.
But there still wasn't a 250 year lease until after the sale. So the sale was on the original lease. And the extension was on the original price. The price SISU said that was too high.At this one, the judge is saying they didn't have a 250 year lease.
Isn't that incorrect? It isn't as if a few months down the line the council extended the lease, it was discussed / put through at the same time as whether to accept an offer for the Council share so it was known full well about the 250 year lease.
From my understanding of the law is valuations are made at the exact time of sale. The fact the lease was extended, even 1 minute after the sale is immaterial.....assuming that had a positive impact on valuation of an asset. What is written in the contract of sale is the key element, if the extension of the lease is not in there, then it cannot be considered.
That is the argument that SISU are trying to put over. But has no legal standing. The judge has certainly confirmed this.So why didn't they finalise it just before and charge Wasps millions more?
Is that not the argument that's being made?
Why would Higgs have put any more money in? It would have been ACL buying the lease extension not Higgs.Why would Higgs put more money into something they wanted their money back from when nobody at the time wanted it?
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?