"He (SISU QC) says the transactions were structured deliberately to give Wasps control of the Ricoh Arena for more than 200 years."
Sisu QC outlines chronology
Sisu QC is now presenting “a chronology of the club’s attempts to get a share in the ground”.
“The first major topic it addresses is the value of a 100 per cent interest in the venue for an organisation like CCFC or Wasps.”
He says that’s important for the valuation of the Ricoh Arena.
Sisu QC referring to failed talks between the council and CCFC over the club securing a share in the Ricoh Arena during 2012.
He says they have issues with the fact they were only ever able to discuss a 50 per cent share and a much shorter lease.
He says the terms given to Wasps were never offered to Sisu or any other potential bidders.
He argues that this shows the council did not do everything it could to secure the best possible price for the asset by attracting rival bidders to drive up the purchase price.
if they lose it will be highly likely they will appeal.
they must think they have something
We shall find out, but it looks like the council made sure SISU got nowhere near a deal for the Ricoh, who'd have thought that!!Does that break rules?
But it has to be said, SISU played a major role in making sure SISU got nowhereWe shall find out, but it looks like the council made sure SISU got nowhere near a deal for the Ricoh, who'd have thought that!!
Alopecia?Just looks like she has shit hair rather than ill.
possibly.Does that break rules?
That's what I was thinking makes me look like a hippyAlopecia?
Should expert evidence be allowed?
Sisu’s QC has asked that we look at a legal precedent set by the sale of a luxury Swiss hotel.
Why is this relevant? He says the case centred on the value of the hotel and how that value was reached.
The case contains a summary of valuation law. He refers to an example of how a valuation should be made.
In that example he says evidence from expert witnesses was allowed, and so, he argues, that should be allowed here.
He says if their expert evidence is not allowed, the court would essentially be “taking the council’s word for it” because the existing valuations of the Ricoh Arena were prepared at the instruction of the council and are not as independent as evidence prepared directly for the court.
Sisu’s QC wants evidence included from a Mr Pilgrim (valuation expert) and a Mr Rathbone (marketing expert).
She only has bad hair according to Dr NickMy goodness she is looking rough.
Just looks like she has shit hair rather than ill.
Mine too. From someone who works with sick people she don't look great.To my (untrained) eyes, she looks ill - that was my immediate reaction when I saw this photo.
She only has bad hair according to Dr Nick
That's why I look so goodShe may well be, I just thought she had awful hair. If she had long flowing, healthy hair it would be different
But didn't Tim say that SISU would never have taken on the lease on the"
He says the terms given to Wasps were never offered to Sisu or any other potential bidders.
He argues that this shows the council did not do everything it could to secure the best possible price for the asset by attracting rival bidders to drive up the purchase price.
"
To be fair, that is the council bang to rights as far as I am concerned...
She would look alright in a pine boxMy goodness she is looking rough.
That's why I look so good
“How can you sell something for £20 million that was worth £50 million?”
Sisu QC describes a Strutt and Parker valuation, which he says was taken before the Wasps deal was completed, as a “knockout blow”.
He adds: “How can you sell something for £20 million that was worth £50 million?”
We haven’t seen the finer details of that valuation in court, it’s in the bundles only the lawyers and the judge have access to.
Sisu’s QC made the statement as he aimed to underline the strength of his case whether or not additional evidence from expert witnesses was allowed.
Oooof!!!She would look alright in a pine box
Great now I know what you look like
Great now I know what you look like
Sisu QC finishes submissions
Sisu QC says his client has suffered “significant detriment” as a result of the sale of the Ricoh Arena tro Wasps and would likely be looking for damages.
He says the issue is the “loss of a chance” although he accepts Sisu would not necessarily have been successful in any bid over Wasps.
That’s Sisu’s QC done. He’s made way for council QC James Goudie.
Looks like she just got out of Bed
Council QC says it has taken too long for this to come to court
Council QC says the fact almost three years have passed since the Wasps sale is largely down to the claimants.
He’s trying to get it thrown out on the basis it took too long to reach court.
Mr Goudie says the claimant acted “belatedly” to start this judicial review.
He argues they should have acted more quickly because of the coverage in the Coventry Telegraph which reported the sale of the Ricoh to Wasps in great detail on the day of the sale and even included details of the lease extension.
He’s showing clippings of the Telegraph’s stories to the judge.
Mr Goudie says the delay in this case is “lengthy”.
He says the delay, minus the time the case was paused, was seven months.
He argues “the fact they were in time doesn’t mean they were prompt”.
He says it was two months after the sale of the Ricoh Arena to Wasps that proceedings were first activated.
Sorry haven't got my glasses on, did you say she looks ill or 111?Photo of Joy on the CT blog,and she looks ill.
Regards.
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?