Anyone involved in high level litigation will know that the mere existence of an ongoing case is a headache.
Try getting a commercial litigation lawyer to say: “it’s ok CCC, they’ve no chance, you’re home and dry”.
Nope.
There was risk to CCC in this case, I can’t see SISU letting the case wither without some kind of deal.
SISU IMO have got some kind of undertaking from CCC
It may be that CCC will sort out some equivalent grants / funding on the new venture, sort transport links etc.
I think a deal was done for SISU to let the case wither prior to heading back to CBS.
If its a commercial entity its a big problem but this is a council used to legal threats and not worrying as much about brand or how it affects access to finance. This is also not a commercial challenge it was about state aid.
The councils legals are for the most part dealt with in-house so it's a fixed cost largely. This was not a legal case as such though. The biggest expense will have gathering any existing documents and letting the EU have.
Yes there was risk but not one in court. It wasn't a court case and never going to be adversarial closing argument. Not how European state aid law works.
It was sisu and wu that had the need not ccc so to my mind the only concessions ccc will have made is probably agreeing not to raise objections on basis of traffic flows etc. The proposed ground isn't actually in the ccc area so why do they need to offer finance. The cost will come with transport improvements which were largely pencilled in.
I suspect, having seen the supplementary new charges on otium that ARVO investors have got a bit twitchy and need Ryton sold. That creates a problem for ccfc as to where to train. Hence the urgency. Ccc could and have up till now stonewalled anything to do with sisu, why would they think they need to concede much
The council I think has demanded legal assurance of no more legal challenges of any kind. Morally ccc have acted despicably over the last 20 years but not one point raised in law by sisu has proven any illegal act. Ccc want to draw a line under the whole saga and have done for years its only one party that has kept this going.
Not going to explain yet again the difference between paying 2.7m for shares and the valuation of a lease that forms part of the assets and liabilities of a company sold for 2.7m without an anchor tenant And why that value of the lease increases with one or even two anchor tenants
I don't think the eu case ever had legs and sisu knew it. The council knew it. It was done to cause maximum discomfort for CCC but in particular wasps and all sisu had to do once filed was to sit back and watch. It soured relationships further and probably cost the club a lot of money since its filing and the move to St Andrews that followed. There is no trust between the parties which is still a problem. Trust takes years to gain minutes to destroy and is never fully restored.
Am just glad it's over and ccfc can get back to being only a football club deeply entrenched in its city and community not some hostage to fortune to hard-nosed unscrupulous hedge fund or egotistical councillors
Am sure there will be grants involved but more likely national based as the development is not in the ccc area. The costs and contribution by ccc will be based on infrastructure nothing to do with sisu
Sisu and ccc have repeatedly toyed with and shafted ccfc I have got not a good word for either of them
