fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The justification for protecting the council's long term asset looks a bit off now they've sold it.
The justification for protecting the council's long term asset looks a bit off now they've sold it.They can deal with other parties - that's not the point.
The case is about whether the council loan was unlawful legal aid.
The loan was said to be a protection of their investment in ACL. But if two parties were interested in taking over ACL - one even interested in buying the loan and discharge it - then couldn't it weaken the councils case?
The judgement was based on the belief that sisu were trying to distress ACL making it ok for the council to protect their interest.
Now it would seem there was another interested party at the time they took over the loan from YB, and - the point being - the Wasps were not trying to distress ACL, were they?
The justification for protecting the council's long term asset looks a bit off now they've sold it.
not really because at the time of the decision neither of the parties interested had come up with a deal that was of interest to the Council or indeed the charity for that matter. The stakeholders had to make decisions on what actually was at the time not something that may or may not happen in the future
It'd be interesting to see what the repayment terms of the remainder of the loan are. Assume the 'small profit' has been written off.....not really because at the time of the decision neither of the parties interested had come up with a deal that was of interest to the Council or indeed the charity for that matter. The stakeholders had to make decisions on what actually was at the time not something that may or may not happen in the future
Clearly as was pointed out previously the owner of Wasps did not take over until April 2013, before that Wasps were in financial turmoil incapable of mounting a realistic bid, even when wasps were taken over they were looking at multiple sites in any case
They can deal with other parties - that's not the point.
The case is about whether the council loan was unlawful legal aid.
The loan was said to be a protection of their investment in ACL. But if two parties were interested in taking over ACL - one even interested in buying the loan and discharge it - then couldn't it weaken the councils case?
The judgement was based on the belief that sisu were trying to distress ACL making it ok for the council to protect their interest.
Now it would seem there was another interested party at the time they took over the loan from YB, and - the point being - the Wasps were not trying to distress ACL, were they?
No. It's a bit more subtle than that - there is a recognition that some private investors might and some might not. The judge isn't making that direct judgement. Hence why the evidence SISU submitted that basically outlined why a private investor wouldn't make the loan wasn't considered.I thought the judgement was made on the basis that the judge believed that ACL could have got the loan commercially if CCC hadn't arranged a loan for them?
SISU distressing ACL I thought was an observation that the judge made rather than the basis of his judgement?
No. It's a bit more subtle than that - there is a recognition that some private investors might and some might not. The judge isn't making that direct judgement. Hence why the evidence SISU submitted that basically outlined why a private investor wouldn't make the loan wasn't considered.
No. They claimed it illegal state aid because a private investor wouldn't. The evidence they put forward from an expert wasn't permitted by the judge however. Whether that same evidence would be seen as new a second time who knows.So basically SISU claimed it to be illegal state aid because they or ARVO wouldn't have made the same offer?
Of course, we all are. This 'clutching at straws' suggests they're desperate never having had any other skill other than "court battering"
Wonder whether Wasps sought investors to buy out the loan?
they have distributed several funding prospectuses in the past couple of months
Sorry, my post really means found.they have distributed several funding prospectuses in the past couple of months
No. They claimed it illegal state aid because a private investor wouldn't. The evidence they put forward from an expert wasn't permitted by the judge however. Whether that same evidence would be seen as new a second time who knows.
But didn't the judge point out that this was irrelevant as it's an existing investment? (Been a while since I read the judgement may be off slightly).
I think it was fairly obvious to most with an untainted view of this that it was never illegal state aid. Just the cheerleaders like yourself and Grendel with more wishful thinking.
this has gone really quiet ?
whats happening ?
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?