i thought the basis of the 2nd case was whether the loan deal (now with Wasps) amounted to "further state aid."You wouldn't see anything behind it. Wasps deal has nothing to do with it.
So what is shmmee referring to then? If he's not talking about the JR what else has been proven?
SISU's original argument? That was the rent was too high and ACL were totally reliant on us being there paying rent. We've always known the first one to be true, in the last few days we've learnt the second is true.
i thought the basis of the 2nd case was whether the loan deal (now with Wasps) amounted to "further state aid."
This would require the council to justify the loan and so the deal for ACL would have to be brought into the open. Whilst the case is still against CCC and not ACL th details of the deal would have to be explained in order to justify the loan.
That's the thing, some of the stuff SISU were coming out I ignored as bollocks. Seems some of it as actually true so it makes you wonder doesn't it? (I am not saying everything they say is true by that, either)
there was me thinking you were intelligent enough to realise the original argument/basis of their court case was actually about a loan being illegal state aid. The original rent dispute/ contract s not what they went to court on.
What are we to believe now when we're looking back at statements from Fisher and even Labovich and they seem to have at least some truth in them! Hard now to know which statements from either side we can take as true. Of course some people don't want to see it and still want to think SISU = bad & lies, council = good & truth, for me both sides have always had a share of the blame but the evidence is starting to suggest that the balance of where that blame lies is shifting towards the council.
If you think about it how many people have pointed the finger at CCC, even before SISU were here: Robinson, Fletcher, Ranson, Deliu, Robbins, Fisher, Labovich, Sepalla. Even if you think back to the time of the takeover the Manhatten Group were keen until they had a meeting with the council and promptly got on a plane out of here. The rumour at the time was that they felt the council would be impossible to work with. PK4 was all some would talk about for weeks, he had a meeting with the council and was never heard from again!
Now of course a lot of people on that list are people you wouldn't particularly trust or believe but when you look back now you have to wonder. Have the council had a much larger role in this mess than previously thought?
That's the point. There were/are 2 ongoing cases. One of which was ruled on today and the 2nd which was recently filed about the loan basically now belonging to a private company in which the Council has no stake- hence the "further state aid".That would have to be a new JR. The basis on which the loan was made can only be judged on what was known at the time. I.e. ACL was owned by Higgs and CCC, CCFC were locked into a 40 year deal paying £1.3m in rent.
That's the point. There were/are 2 ongoing cases. One of which was ruled on today and the 2nd which was recently filed about the loan basically now belonging to a private company in which the Council has no stake- hence the "further state aid".
Exactly. Nothing to do with rent levels, or Wasps, or whether Ann Lucas has told a porky. None of those things matter in the eyes of the law.
That's what SISU want to contest. As the council no longer has a shareholding in the ACL is it now acting as a private bank to a company that it no longer part-owns. The original JR said the loan was okay as the council were protecting their investment. Whatever the merits of the new case if it got to court the details of the Wasps/ACL/CCC deal would be part of the new case. That's the bit I think people would like to see rather than have everyone hiding behind commercial confidentiality.That's not further state aid though. The loan was made to ACL. The loan is still with ACL. Nothing has changed. The council still has a stake in ACL in the form of its loan.
That's what SISU want to contest. As the council no longer has a shareholding in the ACL is it now acting as a private bank to a company that it no longer part-owns. The original JR said the loan was okay as the council were protecting their investment. Whatever the merits of the new case if it got to court the details of the Wasps/ACL/CCC deal would be part of the new case. That's the bit I think people would like to see rather than have everyone hiding behind commercial confidentiality.
One of the strands of the CCC defence was that they loan was less risky due to their continued shareholding in ACL. Of course, that was a load of bollocks.
Of course, that is irrelevant. Only information known in January 2013 can be used as evidence.
According to AL the Ricoh was always intended as a franchise stadium.
According to AL the Ricoh was always intended as a franchise stadium.
And?
As at January 2013 there were no firm plans for CCC to sell their shares. The law is about the situation at a particular time, not what might happen in the future.
No plans or no firm plans? Are you suggesting that defence wasn't absolute? Tut tut
No plans or no firm plans? Are you suggesting that defence wasn't absolute? Tut tut
Your the one questioning the decision of the court.
Fact is CCC were cleared of anything unlawful in the JR, and that drives council haters like you mad to the point of being unable to accept a legitimate verdict.
That's not further state aid though. The loan was made to ACL. The loan is still with ACL. Nothing has changed. The council still has a stake in ACL in the form of its loan.
It's only state aid if the money is going to a completely separate private company.
The council handing the Ricoh over to sisu for free would be state aid.
What the council will argue is that they have protected their investment in one of their projects.
Of course it's state aid if loan is to a private company now rather than to a Council one.
I accept the verdict. It just makes me laugh how desperate you are to exonerate the council of any wrong doing.
Of course it's state aid if loan is to a private company now rather than to a Council one.
In the eyes of the law ACL was always a private company.
You mean like Northampton Councils loan to Northampton Town FC for their ground extension?
In the eyes of bigfatronssba that means it was state aid then.
So are you saying then that a public body, lending money to a private company, is state aid?
It's only state aid if the money is going to a completely separate private company.
No, you did, did you not recognise your own quote above?
Can you give just one example of how CCC saying ACL is profitable when it wasn't has damaged CCFC?
Did I say on every occasion?
Your not stupid so I don't know why your playing dumb on this, but I will humour you and make it clear.
Public funds going to a public body - Cannot be considered state aid
Public funds going to a private body - Under some circumstances (rare) can be considered state aid.
Don't give a fuck about Northampton to be honest, besides it's in the past, so doesn't matter.
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?