10 years would be sensible. <br>
<br>
If SISU are serious about a new stadium at the pace they are going we'll still need to be there in 10 years time. If they ain't it gives them plenty of time to get their litigation out the way and sell to some serious owners and if they want to build us a new stadium.
It does need in addition to that, pressure for:
a) changes to the CCC local plan and
b) club to talk to CCC and
c) CCC to talk to club
Constructively about where a stadium can be situated. Get the bullshit about personalities out the way and actually talk. Even if (when!) SISU are bluffing, we still need the process to at least have *some* momentum rather than the nonsense about whether to stock local pies or not.
Once again your true colours show.
The reason we won't get a good deal is that wasps are owned by an organisation interested in one thing - money. They have no interest in values, tradition and heritage. Those are the reasons we won't get a good deal despite your continued pathetic defence of them
Agreed. I don't believe for one minute that anyone who willingly invests their money in a hedge fund is so sensitive that they won't deal with CCC.
I could. I could believe full well city financiers used to a fast-paced environment where one person has the authority to say yes or no on the spot, meet provincial council, where decisions have to be approved by many, and discussed... is a recipe for both of them to want to kill the other.
That, however, doesn't excuse either side for letting personal feelings take over.
Agreed. I don't believe for one minute that anyone who willingly invests their money in a hedge fund is so sensitive that they won't deal with CCC.
Once again your true colours show.
The reason we won't get a good deal is that wasps are owned by an organisation interested in one thing - money. They have no interest in values, tradition and heritage. Those are the reasons we won't get a good deal despite your continued pathetic defence of them
Hear hear! Nail on the head.
Close the thread ........ the seals are all lining up and clapping in synchro.
Can't imagine why you get a hard time...
Wasps are businessmen and are aware you can still generate good money without charging us silly money and forcing us out.
It's all about getting the balance right and allowing us to buy into whatever facilities we want ( Not free )
Close the thread ........ the seals are all lining up and clapping in synchro.
It's a bit of banter with those that get personal with others opinions.
Hard time, I wouldn't be here if I didn't enjoy the jousting.
Found this Dave which seems to indicate s123 of the 1972 Local Government Act is not so clear. Don't think either of us would be surprised by that
in any case section 123 seems to relate land disposals so is it relevant?
CCC disposed of shares in ACL then granted a lease extension to an existing tenant. Was best value gained? were valuations done? Could anyone else be invited to have the long lease? Is the order in which things got done vital in determining any challenge?
Whilst I can perhaps see the argument for confidential discussions to get a deal done, I am not convinced by such arguments after it has been. In any case the article seems to make clear that all interested parties should be contacted with a view to getting them to put in a detailed bid. Was that done? Were there only 2 potential bidders? Did shareholder agreements mean neither stakeholder wanted to sell to SISU so a bid from them was not likely to succeed? Did SISU actually reject making a bid?
So what constitutes best value in this case? - I have no idea to be honest because it isn't just about pounds sterling it would seem
The first JR would seem to have been short circuited by the loan being repaid. That could leave CCC open to a penalty from the EU if they lost. Compensation payable to SISU/ARVO/SBS&L is not necessarily so clear cut and likely to take years to settle -assuming they win their case.
The second JR is not so clear as that even because we do not know the details yet. However as CCFC/SISU had moved away and any contractual obligation broken then the path to compensation would seem even more tenuous than for JR1. Is that perhaps why the club were allowed/invited back on a day rent basis?
Fair enough! Best tell olderskyblue that
It certainly isn't clear that's for sure. Section 123 does seem to relate to land disposals however there are cases that quote section 123 that aren't land but assets which confuses things.
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?