Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Exactly the same tactics as previously, they must know this already.
This is just litigation to mire the other parties in a bog of court cases.
Court Case Thread! June 2018 (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter wince
- Start date
This is just litigation to mire the other parties in a bog of court cases.
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
From what I gather the argument is over whether the lease extension was official before the sale.
I’m 99% it was negotiated before but I’m assuming the courts are saying “doesn’t matter there’s no proof or nothing official to say this” - which seems correct
Whilst SISUs argument is that essentially it was a deal - which is where I assume the new evidence would come in?
I’m 99% it was negotiated before but I’m assuming the courts are saying “doesn’t matter there’s no proof or nothing official to say this” - which seems correct
Whilst SISUs argument is that essentially it was a deal - which is where I assume the new evidence would come in?
Astute
Well-Known Member
So where would the money have come from considering ACL were losing money and heavily in debt already?
Nick
Administrator
I don't think SISU will get anywhere, but wasn't the refusal of the council (or mixup, cant remember) about some paperwork and the fact it was agreed in the same meeting the reason the appeal got this far?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Which is what I said before we started today.
Nick
Administrator
There is proof though, it's in the council minutes that they approved it before they sold it and before Higgs had even accepted a bid. If they hold off to sign the lease extension until Wasps have taken over surely that's still as shady as they knew full well about the 250 year lease?
If they had a council meeting saying "shall we sell" and then did the takeover then another to say "should we extend" after then surely it wouldn't have got this far as it would be seen as different transactions?
It will be interesting to see what the new evidence is. Would when Wasps physically paid the money over also make a difference?
Astute
Well-Known Member
SISU saying whatever they have to more like to get another day in court.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
So why didn't they finalise it just before and charge Wasps millions more?
Is that not the argument that's being made?
Have you never considered that CCC actually got more money by selling the two separate and the lease extension after the ACL sale than they would have if they’d paid to extend the lease then sell? I refer you back to my own experience. The previous owner didn’t extend the lease because it would have cost him more to do it than the value it would have added to the property. I did it because I knew that at the point I came to sell it the property would have been harder to sell as due to the length of the lease it would have become more difficult to mortgage. It didn’t really add any monetary value to the property.
Astute
Well-Known Member
The stadium was still unused. The value was so low because it was unused. When they moved in and we joined them the value shot up. If we leave the value will go down. It won't be because a few years of the lease will have gone.
Nick
Administrator
Yes but in this case the property would have had tens of millions added to the value.
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
But it wasn’t unused - ACL was purchased, ACL were still using events. ACLs value would benefit from a lease extension
Nick
Administrator
We came back to the Ricoh in September 2014.
The council meeting was October 2014.
It wasn't unused at that point.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
A quick look and the NEC was purchased by LDC for £307M including the lease for two hotels and a 125year lease on the site plus more. NEC Group sale| Genting Arena Birmingham | Important information
Not sure comparing the NEC sale to the Ricoh sale helps SISU’s argument when you consider what the agreed sale was and what they got for the money.
Not sure comparing the NEC sale to the Ricoh sale helps SISU’s argument when you consider what the agreed sale was and what they got for the money.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Yes and the court order from Lord Justice Irwin granting the appeal said the issue with the initial ruling was that they had been considered as two separate transactions for the purposes of valuation rather than one.
Nick
Administrator
I wonder if the contents of that report from the council will come out? He said that swayed him into granting it.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Strutt & Parker did a valuation prior to the sale which Wasps and the council have refused to release. I think its fair to say they wouldn't refuse to release it were it to back up their argument so its a fair assumption that valuation in some way mentions the increase in value with the lease extension.
Given that they are the same people that did the valuation Wasps used for the bond security you could also assume it would be a similar value to the later valuation.
So potentially there is a valuation from prior to the sale that shows a value multiple times that of the sale price. Would it not be a good idea for the court to say they want to see that document?
tisza
Well-Known Member
about the process rather than the outcome.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Are you suggesting it would have been impossible for the council to increase the loan to ACL by £1m?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
The whole reason this is still going on and wasn't thrown out last year is because the judge ruled that the decision wasn't sound as it considered the sale of ACL and lease extension as two separate transactions instead of one.
Think these judges need to start talking to each other or we'll just be going round in circles.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
We have been going round in circles for some years.
Nick
Administrator
It's going on for 2 days, down to the judges then if it goes any further.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Why did the council commission Strutt and Parker to value the lease on the 250 year basis if they were only ever selling it to Wasps for its original term?
Astute
Well-Known Member
It was loss making. It is a sporting stadium. It was unused for what it was designed for.
It doesn't matter how much you dislike what has happened. If you look on the legal side SISU don't seem to have a leg to stand on and CCC have covered their arse.
It seems every intermediate judge after the initial knockbacks who send the case forward to the actual hearing end up appearing misguided in their judgement or mistaken.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
That's a remarkably broad brush stroke.
The same as anywhere, there are good people and bad people.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Not at all. But wouldn't that have been state aid as it wasn't needed.
Unless you only want to look at other things other than the legal side that is being looked at today in court.
Nick
Administrator
Astute
Well-Known Member
More like there is a chance something might have been wrong. Just the same as before
Nick
Administrator
Again it wasn't unused as we were back here playing before the council meeting to agree the sale.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
We were repeatedly assured by the council it was doing just fine when we weren't there. And at the point at which ACL was sold to Wasps we were playing there. If you recall the council made a big deal about repairing the relationship and building trust so we could potentially achieve stadium ownership.
Kerching Commission!!Maybe they get paid more for hearings when they advance?
