Six fields v St Andrews. (2 Viewers)

ohitsaidwalker king power

Well-Known Member
Wasps are also owned by a hedge fund...

Arguably they have "succeeded" where SISU have failed, if one counts success as uprooting their spritua
I found this detailed by theferret - I know it is not acceptable to believe what Fisher has said but it seems more realistic now that the Council agreed that SISU should distress ACL knowing all along they were talking to WASPS. I don't know what to think.


Below are quotes from TF. Obviously, the fact he said it doesn't make it true, but he has repeated this many times and has been very specific. If it didn't happen like this, why have ACL and CCC never issued a denial? This what he said:

"We made an incredibly generous offer. ACL’s bankers were willing to support the offer which would have stopped them from foreclosing on ACL and which would have left ACL debt free, while the council’s deal has not. For reasons which are beyond us, the council then spent £14m of public money to take over as ACL’s bankers and, hence, terminated discussions."

"A deal was on the table in December last year – reached without expensive advisers – which would have provided a viable commercial solution for ACL and the club, but ACL declined it and went on to launch a series of legal measures using two law firms."

"In an attempt to put both the club and ACL on a sound financial footing we had a series of meetings in 2012 aimed at resolving the financial difficulties facing both parties.

"As part of this, we reached agreement with the council to buy out the ACL debt in return for a half share in the stadium business and extension of ACL’s lease to 125 years, which means it remain 100 per cent council-owned – we would just access the revenues, which is crucial. This deal was documented, signed by all parties and then reneged on by the council. The council made the problem even worse by then using public funds, something that is now subject to the judicial review proceedings."

"We need to be very clear that this is not about ownership of the freehold in the stadium which would have continued to be held by the council, with the club taking back the 50 per cent interest in head-leaseholder ACL which it was always intended to have."

Insightful- thank you. It is reasonable to assume that all evidence including these points was presented at the various JLR reviews and yet no court ruling has found in the favour of the arguments?
I'm not dismissive of them, is this a morality Vs legality debate then?
 

OffenhamSkyBlue

Well-Known Member
Arguably they have "succeeded" where SISU have failed, if one counts success as uprooting their spritua


Insightful- thank you. It is reasonable to assume that all evidence including these points was presented at the various JLR reviews and yet no court ruling has found in the favour of the arguments?
I'm not dismissive of them, is this a morality Vs legality debate then?
Wasps are also £55.8 million pounds in debt, and losing money fast (eye-watering for a rugby club, as Rod Liddle put it!).
CCFC are positively solvent!
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
It is reasonable to assume that all evidence including these points was presented at the various JLR reviews and yet no court ruling has found in the favour of the arguments?
Yes but the EC won't be looking at the same thing, at least they won't be looking at it the same way. From what I can make out, and admittedly a lot of the things I've read about EC investigations has gone over my head, they're not looking at legal technicalities or even UK law. Hence the need to have gone through the court system here before putting in a complaint. The EC will assume UK law has been followed.

They will instead, should they chose to proceed, look at the deal and how it was constructed and transacted. Then they decide if there is an issue with that, be it state aid, competition law or anything else the EU is involved in. At that point if there is an issue they then look at our laws to identify what in our law is creating a loophole thats not compatible with EU law.
 

Hobo

Well-Known Member
Yes but the EC won't be looking at the same thing, at least they won't be looking at it the same way. From what I can make out, and admittedly a lot of the things I've read about EC investigations has gone over my head, they're not looking at legal technicalities or even UK law. Hence the need to have gone through the court system here before putting in a complaint. The EC will assume UK law has been followe




They will instead, should they chose to proceed, look at the deal and how it was constructed and transacted. Then they decide if there is an issue with that, be it state aid, competition law or anything else the EU is involved in. At that point if there is an issue they then look at our laws to identify what in our law is creating a loophole thats not compatible with EU law.

I am not sure the end result will be that different. As British courts did consider State Aid under EU law.
 

COVKIDSNEVERQUIT

Well-Known Member
Calmed down a bit now and I'll probably swing by for a few games.
giphy.gif
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top