Search results

I don't think the two parties on either side of the sale can be separated. Wasps WOULD have to pay the shortfall if a court ordered them to.

It appears that searches of the EC website only give hits on cases that are being investigated fully (i.e. not preliminary investigations which is probably what is happening currently), so we can't see that info now.

I think the point HDW was making was that if the EC find there was state aid, the UK courts can force Wasps to pay the shortfall. If that happens, there may be a stronger case in civil court for SISU to go after Wasps and/or Council for financial loss.

That's what it seems to be saying! There was a lot on here earlier about indemnifying them by some means, but i wouldn't like to see the price of that insurance policy!!!

Do you expect SISU to agree to that??

Maybe they still think the negotiations are ongoing (as per their statement yesterday), and won't be saying anything because of confidentiality agreements that are in place!

On what basis do you make that statement??? Inside info???

Do you remember when this was mooted before, and CCC tried to insist there are restricted covenants on the use of the land/stadium preventing its use by a professional football club? I'd expect to see that sort of approach again, or just preventing a licence.

I suspect the Council will try everything to block the Butts now, on the same basis as Wasps walking out of the Ricoh negotiations.

Actually i would like to see City go to a groundshare somewhere simply to see how long it takes Wasps to fold or fuck off! SISU still wouldn't buy the Ricoh for £27mil though!

I agree with Chief, from what i understand of it having done a bit of reading around. The JRs claimed that the actions of CCC had been unfair to CCFC/Otium/SBS&L/SISU. The EC will look at whether CCC sold their share of ACL at a lower price to Wasps than was available to SISU, or than general...

"subsidies granted to individuals or general measures open to all enterprises are not covered by this prohibition"

I read it as being all four, rather than any combination of the four. "To be State aid, a measure needs to have these features" ... but they don't prefix the last one with "and" or "or", so it IS ambiguous!

What are the chances that SISU would (should??) "complain" to the Charities Commission about the Higgs Trust selling their half of ACL on the cheap to Wasps when there was potential for a competitive bidding process??

OSB58 - another great commentary, thanks. With regard to the section on Risk, i think there is significant direct risk to Wasps because they COULD be ordered to pay back what is regarded as the state aid component of the transaction. I think the complaint is made about the transaction rather...

I was thinking overnight that the snippets of emails and historic data being put out by SISU were around the time the complaint would have been made to the EC. I'm sure it was coincidence!!

Absolutely, although i suggest the case might be taken a bit more seriously if you are the party (e.g. SISU) that has lost out because of the preferential treatment given to another party (e.g. Wasps) in being handed state aid (e.g by the Cuntsil)

Well certainly not SISU's, aside from the fact of drawing EC's attention to it.