Search results

Would it though, Nick? The investigation will be into the transaction (i.e. sale of the Ricoh), unless they will only investigate CCC because that is what SISU asked them to do? I think the EC will broaden their scope to look at all aspects of the deal. City of Madrid weren't required to pay...

Wasps pull out... None taken :joyful:

Exactly - therefore Real were 18.4 million out of pocket by benefitting from the state aid. The same COULD happen to Wasps, which is why they cannot be separated from CCC in the complaint, in my view.

I'm not sure, LG - the outcomes stated by the EC are that Wasps (i.e. the party that has benefitted from the state aid) COULD be forced to pay the amount by which they have benefitted.

I don't think anyone has answered the question (other than David O'Day calling me clueless!!) of how Wasps and CCC are not inextricably linked in the EC "investigation". They are two sides of the same coin. My understanding is that the *transaction* is what might be deemed by the Commission to...

As i said in some thread previously, why is no-one thinking of blaming Higgs Trust in this? They owned the second half of ACL didn't they? And refused the offer from SISU, later selling it to Wasps for less?? Charities Commission complaint, anyone?

Because the EC rules are that you can’t complain to them until and unless you have exhausted all avenues of challenge in the domestic courts.

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"