Search results

I don't know. It would seem to be something they should have done. Maybe they wanted to keep the value of ACL low, so that when the requested offer from SISU came they would be able to accept without being accused of selling too cheaply.

From Hickinbottom's judgement. Discussions continued over the summer. On 25 July 2012, there was a meeting of the various parties, including the Leader of the Council, Mr John Mutton, at which it was agreed that an Indicative Term Sheet would be finalised. Draft Heads of Terms were indeed...

You appear to suggest that the catalyst for all this was Wasps offering to buy a longer lease, am I reading that correctly?

i doubt they would want to compete with a house developer for a particular site, my view is they would be paying way way over the amount that could make a stadium viable (I don't actually think any stadium build is viable, but this is a hypothetical argument isn't it?).

Completely possible. I can't see it myself, but we'll find out eventually.

well if you get the planning then it's cost you less than it would have done, that's the gamble. If you don't get the planning then you usually lose out. I think they have missed the boat though on decent land prices, house builders are back in the market.

I'd have thought the land owner would have already thought of that so the price will reflect any higher value that housing may give.

You can complete at any point, but you normally see the land prices rise as planning permission becomes more likely.

Exactly, a conditional offer wouldn't incur those costs, but I was replying to dave's question that was based on the purchase happening. I'm not convinced that fans pressure to allow planning permission, where it wouldn't be given anyway, is particularly viable.

Possibly, except you'd be down on the stamp duty and legal fees, and the lost interest on funding millions of pounds worth of land.

It would a high risk strategy to buy the land without getting planning permission first, so you would expect to see planning applications before they could announce they had actually bought the land.

Which bits are wrong?

Thanks for that info, very enlightening. Not sure why you're telling me about value when I haven't mentioned it, but never mind. Obviously they won't pull all the strings as such as it's not their stadium to do with whatever they want, they would need to get the freeholders permission for major...

So, what would happen after this hypothetical liquidation, bearing in mind it's actually the Council that owns the stadium and the land.

Sorry, you are wrong here, it's exactly the same in everything except the length, one is 125 years one is 250 years. As the argument you were making is that SISU wouldn't know that a long lease was a possibility, then, well, that's wrong isn't it.

Well the number of years is different, what else is?

The Council did agree to a 125 year lease for SISU as part of the original Higgs deal, obviously the overall deal fell away, but surely SISU remembered that a long lease was available. As the stadium won't last more than 125 years without major refurb then the difference between 125 and 250...

During the interview I saw on BBC with Lucas she said she met with Wasps in July for the first time, she also said this was after Council officers had decided it was a serious offer, the implication being that the approach was earlier and they had spent time reviewing the offer. I can't see...

You do know Sandra's separate forum group doesn't exist at present?

Based on players still here, he was last seasons top scorer.