Well one of the things you can do is lodge an objection on the grounds WASPS were to build a training centre at the Ricoh. Not on a charity site developed for local sports and community associations. So now you see the connection?
So what happened to the fact that Lucas said ( inter alia) one of the reasons selling to WASPS was because .... they are going to build a training facility at the Ricoh?
My understanding is Contingent Assets are only disclosed as such when the Directors are satisfied the economic benefit is probable
I think CCFC have one or two transferees playing at Derby and they get an uplift if Derby are promoted. When do we think that is "probable" ?
One known fact is WASPS want a 10 year lease, no break clauses and rent to be agreed after the current 2 year agreement.
Sounds a bit like the CCC agreement at the Ricoh!
[
Again I repeat this is just conjecture on my part. But I don't see what keeps SISU here other than a return for its investors
Investors wanting a return on investment? That's hardly earth shattering is it OSB?
Dont know much about tax do you?
If they offset fees payable in CCFC then the fees receivable in the Parent must be taxable. Does not sound much like a tax saving scheme to me