Search results

Yorkshire Bank refused to write off any of ACL's debt as YB believed ACL was in a position to meet its obligations.

Technically CCC own the Ricoh, ACL/Wasps are just the operators.

Sorry but the law doesn't work like that. The contract was between CCC and ACL. That contract still exists, ownership of ACL is irrelevant to that. The only time ownership of ACL comes into this is when discussing CCC's motive for offering the loan, which was based on the circumstances of...

Did I say on every occasion? Your not stupid so I don't know why your playing dumb on this, but I will humour you and make it clear. Public funds going to a public body - Cannot be considered state aid Public funds going to a private body - Under some circumstances (rare) can be considered...

So are you saying then that a public body, lending money to a private company, is state aid?

But with regards to the JR they haven't done anything wrong. You've not really got an argument against that.

In the eyes of the law ACL was always a private company.

Your the one questioning the decision of the court. Fact is CCC were cleared of anything unlawful in the JR, and that drives council haters like you mad to the point of being unable to accept a legitimate verdict.

And? As at January 2013 there were no firm plans for CCC to sell their shares. The law is about the situation at a particular time, not what might happen in the future.

Of course, that is irrelevant. Only information known in January 2013 can be used as evidence.

So let me just make sure I understand the general thinking here: Money going on court cases doesn't affect the playing budget. Money going on stadium rent does affect the playing budget,

That's not further state aid though. The loan was made to ACL. The loan is still with ACL. Nothing has changed. The council still has a stake in ACL in the form of its loan.

Can you give just one example of how CCC saying ACL is profitable when it wasn't has damaged CCFC?

Exactly. Nothing to do with rent levels, or Wasps, or whether Ann Lucas has told a porky. None of those things matter in the eyes of the law.

That would have to be a new JR. The basis on which the loan was made can only be judged on what was known at the time. I.e. ACL was owned by Higgs and CCC, CCFC were locked into a 40 year deal paying £1.3m in rent.

You wouldn't see anything behind it. Wasps deal has nothing to do with it.

What has come out lately about ACL making a loss has nothing to do with the JR and therefore would not even be considered as evidence. Anything that has happened since January 2013 is irrelevant to the case.

Two questions need to be answered before considering this. How much is the club currently losing? How much of that loss is made up of management fees, interest on debt, and directors salaries?

That's all he does, insults people. Nasty piece of work.

Haha