Judges didn’t think so....yet.This has been SISU's point in seeking to bring a judicial review against Coventry City Council for providing state aid to a commercial organisation, contrary to EU law.
You have to admit, they had a point!
One of many things that doesn't quite add up. On the one hand you had the council saying it could get ACL a better interest rate as it could access loans at a discounted rate then when questioned on it they said it was at a commercial rate and any lender would have given the loan.Its was no secret. There was some bull about the council benefiting from charging ACL more than they paid to borrow the money (Mutton again).
Council agrees multi-million pound bailout of Ricoh Arena
That's exactly what happened. The council claimed it wasn't a bail out as ACL were sound financially and there was no pressure from Yorkshire Bank. They claimed it was good for the taxpayer due to the interest that would be received. It was then paid back early with no benefit to the taxpayer.Someone may correct me on this, but the terms of the loan from CCC provided an enhanced interest to be paid back to them over 20 years, which the council mean't a better return than money in reserve accounts at the bank.
However, I thought that Wasps did a quick "double cross" and issued the bond, so paid off the loan to CCC in full.
This has been SISU's point in seeking to bring a judicial review against Coventry City Council for providing state aid to a commercial organisation, contrary to EU law.
You have to admit, they had a point!
In reality there was no need to justify the decision further, it was a loan at risk on favourable terms to protect a public asset .Someone may correct me on this, but the terms of the loan from CCC provided an enhanced interest to be paid back to them over 20 years, which the council mean't a better return than money in reserve accounts at the bank.
However, I thought that Wasps did a quick "double cross" and issued the bond, so paid off the loan to CCC in full.
If anyone else can shed light on this......
Haven't you just described state aid?In reality there was no need to justify the decision further, it was a loan at risk on favourable terms to protect a public asset .
No, as confirmed in JR1 judgement.Haven't you just described state aid?
But what you've described is what SISU claimed. The council's defence was that it wasn't on favourable terms and was equitable with the terms available to ACL from a commercial lender.No, as confirmed in JR1 judgement.
Oh Ffs read the judgement and don' t just attack my words to point score.But what you've described is what SISU claimed. The council's defence was that it wasn't on favourable terms and was equitable with the terms available to ACL from a commercial lender.
Aka catching you outOh Ffs read the judgement and don' t just attack my words to point score.
You tooAka catching you out
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?