Council funding for Ricoh Refurb

[chiefdave]

Where does it say how much WASPS will be paying ?

Well they have said it will cost £5.3m and so far they've had £5.2m from public funds towards it. So not a lot would be the answer.

 

[Nick]

I haven't a clue - why don't you ask them. I was just pointing out the excuse they would probably use if they were pressed about why they are funding a privately owned stadium with public money.

Do you think anybody would answer?

 

[Nick]

Well they have said it will cost £5.3m and so far they've had £5.2m from public funds towards it. So not a lot would be the answer.

Whip round in the council house for the last bits?

 

[shmmeee]

Normally the grant of a 250 year lease comes at a high premium. At present any lease of less than 60 years is not looked at by lenders - some insist on more. 250 years is treated as freehold in a lenders eyes

A 250 year lease is a freehold for all intents and purposes. This was covered in the JR. That’s why Wasps paid £1m for it, that was what KPMG valued the freehold at after ACL had put £21m in already. Which is why the judges ruled it wasn’t State Aid ultimately.

 

[mark_ccfc]

Do you think anybody would answer?

You probably would, but not the answer you want, we are talking local politics here. What you will get is an answer to the question they wanted you to ask them.

 

[Paxman II]

Well seems a lot of you have been triggered by this. I'm not against any funding for improvements to the Ricoh Arena to facilitate the games. What everyone is triggered about is whether it's a direct bung effectively to WASP.
I would suggest we need much more information before we can object.

As it stands WASP have a commecial lease, and presumably a full repairing and insuring lease as is normal. That would mean ongoing repairs, maintenance for the most part are WASP responsability. But if the Freeholder (Landlords) want to make improvements to the building then they can. So the question is whether this grant of 3.8m is given directly to WASP which I doubt. If your landlord came along and improved your house, you are not going to resist are you?
The next question is what is 3.8m being spent on? And the final question if this improves facilities at the Ricoh with publicly granted money, at what point does that benefit the public purse as opposed to benefitting WASP under their ownership? Will the lease rent be reviewed and raised? Will the council be refunded profits from the event after WASP running cost?

I think a lot more information is needed before a rush of heads. It's the figure of 3.8m that is troublesome for such a small event and some cosmetic improvements. It would be very wrong should any of these funds benefit WASP tenure in any way.

 

[usskyblue]

Fuck off with your idiocy now.

Unlike moronic cocks like you, I'll look at things on the evidence.

Can't see how this one makes any sense.

Now stop being a vapid twat and get yourself some brain cleansing.

Snide wankerisms while thinking you're being too clever for yourself do nothing.

Asyouwere

Someone needs a hug

 

[Nick]

Well seems a lot of you have been triggered by this. I'm not against any funding for improvements to the Ricoh Arena to facilitate the games. What everyone is triggered about is whether it's a direct bung effectively to WASP.
I would suggest we need much more information before we can object.

As it stands WASP have a commecial lease, and presumeably a full repairing and insuring lease as is normal. That would mean ongoing repairs, maintenance for the most part are WASP responsability. But if the Feeholder (Landlords) want to make improvements to the building then they can. So the question is whether this grant of 3.8m is given directly to WASP which I doubt. Ifyourlandlord came along and improve yourhouse, you are not going to resist are you?
The next question is whatis3.8m being spent on? And the final question if this improves facilities at the Ricoh with publicly granted money,at what point does that benefit the public purse as opposed to benefitting WASP under their ownership? Will the lease rent be reviewed and raised? Will the council berefunded profits from the event after WASP running cost?

I think a lot more information is needed before a rush of heads. It's the figure of 3.8m that is troublesome for such a small event and some cosmetic improvements. It would be very wrong should any of these funds benefit WASP tenure in any way.

Any chance you can explain why that's needed to put on a couple of days of Judo?

 

[chiefdave]

I'm not against any funding for improvements to the Ricoh Arena to facilitate the games

What facilities do think the Ricoh is lacking to host a couple of days of judo?

 

[shmmeee]

What facilities do think the Ricoh is lacking to host a couple of days of judo?

From what I can tell the argument is the conference facilities would benefit the city long term. It’s pretty weak, but then so is the light rail research project and in fact most of the projects funded. Seems like central govt wanted a nice big number to shout about when asked about COVID stimulus and basically threw money at anyone who applied.

 

[Paxman II]

I agree, and that's why I question the validity of the 3.8m and what is to be used against exactly?

 

[olderskyblue]

Nothing in that money pot for Aldi ?

Fooks sake Duggins, get your act together...

 

[shmmeee]

Nothing in that money pot for Aldi ?

Fooks sake Duggins, get your act together...

House!

 

[Nick]

From what I can tell the argument is the conference facilities would benefit the city long term. It’s pretty weak, but then so is the light rail research project and in fact most of the projects funded. Seems like central govt wanted a nice big number to shout about when asked about COVID stimulus and basically threw money at anyone who applied.

Benefit the city or benefit Wasps.

Over £5m is an awful lot which could have gone to better causes.

Minutes | CWLEP

www.cwlep.com

Can't see anything in the CWLEP meeting minutes so far about The Ricoh?

 

[martincov]

Normally the grant of a 250 year lease comes at a high premium. At present any lease of less than 60 years is not looked at by lenders - some insist on more. 250 years is treated as freehold in a lenders eyes

High Premium? did Wasps not pay £1 million for another 200 years over the original? i would not call that premium unless there are other things involved with CCC? would i be correct in thinking that a loan against an asset only has value to the user (wasps) while it has a vlaue to them as a viable business? after that even 250 years is worthless or of much lass value? Thank you for your reply, i dibnt think i would ever partake in a SBT forum and get educated. So Wasps have been given freehold for loan purposes but will not really ever own? Again a CCC condition applied to SISU but not Wasps. one in the same, and to me two noses being cut off.

 

[oldfiver]

A 250 year lease is a freehold for all intents and purposes. This was covered in the JR. That’s why Wasps paid £1m for it, that was what KPMG valued the freehold at after ACL had put £21m in already. Which is why the judges ruled it wasn’t State Aid ultimately.

No! The £1m was assessed as being the value on the basis of there being no alternative purchaser following the sale to WASPS

What should have happened (morally anyway) is the Stadium should been valued with a 250 year lease and then sold to WASPS.

No one has yet explained why the transaction was split this way as the lease extension had been discussed and agreed before the meeting.

I suggest the WASPS indemnity is connected to this shuffle

 

[chiefdave]

Had a quick look to see if other games venues were getting similar funding but not much is turning up. Obviously they're practically rebuilding the Alex Stadium and there's a new Aquatics centre, both with obvious legacy benefits although you could argue about maintaining a dedicated athletics stadium rather than going down the route Manchester did.

Apart from that all I can find is a couple of grants for railway station improvements in Warwick and University of Birmingham.

 

[fernandopartridge]

No! The £1m was assessed as being the value on the basis of there being no alternative purchaser following the sale to WASPS

What should have happened (morally anyway) is the Stadium should been valued with a 250 year lease and then sold to WASPS.

No one has yet explained why the transaction was split this way as the lease extension had been discussed and agreed before the meeting.

I suggest the WASPS indemnity is connected to this shuffle

Isn't that essentially the entire basis of the JR2. The transaction was artificially split in two in order to limit the selling price.

 

[shmmeee]

No! The £1m was assessed as being the value on the basis of there being no alternative purchaser following the sale to WASPS

What should have happened (morally anyway) is the Stadium should been valued with a 250 year lease and then sold to WASPS.

No one has yet explained why the transaction was split this way as the lease extension had been discussed and agreed before the meeting.

I suggest the WASPS indemnity is connected to this shuffle

Take it up with the judges. I’m just reporting what their reasoning was in their judgement.

 

[oldfiver]

High Premium? did Wasps not pay £1 million for another 200 years over the original? i would not call that premium unless there are other things involved with CCC? would i be correct in thinking that a loan against an asset only has value to the user (wasps) while it has a vlaue to them as a viable business? after that even 250 years is worthless or of much lass value? Thank you for your reply, i dibnt think i would ever partake in a SBT forum and get educated. So Wasps have been given freehold for loan purposes but will not really ever own? Again a CCC condition applied to SISU but not Wasps. one in the same, and to me two noses being cut off.

I am not sure of what you are saying. In brief mortgaging a property with a short lease is very difficult and not a high LTV.

 

[oldfiver]

Take it up with the judges. I’m just reporting what their reasoning was in their judgement.

I think the Judges looked at the case and took the view that the 2 transactions were valued correctly

I also think they took a view the decision whether the process of the total deal was correct or not was not for them

 

[oldfiver]

Take it up with the judges. I’m just reporting what their reasoning was in their judgement.

With your property expertise can you explain why CCC ( or any vendor ) would want to split the deal as they did

 

[shmmeee]

I think the Judges looked at the case and took the view that the 2 transactions were valued correctly

I also think they took a view the decision whether the process of the total deal was correct or not was not for them

No, they did look at the total deal:

“I agree that the transaction was interlocking and the plan was as Mr Thompson stated. However, the only assets which the Council could insert into the transaction, and the only benefit (or aid) that it could confer thereby on Wasps, was by the transfer to Wasps of assets which it owned. It simply did not own sufficient, in its own right, to grant a 250 year term. Such a term did not have to be valued.”

 

[Nick]

No, they did look at the total deal:

“I agree that the transaction was interlocking and the plan was as Mr Thompson stated. However, the only assets which the Council could insert into the transaction, and the only benefit (or aid) that it could confer thereby on Wasps, was by the transfer to Wasps of assets which it owned. It simply did not own sufficient, in its own right, to grant a 250 year term. Such a term did not have to be valued.”

Doesn't make sense, they are saying the council couldn't issue a lease to ACL but they could Wasps?

 

[oldfiver]

No, they did look at the total deal:

“I agree that the transaction was interlocking and the plan was as Mr Thompson stated. However, the only assets which the Council could insert into the transaction, and the only benefit (or aid) that it could confer thereby on Wasps, was by the transfer to Wasps of assets which it owned. It simply did not own sufficient, in its own right, to grant a 250 year term. Such a term did not have to be valued.”

I have to say I do not understand that but I suspect their Justices didn't either. Would never get past a tax judge

 

[shmmeee]

Doesn't make sense, they are saying the council couldn't issue a lease to ACL but they could Wasps?

I think what they’re saying is that because of the Higgs share it wasn’t entirely in the councils gift to extend the lease but TBH I’m not sure.

Technically it was always to ACL, Wasps just bought ACL. No new lease was issued, the existing one was extended.

 

[shmmeee]

I have to say I do not understand that but I suspect their Justices didn't either. Would never get past a tax judge

If we’ve got multiple high court judges who don’t understand the law of the land ahead of some randoms on the Internet we’ve got far bigger problems

 

[Nick]

I think what they’re saying is that because of the Higgs share it wasn’t entirely in the councils gift to extend the lease but TBH I’m not sure.

Technically it was always to ACL, Wasps just bought ACL. No new lease was issued, the existing one was extended.

Yeah but they agreed to extend the lease before Higgs had even sold their share....

How did that work?

 

[oldfiver]

If we’ve got multiple high court judges who don’t understand the law of the land ahead of some randoms on the Internet we’ve got far bigger problems

I have a number of legal colleagues and they all agree a number of commercial cases have doubtful and whimsical decisions. Apparantly this is all understood!

 

[oldfiver]

Yeah but they agreed to extend the lease before Higgs had even sold their share....

How did that work?

If they had wanted to rearrange the lease to get a better deal for all existing parties then it was possible.

 

[shmmeee]

I have a number of legal colleagues and they all agree a number of commercial cases have doubtful and whimsical decisions. Apparantly this is all understood!

This is getting a little “my aunt wasn’t diagnosed with cancer therefore all doctors don’t know what they’re doing”. It’s been through two reviews and an appeal, it’s as solid a judgement as you get in the legal system.

I guess we’ll find out soon enough (hopefully) when the ECJ comes back. From what I can tell that’s the end of the line.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

This is getting a little “my aunt wasn’t diagnosed with cancer therefore all doctors don’t know what they’re doing”. It’s been through two reviews and an appeal, it’s as solid a judgement as you get in the legal system.

I guess we’ll find out soon enough (hopefully) when the ECJ comes back. From what I can tell that’s the end of the line.

Yeah, ultimately that's been tested plenty in court. I can accept the moral argument is that things were packaged... interestingly, but ultimately all cases have found against any wrongdoing.

Don't, however, be naive enough to suggest it really is the end of the line if the European angle doesn't work!

 

[shmmeee]

Yeah, ultimately that's been tested plenty in court. I can accept the moral argument is that things were packaged... interestingly, but ultimately all cases have found against any wrongdoing.

Don't, however, be naive enough to suggest it really is the end of the line if the European angle doesn't work!

Oh yeah totally, there’s questions about how exactly the trust soured between Sisu and CCC and how exactly deals broke down, but I suspect we’ll be hearing about them for the next twenty years or more. But from an immediate CCFC angle, all that matters really is the legalities

What’s next? I’m hoping that’s it, it’s always come across as a last throw of the dice.

Surely there comes a point where Sisu have to accept defeat and move on to whatever their plan for the club is? If nothing else they can’t seriously commit to a new ground while there’s a chance of developments at the Ricoh can they?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Oh yeah totally, there’s questions about how exactly the trust soured between Sisu and CCC and how exactly deals broke down, but I suspect we’ll be hearing about them for the next twenty years or more. But from an immediate CCFC angle, all that matters really is the legalities

What’s next? I’m hoping that’s it, it’s always come across as a last throw of the dice.

Surely there comes a point where Sisu have to accept defeat and move on to whatever their plan for the club is? If nothing else they can’t seriously commit to a new ground while there’s a chance of developments at the Ricoh can they?

Depends what the developments would be, I guess.

And there'll always be an angle! We probably have the civil cases regardless of who finds what, I'd say. And there'll be an angle we haven't thought of, however clued up on financial law we are now(!)

 

[chiefdave]

What you're saying is essentially what any EC investigation will deal with, if they decide to proceed. We all know it was one deal but the technicalities of the law in the UK mean it is treated as separate transactions. If the EC feel it should be treated as one then they will look at where UK law is incompatible with state aid law.

in certain cases, several consecutive measures of state intervention may, for the purposes of article 107(1) of the treaty, be regarded as a single intervention. this could be the case, in particular, where consecutive interventions are so closely linked to each other, especially having regard to their chronology, their purpose and the circumstances of the undertaking at the time of those interventions, that they are inseparable. for instance, a series of state interventions which take place in relation to the same undertaking in a relatively short period of time, are linked to each other, or were all planned or foreseeable at the time of the first intervention, may be assessed as one intervention