chiefdave
Well-Known Member
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.
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.Where does it say how much WASPS will be paying ?
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.
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.
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
Do you think anybody would answer?
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
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.
What facilities do think the Ricoh is lacking to host a couple of days of judo?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?
Nothing in that money pot for Aldi ?
Fooks sake Duggins, get your act together...
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.
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.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.
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
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
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.
Take it up with the judges. I’m just reporting what their reasoning was in their judgement.
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
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.”
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?
I have to say I do not understand that but I suspect their Justices didn't either. Would never get past a tax judge
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.
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
Yeah but they agreed to extend the lease before Higgs had even sold their share....
How did that work?
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!
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.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!
Depends what the developments would be, I guess.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?
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
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?