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.
Council funding for Ricoh Refurb (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter shepardo01
- Start date
Nick
Administrator
Do you think anybody would answer?
Nick
Administrator
Whip round in the council house for the last bits?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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-Known Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
usskyblue
Well-Known Member
Someone needs a hug
Nick
Administrator
Any chance you can explain why that's needed to put on a couple of days of Judo?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
What facilities do think the Ricoh is lacking to host a couple of days of judo?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
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.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
Nothing in that money pot for Aldi ?
Fooks sake Duggins, get your act together...
Fooks sake Duggins, get your act together...
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
House!
Nick
Administrator
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?
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.
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
Well-Known Member
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.
Apart from that all I can find is a couple of grants for railway station improvements in Warwick and University of Birmingham.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
Take it up with the judges. I’m just reporting what their reasoning was in their judgement.
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.
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
With your property expertise can you explain why CCC ( or any vendor ) would want to split the deal as they did
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
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
Administrator
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
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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
Administrator
Yeah but they agreed to extend the lease before Higgs had even sold their share....
How did that work?
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!
If they had wanted to rearrange the lease to get a better deal for all existing parties then it was possible.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
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.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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?
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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.
