That's the point though ARGUABLY, charity commission or not they wouldn't sell to highest bidder if it would bring the charity in disrepute ,that's another argument Like the Judge says deal with the point at hand first , anyway not going to get into a debate about it , got to get out of here before F/P has a pop at me for not posting enough or on the wrong threadsCharity Commission legislation is quite clear regarding investment and it is the duty of the trustees to seek a maximum return, If Sisu's offer was more in financial terms than Wasps they have arguably failed their duties as trustees of registered charity, a preference over who they deal with does not come into it.
But the question is back onto state aid like it was before. So they have to argue about the case involving state aid like previously.Surely they just say "Here's the valuation KPMG gave us, here's what Wasps paid" ?
But the question is back onto state aid like it was before. So they have to argue about the case involving state aid like previously.
But how long had they tried to sell to SISU? They agreed on deals just for SISU to pull out. Then they would come in with an even lower bid.That's the point though ARGUABLY, charity commission or not they wouldn't sell to highest bidder if it would bring the charity in disrepute ,that's another argument Like the Judge says deal with the point at hand first , anyway not going to get into a debate about it , got to get out of here before F/P has a pop at me for not posting enough or on the wrong threads
Not got a clue. But they seem to want to mention that it wasn't state aid each time. And wouldn't the judges already have seen the paperwork from it?Yeah but if they are moaning about the value, they just whip out the document from KPMG and if it's under valued it's their fault. They might have already and I've missed it?
And not just OSB.
Which I guess is the stuff OSB has said before that's referred to?
Not got a clue. But they seem to want to mention that it wasn't state aid each time. And wouldn't the judges already have seen the paperwork from it?
But it isn't for the judge to argue the case. It is up to the judges to decide on the evidence they see and hear.You would have thought that it would be simple enough for the judge to just say "this is what expert valuers have said, this is what it sold for".
But it isn't for the judge to argue the case. It is up to the judges to decide on the evidence they see and hear.
I agree. But that isn't what this case is about. You have to look at what is being said and evidence provided only. Having the arena built for CCFC doesn't even come into it. Or even the money our club lost putting towards the build costs.still cannot argue with the fact that the council did not get the best deal possible to get more coffers into the tax payers bag! im not bothered about all this SISU stuff really the council have a duty of care to make sure that they get the best financial return for OUR PROPERTY!!
What makes you think that the judges haven't already seen it?That's isn't the judge arguing the case, just saying "give me the valuation you had", "give me the deal documents" and comparing, surely?
What makes you think that the judges haven't already seen it?
Higgs charity "ruggedly autonomous"
Wasps QC is now speaking.
She says the Higgs charity was “ruggedly autonomous” in regards to the sale and “certainly was not going to do what was convenient to others”.
She said it was not right to understand the transactions - those of the sale of the stadium and the lease extension - as linked.
She said Sisu’s QC Mr Thompson yesterday suggested that “the council could have purchased shares not telling the charity what it was going to do...the charity could have put an embarrassment clause in the contract and prevented the sale to the claimants”.
Of course they are linked. Are they saying that they are not?Surely the fact that both the sale and the lease extension were discussed and agreed at the same time in the same council meeting shows they are linked?
Of course they are linked. Are they saying that they are not?
She said it was not right to understand the transactions - those of the sale of the stadium and the lease extension - as linked.
SISU have previously used court to find out information that they could use in court for future cases before.I have no idea if they have.
Do all documents get released to the public at the end if they are used in court? Im sure last time they posted up loads of the "evidence" used.
No idea. But I am not too much of an idiot. I know they were linked. But how much and when is a different matter to be solved.Unless it is worded wrong
Risk of collapse
Wasps QC says the collapse of her client would affect the wider community and other parties.
She said it “creates ripples”.
Lord Justice Irwin says they could not possibly make a ruling based on whether third parties would be disadvantaged.
Lord Justice Leveson said if the bullet was dodged today “the bullet is only going to come and potentially shoot you in future”.
Clarification
Lord Justice Leveson is seeking clarification on a submission by Wasps QC that Strutt and Parker set out aspects of the case separately rather than together - looking at the stadium and hotel separately.
He says he does not understand the point she is making and she admits she does not either.
Mr Goudie for the council then tries to explain that KPMG take into account more costs than Strutt and Parker and therefore there is a difference in the valuations.
There are still confused looks in the court.
Won't somebody think of Italia's car park!
Interesting last sentence by the judge not put on Twitter by Gilbert
Wasps QC says the collapse of her client would affect the wider community and other parties.
She said it “creates ripples”.
Lord Justice Irwin says they could not possibly make a ruling based on whether third parties would be disadvantaged.
Lord Justice Leveson said if the bullet was dodged today “the bullet is only going to come and potentially shoot you in future”.
I did wonder what the bullet comment was about?
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?