Court Case Thread! June 2018 (7 Viewers)

shmmeee · Jun 26, 2018

mark82 said:
Could they have used the Wasps offer to do the right thing and form a valuation to sell to the football club it was built for? For me, the council have done more lasting damage than Sisu. This decision will impact us once Sisu are long gone.

Mate you’re a city fan and have an emotional attachment. That doesn’t factor in a court case. Sisu have well paid lawyers they will have considered the best course of action and haven’t decided to go that route. There will be a reason for that. It’s likely to be because it’s a non starter.

You can’t turn up in court and go “but they’re cockney egg chasers your honour! It’s noooottt faaiiiirrr”

The idea that the only thing councils have to consider is the final sale price is fantasy. Councils offer land on the cheap all the time for projects they deem that align with their overall goals. They gave over land for a woodland by the M6 recently for example. That land would’ve made far more selling for development. But there was no court case from Cassidy or similar there.

If you want Sisu to win this court case as it seems you need to disentangle your emotions about Wasps and the actual law.

Astute · Jun 26, 2018

This isn't about SISU winning a court case. It isn't about CCC or Wasps losing a court case.

It is all about putting pressure on Wasps. It is all about costing them money. CCC will have had their legal team treble check everything. The value would have been set at the time that the stadium was unused. This is the time nobody wanted it. Has anyone else come out and said that they were interested? How much use does a large stadium with high outgoings have?

Yet again we have another court case that logically has only one result. But as we know they said they batter people with court. CCC have the financial backing. So the next target is Wasps. How long will it be before Wasps give up?

Malaka · Jun 26, 2018

Sbarcher said:
OK the case is about the valuation at the time of the deal. But, as the Ricoh was a 50% council owned asset, surely any potential sale should have gone out to tender and not sold in secret without getting the best deal for the public purse. I'd have thought this would have been a better case to argue in court rather than a valuation debate.

I agree, however, SISU said they didn't want the Ricoh and being as it is a sport stadium, I guess they were a little limited as to who would want it. Step up WASP's

skybluetony176 · Jun 26, 2018

Ultimately JR2 is going to counter argue JR1. JR1 was that the Ricoh was worthless, JR2 is that it was worth more than something that isn’t worthless and more than Wasps paid. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Looking at Wasps fortunes JR1 on balance looks more accurate than JR2. Yes that’s in part to do with the way they refinanced the debt but the point is that they took on the debt and if anything they probably overpaid for it if anything. Which even stranger probably makes Fishers comments that they wouldn’t have took the deal Wasps made sound advice. Although contradictory to JR2.

fernandopartridge · Jun 26, 2018

skybluetony176 said:
Ultimately JR2 is going to counter argue JR1. JR1 was that the Ricoh was worthless, JR2 is that it was worth more than something that isn’t worthless and more than Wasps paid. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Looking at Wasps fortunes JR1 on balance looks more accurate than JR2. Yes that’s in part to do with the way they refinanced the debt but the point is that they took on the debt and if anything they probably overpaid for it if anything. Which even stranger probably makes Fishers comments that they wouldn’t have took the deal Wasps made sound advice. Although contradictory to JR2.

The JR1 wasn't an argument that the arena was worthless. It was a complaint about perceived state aid to ACL.

Captain Dart · Jun 26, 2018

italiahorse said:
In reality though, the council had a choice between an offer from Wasps, that may have been conditional and dealing with Sisu who they knew would hold them to ransom if they became the only potential buyer.

I don't think you can say that for sure.

It is possible a 3rd party might have looked at it and concluded they could run the Arena profitably on the back of rent and revenue from several sporting clubs, the casino, the hotel, the exhibitions and the concerts.

On the other hand anyone who takes it on is not going to make much, more likely to make a loss.

skybluetony176 · Jun 26, 2018

fernandopartridge said:
The JR1 wasn't an argument that the arena was worthless. It was a complaint about perceived state aid to ACL.

Sisu didn’t argue that the Ricoh was worthless and no commercial lender would have lent to them because of that then?

Nick · Jun 26, 2018

skybluetony176 said:
Sisu didn’t argue that the Ricoh was worthless and no commercial lender would have lent to them because of that then?

Doesn't the lease being 250 years make a fair bit of difference?

Captain Dart · Jun 26, 2018

Deleted member 5849 said:
Now, personally when it comes to this I'm not going to go round in circles debating who's right or who's wrong, who acted right, who wrong.

What I would give as an opinion is that I would be very, very surprised if CCC are found to have done anything that means they will lose this. Given the state of relations at the time, I'm pretty sure they'll have double, triple, quadruple checked everything legally and procedurally before acting. If they didn't, they're absolute morons!

So, I expect this JR to be batted away. That's my view of this particular case, rather than the whole farce.

Even allowing for the high degree of incompetence and laziness in local government?

Captain Dart · Jun 26, 2018

fernandopartridge said:
The JR1 wasn't an argument that the arena was worthless. It was a complaint about perceived state aid to ACL.

The 'Arena is worthless' argument was used to support the case.

Nick · Jun 26, 2018

Deleted member 5849 said:
Now, personally when it comes to this I'm not going to go round in circles debating who's right or who's wrong, who acted right, who wrong.

What I would give as an opinion is that I would be very, very surprised if CCC are found to have done anything that means they will lose this. Given the state of relations at the time, I'm pretty sure they'll have double, triple, quadruple checked everything legally and procedurally before acting. If they didn't, they're absolute morons!

So, I expect this JR to be batted away. That's my view of this particular case, rather than the whole farce.

Agree with that. Surely nobody would be so stupid as to not be 100% sure that their arses are covered legally in times like that? Whilst the moral side of it can be debated, you would think the legality should and would be watertight.

thekidfromstrettoncamp · Jun 26, 2018

Captain Dart the last line on your post 41 sums the situation up perfect "more likely make a loss" .I know people will say I'm daft(I am) but even now after everything that has gone on Sisu should spend their time and money trying to get a foothold in the Area instead of wasting time in a case they are not going to win . I think it would make sense for everyone involved .

Captain Dart · Jun 26, 2018

thekidfromstrettoncamp said:
Captain Dart the last line on your post 41 sums the situation up perfect "more likely make a loss" .I know people will say I'm daft(I am) but even now after everything that has gone on Sisu should spend their time and money trying to get a foothold in the Area instead of wasting time in a case they are not going to win . I think it would make sense for everyone involved .

Presumably they want a position where they can sell at a profit.

No idea how they're going to do that, very few football clubs make money.

skybluetony176 · Jun 26, 2018

Nick said:
Doesn't the lease being 250 years make a fair bit of difference?

It certainly makes a difference which is why I say that the truth lies somewhere between JR1 and 2. JR1 however was argued on the basis that the council loan was made at that time. And the argument was that no commercial lender would lend as ACL was worthless.

Captain Dart · Jun 26, 2018

I hope some settlement has been agreed.
If these legal attacks cease it will be a game changer.

Nick · Jun 26, 2018

skybluetony176 said:
It certainly makes a difference which is why I say that the truth lies somewhere between JR1 and 2. JR1 however was argued on the basis that the council loan was made at that time. And the argument was that no commercial lender would lend as ACL was worthless.

Yeah but between that and the next JR comes the 250 year lease which would then change things. It's like when people go on at Grendel because he says it was a white elephant and nobody would want it as it was, nobody did as it had to have a 250 year lease for them to be able to lend against.

skybluetony176 · Jun 26, 2018

Nick said:
Yeah but between that and the next JR comes the 250 year lease which would then change things. It's like when people go on at Grendel because he says it was a white elephant and nobody would want it as it was, nobody did as it had to have a 250 year lease for them to be able to lend against.

Which was why it was never worthless. The value was ACL always had the option to extend the lease but you had to own ACL first, as the option was available exclusively to ACL. Hence JR1 was bollocks as was the White Elephant comment. Like I said, the truth lies somewhere between JR1 and 2.

Nick · Jun 26, 2018

Live: Ricoh Arena row back in the High Court

Nick · Jun 26, 2018

Nick · Jun 26, 2018

New Evidence Apparently

Live: Ricoh Arena row back in the High Court

New evidence
Lawyers for Sisu say they have new evidence to present. They say there are three categories of documents that were not available to Justice Singh at the previous hearing, as well as further witness statements and reports.

Moff · Jun 26, 2018

Nick said:
New Evidence Apparently

Live: Ricoh Arena row back in the High Court

Cue all the experts on SBT surmising what it might or might not be, and then arguing about it.
So many legal experts on this site, I am sure there must be a few QC's

Nick · Jun 26, 2018

"Not properly marketed"
Rhodri Thompson for Sisu say the new lease land transfer in 2014 was not properly marketed or valued.

They want to present the share purchase agreement for the stadium and the new lease itself to the court - they say these two contemporary documents are essential to understanding what happened.

covcity4life · Jun 26, 2018

is their any outcome where wasps leave and sisu buy ricoh?

Nick · Jun 26, 2018

covcity4life said:
is their any outcome where wasps leave and sisu buy ricoh?

I'd say it is possible but as likely as me scoring the winner in the playoff final next year.

lifeskyblue · Jun 26, 2018

covcity4life said:
is their any outcome where wasps leave and sisu buy ricoh?

Your dreams, my dreams, all our dreams.
But then we would wake up and find Joy had bought it to demolish for a new shopping complex or hotel or for sisu hq UK.

HuckerbyDublinWhelan · Jun 26, 2018

covcity4life said:
is their any outcome where wasps leave and sisu buy ricoh?

I’d settle just for Wasps going bankrupt in all fairness.

I still think long term we need a new stadium...but that’s doubtful

clint van damme · Jun 26, 2018

covcity4life said:
is their any outcome where wasps leave and sisu buy ricoh?

The Illuminati have a plan to make this happen, watch this space.

Nick · Jun 26, 2018

The “critical question”
Mr Thompson says the “critical question” is whether the new lease for Wasps reflected the open market value “as required by EU and UK law”.

Lord Justice McCombe says ACL had a lease of 39 years - the council was going to get absolutely nothing.

He asks what was the problem with giving Wasps a 250 year lease?

Mr Thompson says Lord Justice McCombe is asking him not to look at anything before the date of the sale, but it is his submission that is not correct.

Nick · Jun 26, 2018

clint van damme said:
The Illuminati have a plan to make this happen, watch this space.

I heard it was "The Firm", McNulty Davies and Grimmer were on the case.

Nick · Jun 26, 2018

Captain Dart · Jun 26, 2018

So same old, mediation a bust, SISU are still hacking away.

GaryJones · Jun 26, 2018

Joy, Laura and 3 bodyguards are trying to get their point across but nobody is listening!

skybluetony176 · Jun 26, 2018

Nick said:

Oh dear. Sounds like the judge is telling SISU that they’re pissing in the wind. Sounds like the mediation suggestion in the last round was trying to do SISU a favour, or the club at least.

Astute · Jun 26, 2018

Nick said:
Yeah but between that and the next JR comes the 250 year lease which would then change things. It's like when people go on at Grendel because he says it was a white elephant and nobody would want it as it was, nobody did as it had to have a 250 year lease for them to be able to lend against.

Whoever took over the arena by law had the right to extend the lease. And there is a formula these days to what can be charged. SISU never took the arena over so they never had the right to extend a lease that wasn't theirs.

thekidfromstrettoncamp · Jun 26, 2018

covcity4life said:
is their any outcome where wasps and sisu buy ricoh?

Wasps could leave but Susi would have to have it given to them . Looks to me as though the judge will take some convincing already. As for GaryJones photo why would they if the attire was Sky blue they would all be listening

Court Case Thread! June 2018 (7 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency