CCFC knewWe were repeatedly assured by the council it was doing just fine when we weren't there. And at the point at which ACL was sold to Wasps we were playing there. If you recall the council made a big deal about repairing the relationship and building trust so we could potentially achieve stadium ownership.
Irrespective of that it can't be claimed Wasps paid a low price as the stadium was stood empty when at the time it was sold we had already come back.CCFC knew
They still came back
They wanted to come
They had to come back.
Irrespective of that it can't be claimed Wasps paid a low price as the stadium was stood empty when at the time it was sold we had already come back.
about the process rather than the outcome.
Assuming the private mediation resulted in nothing?
surely the suggestion is that the NEC process enabled them to select the best option that emerged from the process. The process enabled a choice of options from which they selected the LDC bid. It's not just about whether SISU could have produced a more attractive option but whether other 3rd parties could have improved the returns with an alternative deal.But the suggestion is that a different process would have achieved a different outcome. The NEC sale doesn’t back that up. I doubt that anyone could argue that LDC didn’t get more pound for pound than Wasps did for the Ricoh. If you’re talking about value for money to the taxpayer it would seem that the NEC sale is a far bigger candidate for a JR than the Ricoh is.
It seems every intermediate judge after the initial knockbacks who send the case forward to the actual hearing end up appearing misguided in their judgement or mistaken.
surely the suggestion is that the NEC process enabled them to select the best option that emerged from the process. The process enabled a choice of options from which they selected the LDC bid. It's not just about whether SISU could have produced a more attractive option but whether other 3rd parties could have improved the returns with an alternative deal.
Fact is the judge was listening to an appeal hearing where all he heard was an argument for an appeal. Over the next couple of days a panel of 3 judges are in a full hearing. Key words being full hearing. That means that they are being presented with the full arguments and counter arguments and can discuss amongst themselves the finer details of them to inform a joint and balanced consensus on what is opinion, what is fact and what that reflects on the case regardless of who it favours.
I'll give you 5 guesses.Are we going to get a '5 things we learned from today's hearing' headline in the CET?
The judge said it was some of the Council's evidence that swayed him to grant it as well.
Will be interest to see if anything "new" comes out.
“Everyone knew”
Mr Thompson is continuing to speak.
He says “everyone knew” on 7 October that the 250-year leasehold was going to be offered.
He says valuations were taken to support third party financing arrangements.
He says “that there is a very real discrepancy” between the market value and sale value.
Who’s there? Joy? Timmy? Laura???
still about process not outcome. Maybe Wasps still end up being preferred bidder but not relevant to SISU argument. Can't know the best answer if the question isn't openly available.Doesn’t mean Wasps still wouldn’t have been the preferred bidder though. SISU’s argument is supposition. They did say it contravenes EU and U.K. law earlier in the day but I can’t see any reference to which particular law(s). You’d have thought that was important to that point. Unless of course it’s more supposition.
Barry Hastie - does open up the possibility for some great headlines if council lose.
“Deliberate marketing campaign"
Mr Thompson said the new paperwork presented by Sisu’s team showed a “deliberate marketing campaign conducted by a local council” against Sisu.
He said there was a “total absence of transparency” and argued the whole process was “unfair” and “without regulatory approval”.
He said this had led to “an absurd situation of an historic football club in a major UK city reduced to the licensee of its own ground”.
Joy Seppala statement
Mr Thompson is showing the judges a witness statement from Sisu chief executive Joy Seppala. He says she is an “expert” in the financial aspect having been in control of the club for a decade.
It is not being read out in court.
Not sure there is much value in that argument, it was a short term tenant before the sale (though the reasons why it was only a short term deal are not clear, perhaps that could be expanded upon)
England obviously.im bored to death of all this but who do we want to win?
Not the lawyersim bored to death of all this but who do we want to win?
So Wasps had taken over the arena before they took it on?Again it wasn't unused as we were back here playing before the council meeting to agree the sale.
So Wasps had taken over the arena before they took it on?
CCFCim bored to death of all this but who do we want to win?
CCFC
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?