Astute
Well-Known Member
Which is what Wasps got once they took over ACL.
I like the way you know more about the law than those who specialise in the matter. You should be working for the SISU legal team.
Which is what Wasps got once they took over ACL.They can demand a renewal below 50 years - yes?
Read an Wasps thread to do with financials. Everytime someone says that the council undersold based on valuation in accounts he’s explained the difference. You know this but are pretending that you don’t. You ask for a link pretending that you need one. I’ve told you several times now where you’ll find them are you now going to pretend that you don’t know how to navigate your own forum to the Wasps sub section? Classic who what me behaviour from you Nick and very entertaining as we all know you know better but carry on pretending that you don’t. Comedy gold.
Grande is proving that he knows more about laws than people that have studied it for many years. Fair play to Grendel.Whats going on then?
Grande is proving that he knows more about laws than people that have studied it for many years. Fair play to Grendel.
Whats going on then?
You keep saying that it was sold at that price because it was unused because it was agreed before we came back.Which is what Wasps got once they took over ACL.
I like the way you know more about the law than those who specialise in the matter. You should be working for the SISU legal team.
Have you read it?Astute have you read this?
Lovely stuff.
How is that?You keep saying that it was sold at that price because it was unused because it was agreed before we came back.
Using your logic, it was also sold with a 250 year lease?
Grande is proving that he knows more about laws than people that have studied it for many years. Fair play to Grendel.
How is that?
Wasps couldn't extend the lease until the lease was theirs. But it was agreed when the deal was done on taking it over. So was agreed at the value that even SISU said was too high.
How is that?
Wasps couldn't extend the lease until the lease was theirs. But it was agreed when the deal was done on taking it over. So was agreed at the value that even SISU said was too high.
Bet your glad you had a peek.
Is it? Show me where then. It wasn't me who put a link to what to do if your lease has or is about to run out.Eh? You’ve been given two links to solicitor sites that confirm you are incorrect
So you still haven't read what OSB said.If it was agreed when the deal was done to take over then surely that means it is sold with a 250 year lease?
What are the chances that this will be the end of the JR route for Sisu? It it likely to be the end of that road today? If so can they still mount other legal actions?
Is it? Show me where then. It wasn't me who put a link to what to do if your lease has or is about to run out.
If you are right SISU will win this court case. Do you fancy a large charity bet?
To be honest, nothing new has come out apart from sisu saying they would take half the Ricoh as compensation.Lost another pint
I actually wanted a quick summary of the court case as I'm too lazy to read up on it.
We can all find links that say what we want them to.How about this link
FAQs - Commercial leases
Can you tell me what it says about companies taking on existing leases and regulatory powers?
No I have, I was using your logic.So you still haven't read what OSB said.
To be honest, nothing new has come out apart from sisu saying they would take half the Ricoh as compensation.
How could the value be on a 250 year lease when the lease couldn't be extended until after purchase?No I have, I was using your logic.
You are saying it was sold and valued on the basis it wasnt being used even though it wasn't unused at the time it was sold because they knew about it before ccfc came back.
If that's the case, they knew about the lease also so it was sold based on a 250 year lease surely?
so SISU?
We can all find links that say what we want them to.
So how much are we having on this large charity bet? You know you are right as usual....
How could the value be on a 250 year lease when the lease couldn't be extended until after purchase?
Yes it could. The same as the lease extension was agreed before purchase.How could the value be on a 250 year lease when the lease couldn't be extended until after purchase?
I would love Wasps and CCC to lose. But they will have their arse covered.No, I'm not a supporter of SISU, I support CCFC and hopefully will go on supporting CCFC long after SISU have disappeared into hedge fund heaven or hedge fund Hades. I'm not bothered about the validity of the legal arguments that are being picked over here. Most of us know the law is often an ass, and winning or losing a case doesn't mean you are morally right or wrong on that particular issue.
I want the team I support to win this courtroom charade. By that I mean I want the best outcome for the team. I'd like Wasps to lose. I'd like CCC to have egg on their faces for not caring about my team for years and years and I'd like SISU to sell up as soon as possible so we could start again with new owners who once more (??) or for the first time ever, will behave like a trustworthy, style-of-performance and results-on-the-pitch led club should.
And If that outcome is more likely if SISU win their case, why should l not be delighted? My fear, if they lose their case, is that we will only see more pain, more delay and more uncertainty. And the unwarranted and extended survival of Wasps in Coventry!
And we can expect fewer supporters, less investment and no more promotions. Along with the fading memory of our glory days at Wembley!
You are saying that you know the law. You are saying SISU are right and Wasps and CCC are wrong. You are coming out with links to try and prove your point.What now? You say I know more than a lawyer and a links posted from a lawyer and you say you know the law better than a lawyer - which is what you accuse me of.
What are you on about - a bet sisu will win the case? Why - it’s nothing to do with this at all.
They could well have insisted on it. The odds are they did. But it still doesn't change the laws you are trying to make out that were not followed.It could be according to you. They could have insisted on it - you should be a witness for sisu
You are saying that you know the law. You are saying SISU are right and Wasps and CCC are wrong. You are coming out with links to try and prove your point.
So why is it nothing to do with SISU?
Because the valuation on the sale was made when it was empty. And if the sale never went ahead the arena would have stayed empty.Yes it could. The same as the lease extension was agreed before purchase.
How could the value be based on it being empty when it wasn't when the sale was agreed?
You mean like the whole team of solicitors that looked into the sale that made sure it kept within the law that you are trying to say are wrong?No I’m saying a solicitor knows the law better than you. Which I assume you agree with?
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?