oscillatewildly
Well-Known Member
Wrong band but they were briefly label mates a long time ago.
Wrong band but they were briefly label mates a long time ago.This place is coming like a ghost town , all the club’s are being closed down . :wacky:
Better it starts now then in two years' time then.
But they were not spurious claims , in each case someone admitted liability and passed on the relevant details.Exactly. If they'd have said that we'll see you in court, having listened to article on the Jeremy Vine show if I ever found myself in that situation I think I'd just drop it. I suppose if a local authority is just settling any spurious claim they're setting a precedent for people to put in any spurious claim. If they know that they have a case regardless of how small that claim is they defend it and defend is rigorously. A barrister and a 150 page dossier for a £200 claim for a rear window on a car is going the extra mile.
But why does it come out as soon as Wasps are ready to crack on with talks on a rental agreement?Better it starts now then in two years' time then.
This is the key for me. I think there's convincing argument to be made that the sale was done in a very deliberate manner to avoid having to conform to the regulations.They still own the freehold. Does selling a lease count?
Maybe you need to reverse the question and ask why does the PR from Wasps get cranked up as soon as the JR is about to get underway.But why does it come out as soon as Wasps are ready to crack on with talks on a rental agreement?
If that is the case how can SISU get anywhere when Fisher said that they wouldn't have paid as much?This is the key for me. I think there's convincing argument to be made that the sale was done in a very deliberate manner to avoid having to conform to the regulations.
If SISU's lawyers can persuade the judge that selling a 250 year lease is, to all intents and purposes, the same as selling the freehold then the regulations come into effect. Should that happen the council haven't got a leg to stand on.
Will be interesting to see what defence the council put up. They can't claim that they had to sell due to ACL being in difficulty as they kept telling us that wasn't the case. When it later turned out that wasn't the case Lucas was on CWR insisting that the council hadn't been lying but had been given the wrong information.
So Wasps knew that SISU were about to start it this week?Maybe you need to reverse the question and ask why does the PR from Wasps get cranked up as soon as the JR is about to get underway.
5. Local authorities are given powers under the 1972 Act to dispose of land in any manner
they wish, including sale of their freehold interest, granting a lease or assigning any
unexpired term on a lease, and the granting of easements. The only constraint is that a
disposal must be for the best consideration reasonably obtainable (except in the case of
short tenancies, see footnote 3, paragraph 1 of the Consent), unless the Secretary of State
consents to the disposal.
6. It is Government policy that local authorities and other public bodies should dispose of
surplus land wherever possible. Generally it is expected that land should be sold for the
best consideration reasonably obtainable. However, it is recognised that there may be
circumstances where an authority considers it appropriate to dispose of land at an
undervalue. Authorities should clearly not divest themselves of valuable public assets
unless they are satisfied that the circumstances warrant such action. The Consent has
been issued to give local authorities autonomy to carry out their statutory duties and
functions, and to fulfil such other objectives as they consider to be necessary or desirable.
However, when disposing of land at an undervalue, authorities must remain aware of the
need to fulfil their fiduciary duty in a way which is accountable to local people.
The Consent
7. Section 128(1) of the 1972 Act confers on the Secretary of State power to give a general
consent for the purposes of land disposals by local authorities carried out under their
powers in Part 7 of the 1972 Act. The Secretary of State's sole statutory function in respect
of the exercise by local authorities of these disposal powers is to give or withhold consent
to a proposed disposal in cases where his consent is required.
8. The terms of the Consent mean that specific consent is not required for the disposal of
any interest in land which the authority considers will help it to secure the promotion or
improvement of the economic, social or environmental well-being of its area. Where
applicable, authorities should also have regard to their community strategy. Although these
criteria derive from the Local Government Act 2000, their use in the Consent is not
confined to authorities with duties and powers under that Act. Therefore, authorities not
covered by the 2000 Act can also rely upon the well-being criteria when considering
disposals at less than best consideration. It will be for the authority to decide whether these
decisions taken comply with any other relevant governing legislation. In all cases, disposal
at less than best consideration is subject to the condition that the undervalue does not
exceed £2,000,000 (two million pounds).
9. In determining whether or not to dispose of land for less than the best consideration
reasonably obtainable, and whether or not any specific proposal to take such action falls
within the terms of the Consent, the authority should ensure that it complies with normal
and prudent commercial practices, including obtaining the view of a professionally qualified
valuer as to the likely amount of the undervalue.
Can anyone say that they have actually broken any laws ? Also is the sale of a public asset such as a building the same as selling land.
This is the key for me. I think there's convincing argument to be made that the sale was done in a very deliberate manner to avoid having to conform to the regulations.
If SISU's lawyers can persuade the judge that selling a 250 year lease is, to all intents and purposes, the same as selling the freehold then the regulations come into effect. Should that happen the council haven't got a leg to stand on.
Will be interesting to see what defence the council put up. They can't claim that they had to sell due to ACL being in difficulty as they kept telling us that wasn't the case. When it later turned out that wasn't the case Lucas was on CWR insisting that the council hadn't been lying but had been given the wrong information.
Took 3 years to get through JR1. See ya in 2020.
Should they not have made everyone aware that it was for sale though, considering ( as they said many times) it was a community asset.What regulations? Is there a regulation for a local authority to sell a half share in a troubled business? I think you're talking about the regulation for offloading land for development again Dave. They haven't sold anything for development. That regulation also says that the council have to achieve best value for the taxpayer. That doesn't have to be in monetary terms either. The council have given and sold lots of land and property's in the City at knock down prices to organisations such as Coventry Uni and the Higgs trust because the prospect of having a building or land sitting derelict for decades or giving it away so the site is redeveloped is a no brainer to which offers best value to the taxpayer.
If that's the angle SISU are coming at surely all CCC have to do is reference the numerous statements from club and SISU officials where they state that they're never coming back thus giving the council little option but to sell to the highest bidder offering bed value for money to the taxpayer given that the alternative was a derelict Ricoh arena.
Even when we came back it was on a short term deal because we've moved on, again on the record from numerous club officials. Which again means that four years later the Ricoh would be derelict.
All meaning best value to the taxpayer is selling ACL to a permanent Tennant on an extended lease.
If this ever does go to a full JR and SISU lose again it will be their own actions that loses it for them.
Clear as mud to me osb, thanks anyway.What you quote is to do with land disposals.
What wasps acquired were the shares of acl so is that covered by the same rules? Not sure it is
The disposal of an interest in land was the extension of lease. That would seem to fit. But that couldn't be sold on the open market either before or after the wasps acquisition simply because the only entity that could be offered it was acl. There is a value to be attached to it certainly but it is not open market. In the open market it has no value because unless you own ACL it is worthless. The value to CCC is going to be based on the incomes they receive from it. Ground rent for the land?
Should ACL have acquired it then be sold. I think it should but with what? ACL was cash starved because of the Sisu actions and didn't have the sum to pay. Sure there were ways around it but did that mean the price went up and no one would be interested at the price. Did ACL have the time to wait following the situation created by Sisu?
The exact details will come out if it proceeds to a full hearing but it is difficult to believe that CCC and wasps didn't foresee possible action and didn't arrange things to prempt such a scenario
Not as straight forward as legal beagles are claimed to think, how could Sisu have won by now when as yet nothing has been challenged?
If Sisu win this time and subsequent appeals then the club nor Sisu will not benefit until the commercial cases that would follow are settled in their favour too.
CCC might be asked to reconsider elements but that doesn't stop them arriving at exactly the same conclusion. CCC can also bring things like social benefit etc which are a lot harder to value but the stadium has continued to grow in terms of events, employment, attracting people to Coventry . But there will of course be all sorts of opinions on that.
Basically applying those rules is not as straight forward as it seems. So proving disposal at under value or state aid will not be easy
If that's the angle SISU are coming at surely all CCC have to do is reference the numerous statements from club and SISU officials where they state that they're never coming back thus giving the council little option but to sell to the highest bidder offering bed value for money to the taxpayer given that the alternative was a derelict Ricoh arena.
They can appeal. IIRC JR1 only got heard as SISU won an appeal to have it heard.[/QUOTE)
Yes they kept getting told. There is no case to answer but they wouldn't have it. Must have cost a fair whack. If they haven't got some legal cover.
Maybe you need to reverse the question and ask why does the PR from Wasps get cranked up as soon as the JR is about to get underway.
One step closer to a resolution, this... so surely a good thing?
And JR4Is it though? Or is it one step closer to JR3?
Well yeah.Maybe you both need to put the tinfoil down and realise this date and the timing of the release came from the courts.
Of course they wereWell yeah.
But could they have been advised internally days earlier?
Of course they were
Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk
Do we know Sisu's total bill for JR1?
I don't believe that this money came out of the clubs coffers.
But it could factored into the sale price of the club. I know its not the clubs responsibility, but if Sisu have already shelled out 2 million? in court costs, could this also be one of the reasons they are rejecting recent offers. Knowing what Sisu are like i should imagine they expect to get this money back some way or another.
preliminary hearing set for 14th July. Will decide if there is an arguable or valid case to put before a full court hearing later in year
CCFC court date and venue confirmed over Ricoh sale to Wasps
Is it though? Or is it one step closer to JR3?
As I understand it application for Judicial Review has to be brought in a timely prompt manner, common timescale is 3 months after a decision made. I think, though not certain, that you usually have to challenge on what you knew at the time of challenge not add to or amend to something else
Not sure as yet there are any decisions open to challenge concerning CCFC in the last three months that could lead to JR3
guess we wait see what the judge says on 14th July.
Just a thought but what are the time limits on JR2? the original application was brought December 2014 then the hearing stayed whilst JR1 was heard, but when did JR2 then get activated? End of November 2016 lost JR1 in Supreme Court activated JR2 again Feb/March 2017 ? should it kick in as soon as JR1 over? or do you get 3 months from end of JR1. It means the decision is being challenged over 2 years after it was taken.
up to the judge...... good luck to him
If it was going to be knocked back would't the last judge have done it instead of putting it on hold? He must have looked into it to decide it couldn't run alongside JR1.This will probably be accepted and then be a SISU loss afterwards. Ladbrookes give me the odds.
This will probably be accepted and then be a SISU loss afterwards. Ladbrokes give me the odds.
Every penny you give to CCFC goes to SISU so of course you are supporting SISU
I think most can predict the outcome of it, .
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?