What if (1 Viewer)

CanadianCCFC

Well-Known Member
What if SISU get a positive outcome from the court case? What do they get?
 

Mild-Mannered Janitor

Kindest Bloke on CCFC / Maker of CCFC Dreams
The ability to push for compensation from the loss in value that they could have achieved if they were allowed to purchase at the allegedly below market rate sale to Wasps.
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
What if SISU get a positive outcome from the court case? What do they get?
They will be embarrased is the court allow their appeal and if they do city definitely will not be at the Ricoh next season while the appeal is heard with no certainty of winning.
 

Sbarcher

Well-Known Member
I presume Wasps will not be affected by a SISU positive outcome. They paid the "sales" price for the stadium as a genuine purchase. I again presume that it will be the Council ie. Cov taxpayers who will pay.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
I presume Wasps will not be affected by a SISU positive outcome. They paid the "sales" price for the stadium as a genuine purchase. I again presume that it will be the Council ie. Cov taxpayers who will pay.
I suspect this would be the most likely outcome if they somehow managed to win. Compensation paid to SISU, they take the money and run and we're left broke and with no stadium.

Seems incredibly complex to undo the whole deal and rerun the sale. Equally would a judge rule Wasps have to pay more when they clearly don't have it.

Even if they tried to look at something creative like passing 50% ownership to the football club, which would safeguard SISU taking all the money, what would happen to all the debt secured against it with the bond? Not sure they could enforce an ownership change like that even if they wanted to.
 

Magwitch

Well-Known Member
This appeal is only to allow a judicial review, doesn’t mean they’d win it I suspect if they did council/wasps would appeal and if the didn’t more sisu appeals.
 

luwalla

Well-Known Member
I wondered if the end game was that wasps would need to pay any shortfall in what the true valuation was... they wouldnt be able to pay that, at which point SISU would offer to ay it in exchange for a stadium share.

Not even sure if that's possible, but it didn't cross mind as the only real benefit to SISU for pursuing this legal action.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
I wondered if the end game was that wasps would need to pay any shortfall in what the true valuation was... they wouldnt be able to pay that, at which point SISU would offer to ay it in exchange for a stadium share.

Not even sure if that's possible, but it didn't cross mind as the only real benefit to SISU for pursuing this legal action.

They wouldn't but I'm sure Derek would swoop in from Malta and keep SISU at bay from his own pocket
 

twistandshout

Well-Known Member
Depending on your perspective.
1. The will have stood up for the underdog and shown that business should be conducted in a transparent and fair manner.:yawn::yawn:
Or
2. They will have saddled both Wasps and the City council with vast future legal costs, certainly distressing both parties. Offering them the choice of the review finding no wrong doing and being in debt or the review finding that the council didnt like Sisu, so offered Wasps a better deal. Meaning Sisu can sue again, this time for compensation and with more legal costs.

This is why they want the court case dropped, to stop the long term cloud over their head, to stop future legal costs.
Eventually offering a deal will be the cheapest option, Sisu dont necessarily need to win compensation.
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Depending on your perspective.
1. The will have stood up for the underdog and shown that business should be conducted in a transparent and fair manner.:yawn::yawn:
Or
2. They will have saddled both Wasps and the City council with vast future legal costs, certainly distressing both parties. Offering them the choice of the review finding no wrong doing and being in debt or the review finding that the council didnt like Sisu, so offered Wasps a better deal. Meaning Sisu can sue again, this time for compensation and with more legal costs.

This is why they want the court case dropped, to stop the long term cloud over their head, to stop future legal costs.
Eventually offering a deal will be the cheapest option, Sisu dont necessarily need to win compensation.
yep there’s no short term to any of this and the council are stubborn buggers (Not a bad thing) especially when they feel they are the wronged party
 

twistandshout

Well-Known Member
yep there’s no short term to any of this and the council are stubborn buggers (Not a bad thing) especially when they feel they are the wronged party
It is a game of chess where CCFC is a pawn.
It could be argued that moving to Northampton was to distress ACL by denying them rent also that going into administration while there removed any liability ACL incurred.
Installing Wasps was the counter move.
So now you distress Wasps the new owners of ACL, the leaseholders and the Council the owners.
Several battles have been won and lost, to win at chess not all pawns survive.
 

SkyBlueZack

Well-Known Member
yep there’s no short term to any of this and the council are stubborn buggers (Not a bad thing) especially when they feel they are the wronged party

Council are stubborn which you say isn’t a bad thing. Sisu are also being stubborn in their pursuit of legals as they feel they are wronged. So is that not a bad thing also? Or is it another of those occasions where it’s one rule for one party and another for another party?
 

Swayze

New Member
The ability to push for compensation from the loss in value that they could have achieved if they were allowed to purchase at the allegedly below market rate sale to Wasps.
Do we have any clue as to a ballpark figure of this?

Would it be a large enough sum to enable a new stadium to be built?

This talk of wanting Wasps/council to lose money - I think the obvious answer for SISU and the club is to remove their need to deal with any other party altogether. By building a new stadium both of these other parties will suffer, ontop of legal fees, compensation etc.

It also secures long term stability for the club and makes CCFC a much more saleable asset, especially if we were by then a low/mid tier Championship side.
 

Nick

Administrator
Do we have any clue as to a ballpark figure of this?

Would it be a large enough sum to enable a new stadium to be built?

This talk of wanting Wasps/council to lose money - I think the obvious answer for SISU and the club is to remove their need to deal with any other party altogether. By building a new stadium both of these other parties will suffer, ontop of legal fees, compensation etc.

It also secures long term stability for the club and makes CCFC a much more saleable asset, especially if we were by then a low/mid tier Championship side.

Why would they worry about spending loads to make CCFC a saleable asset to get some money back when they could just have the compensation directly?
 

Swayze

New Member
Why would they worry about spending loads to make CCFC a saleable asset when they could just have the compensation directly?
Average value of a League 1 club (and we must be below average) is something like 3-4million.

I could well be wrong but i was under the impression the average value of a Championship club is 10 times that.
 

Nick

Administrator
Average value of a League 1 club (and we must be below average) is something like 3-4million.

I could well be wrong but i was under the impression the average value of a Championship club is 10 times that.

Yeah so why would they throw in for example £25 million for a stadium to get the value up to sell it for about the same when they could just keep the £25 million and save the hassle?
 

Swayze

New Member
Yeah so why would they throw in for example £25 million for a stadium to get the value up to sell it for about the same when they could just keep the £25 million and save the hassle?
Fair, I just don't think they're as keen to cut their losses as others do.

Its a long term thing, but they dont seem a million miles away from breaking even, they continue benefitting from whatever they can currently write off, as soon as they stop needing transfer money to run the club (made up from owning stadium?) they can start creaming money off from player sales, they still pocket a chunk of compo and then they sell the club for a decent amount.
 

twistandshout

Well-Known Member
Fair, I just don't think they're as keen to cut their losses as others do.

Its a long term thing, but they dont seem a million miles away from breaking even, they continue benefitting from whatever they can currently write off, as soon as they stop needing transfer money to run the club (made up from owning stadium?) they can start creaming money off from player sales, they still pocket a chunk of compo and then they sell the club for a decent amount.

After years of court cases there is not likely to be much money available.
Depending on who is left standing it is more likely to be a percentage of ACL ( the company with a lease to run the Ricoh) if Wasps are still viable or even a percentage of the Ricoh itself .
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top