Author: Guy Thomas It has been reported by the Telegraph that Deloitte’s c.£100,000 review of cricket finances is nearly ready to be handed up to the England and Wales Cricket Board. The report “Building a Stronger Future for the Domestic Game” is a review of the finances of county cricket’s leading clubs and is reported to reveal the dangerous state of the game’s economy. One of the quotes lifted from the review by the Telegraph includes this harsh warning: “Without corrective action there is a looming risk of CAVs [Category A Venues] facing financial difficulties and maybe even insolvency.” Interestingly, the review appears to highlight “an over-reliance on broadcast money” and the “pitfalls of the competitive bid process” for hosting major competitions. Sound familiar? Earlier this year we saw a (then) Premiership Club, Portsmouth come very close to Liquidation and oblivion, many others clubs have been taken to the precipice, and Pompey’s Administrators have a show down with HMRC listed for 3/4th August in the High Court . This threat to cricket raises more questions then answers about the comparison of the finances of Football and Cricket: Could the cricketing counties be facing the same issues and imminent threats of insolvency that some football clubs are currently facing? Could it be that the tide of money, which previously flowed into the both football and cricket is now ebbing away, leaving comparable headaches for (football) Clubs and (cricket) Counties? Well the reality is probably no, not yet. Sorry but for one thing cricketing counties pay out a fraction of their wage bill for football Clubs. Nevertheless, whatever detail contained in this review, it is clear that the drop off in income caused by the recession will continue to throw up potentially fatal problems for both Clubs and Counties. Those that don’t review and adjust now will face dramatic problems in the near future and “maybe even insolvency”. Anyone for Tennis? Ah….maybe not.
The rest is here:
Howzat? Will Cricket face the same financial problems that now confront Football?
Author: Chris Alexander Much has been made of the interference of Prince Charles in the row surrounding development of the Chelsea Barracks site in London, some of the most expensive residential real estate in the world. The resulting litigation between CPC Group Limited (“CPC”) and Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Company (“QD”) has been widely reported particularly because of the connection to the heir to the throne. While Prince Charles’ involvement does raise interesting legal issues regarding royal political interference, the key issues in dispute between the parties have been glossed over to some extent. Contract CPC and QD entered into a joint venture for the acquisition of the Chelsea Barracks site in the form of a Guernsey based special purpose vehicle called Project Blue (Guernsey) Ltd (“PB”) which applied for planning permission for the development of 638 residential units, a hotel and various other community facilities. CPC then sold its interest in PB to QD for an initial payment of just under £38 million and a deferred payment mainly dependant upon the success of the planning application up to a combined total of £81 million. QD was under an express obligation to use all reasonable but commercially prudent endeavours to achieve the triggers for payment of the deferred consideration and to act in good faith. As we now know, His Royal Highness then expressed his displeasure at the architectural merits of the scheme contained in the planning application to his royal counterparts in Qatar. Boris Johnson also expressed differing architectural concerns. The planning application was then withdrawn, potentially in breach of QD’s obligations to CPC. Proceedings With the planning application withdrawn, CPC faced a much longer wait for their second payment and sought a number of declarations that QD were in breach of their obligations and for further or other relief. QD responded to the claim by alleging that CPC had acted contrary to the requirement for good faith by forcing QD’s hand after Prince Charles had intervened and that QD had in turn accepted this repudiatory breach bringing the joint venture to an end (in their favour). Mr Justice Vos held that in withdrawing the Planning Application, QD were in breach of their contractual obligations although not in breach of their obligation of good faith. CPC were also declared not to have acted contrary to their requirement of good faith. However, it was not a complete victory for CPC, who did not get all of the declarations sought and the question of what damages they may be entitled to, was left for another day as were costs. Conclusion With the sale contract still in force, a new planning application will probably be submitted in due course and CPC may well still receive payment of the deferred consideration, albeit somewhat later than they would have liked. What therefore did this litigation achieve? Mr Justice Vos identified that had the parties focused upon resolving their mutual problems rather than digging in for an expensive fight then the dispute could well have been avoided. That sentiment often rings true whether the sums involved are millions, thousands or just hundreds of pounds. Conditional payments or conditional obligations are commonplace in many land transactions, particularly where development is involved and while in most instances royal intervention won’t be an issue, conditionality is a fertile ground for disputes.
Read more from the original source:
Impact of Prince Charles’ Interference with the Chelsea Barracks
Author: Jacqueline Button Public sector employees worried about their pay and pensions aren’t the only ones affected by the new government’s clamp down on spending. Property Week reported last month (4/6/10) that on 24 May Whitehall’s Efficiency and Reform Group announced a halt to lease extensions in the current financial year that do not have Treasury approval. The government is also planning to exercise break options which it has this year, including at Eland House, Victoria Street SW1, the 24,200 sq ft headquarters of the Communities and Local Government Department. A client of ours has had a similar experience – a government department tenant, initially keen to renew their lease have backed out of negotiations and will be relocating to cheaper premises. (Spare a thought for the staff – no pay rise, no pension and forced to work in the back of beyond). So landlords of public sector bodies must beware – your once star tenants are fading. Check break dates and expiry dates. If any are coming up soon, you may find yourself looking for a new tenant.
Read the original post:
Public Sector Lease Freeze
Free case law is old hat now. The House of Lords posted its first judgment on the web in 1996 and BAILII “freed the law” in 2000. But how far have we come since then? This article sums up the current position.
Read more here:
Free case law – an overview
Author: Guy Thomas Everyone knows that Julius Caesar “came a cropper” on the “Ides of March” (15th March). Well, supporters of Pompey’s CVA may yet come to dread the week containing the Ides of July (15th July 2010). Predictions and augers can (as Caesar found out) be tricky, with that in mind, Thursday, 15th July looks likely to be last day when Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) can issue a challenge against Portsmouth City Football Club’s Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA). Following the last meeting of Pompey’s creditors on 17th June 2010 , there was a lot of positive publicity for the Joint Administrators of Portsmouth City Football Club. The Chairman of that meeting (at which the CVA was approved) was Mr Andrew Andronikou (one of the joint Administrators of Pompey). HMRC challenge? If HMRC do decide to “have a go” then they are likely to chuck the kitchen sink at it in the hope that one of the other issues raised might be sufficient to force a reconsideration of the CVA approval. Likely grounds for the application include: 1. The reduction of HMRC’s “creditors” vote from £37,768,387.13 to £23,895,044.67? i.e. taking away their ability to veto the CVA. 2. The inclusion of the “Football Creditors” in the vote of “unsecured creditors” when they should have been treated as “secured borrowers”? 3. The inclusion of supposedly secured creditors like Portpin (Mr. Chanirai) and Ocadia (Mr Gaydamak) in the vote of “unsecured creditors”. If these or any challenges like them succeed then a 75% majority cannot be achieved. No 75%, no CVA. No CVA? Well let’s just say the Championship will be a harsher place with a further point deduction for Pompey. Et tu Pompey? To read the full article, click here .
Read the original post:
Pompey: Beware the Ides of July!
Author: Victoria Wells The sudden death last month of former “Diff’rent Strokes” star Gary Coleman has highlighted the importance of having a valid Will, and keeping it up to date. Despite his showbiz background, Gary’s personal circumstances were in some ways not that different to many of us, with both an ex-wife and a former girlfriend on the scene, and the lack of clarity around his wishes has led - perhaps inevitably - to dispute between the two. There is also uncertainty about what to do with his ashes, surely a situation which none of us would want our loved ones to be left in. In his 1999 Will, Gary gave instructions about his funeral, that he wanted it conducted by people who had no financial ties to him and who “can look each other in the eyes and say they really cared personally for Gary Coleman”. He also in the Will appointed a close friend as his executor. In 2005 it appears that Gary made a new Will, in favour of his then girlfriend, Anna Gray. The Will specified that he did not want any sort of funeral service. Following his marriage to Shannon Price in 2007, he made a “homemade” Will, in which he named his wife as his sole beneficiary. Apparently this was signed, but not witnessed, so lacks full testamentary validity. They divorced in 2008. Perhaps inevitably, Ms Price and Ms Gray are now in dispute about who should administer Gary’s estate, and who is entitled to that estate. Ms Gray argues that they were together for eight years, and that the 2005 Will is the valid “last Will and Testament”. Ms Gray contends that, as they were still living together at Gary’s death, despite their divorce, she is entitled to be treated as his “wife”. A lawyer has now been appointed by the courts to sort out the mess, and in the meantime both Gary’s ashes and his estate remain in limbo. The heartache and expense of all of this could all have been avoided if Gary, following each major change of circumstance in his life, had taken professional advice to ensure that his latest Will matched his current situation and that his belongings and his funeral would be dealt with as he wished, by the people he wanted.
More:
TV Star’s Death Highlights Importance of Wills
Author: Nathanael Young Attack and Counterattack Recent news stories have highlighted the lengths FIFA are prepared to go to in protecting its brand. Last Monday’s Holland v Denmark game saw 36 female supports wearing orange mini dresses participated in an ambush marketing stunt for the Dutch beer brand Bavaria. Ambush marketing, the practice of finding a way to promote a brand at a high profile event with out paying a sponsorship, has long been a marketing strategy of Bavaria. At the 2006 world cup in Germany, 1000 fans wearing branded underwear were denied entry to a Holland game, and more recently it has been targeting the Dutch national team matches. FIFA has promised to come down hard on any brand trying to highjack the tournament and this was the case last Monday. The group of women were ejected from the stadium and two of the 36 were later arrested. In addition to this, the ITV pundit Robbie Earl has been sacked by ITV as it has emerged that some of the tickets used by Bavaria were from the ex-Jamaica and Wimbledon midfielder’s allocation; which he was prohibited from redistributing to third parties. Logo or No Logo With the world cup now in full swing, businesses around the country have included references to the event in their advertising and promotional activity in a bid to cash in on its popularity. Some of those are official sponsors, who have paid millions to be able to do so; however, a considerably large number of businesses haven’t paid for the privilege. They simply seek to associate their business with the pride and passion that the tournament evokes, with the ultimate aim of increasing sales. However it does come with some risks attached. Many business may not be aware of the extent to which FIFA have rights over and above ordinary trademark or copyright protection in South Africa. FIFA has every motivation to stamp out such practices, which threaten the sponsorship revenues from their official partners. It already has trademark protection over a number of words, like ‘2010 FIFA World Cup’ and images, such as its official emblem for the tournament. The host country has gone so far to keep FIFA and its sponsors happy, it has created a new list of prohibited marks under special legislation, even including the use of ‘2010’ on its own, which is not a trademark. For businesses operating in the UK, the situation is rather less draconian. However, there are reports that FIFA has obtained a ruling against a sports bar near the Loftus stadium using phrases such as ‘World Cup 2010’. Things to Remember… The most important guidance is to always avoid the using of any FIFA artwork or branding – such as its logo or the ‘man kicking ball’ official 2010 world cup emblem. For more information and guidance about when you can cannot use World Cup related terms, FIFA has provided a Public Information Sheet which states what is acceptable and the terms of use. Use of the term ‘World Cup’ or similar phrases is less likely to be an issue, although each situation is different, so it is important to take legal advice in order to avoid prosecution.
Original post:
We Was Robbed – FIFA clash with the Ambush Marketers
Author: Julie Gingell Could you dedicate just one office tea break to fundraising for a great charity? As close friends of the Willow Foundation , SA Law is helping to promote their latest national fundraising initiative. And the concept couldn’t be easier! Simply schedule an office tea break to raise money. Staff could be asked to make a small donation to attend; cakes and biscuits could be sold; or you could simply hold a raffle. You could even charge a fee for each tea bag - the more exotic the tea bag the higher the donation!
View original here:
Turn Tea Bags into Tenners!
Author: Guy Thomas In the run up to today’s creditor’s meeting at Pompey’s Fratton Park, Guy Thomas has been commenting in www.sportingintelligence.com on the background to today’s meeting and the options available to the creditors of Portsmouth City Football Club (In Administration) when they vote. Click here to read more.
See the original post:
Portsmouth: Why Thursday’s creditors meeting means so much to so many (not least the helpless fans)
Authors: Steve Kenneford & Caroline Beale There still appears to be confusion over the obligation to provide Home Information Packs since the announcement to suspend the same on the 21st May 2010. The situation is as follows:- Any/all properties marketed prior to the 21st May 2010 will require a fully compliant HIP. Any properties marketed after the 21st May 2010 will no longer require a HIP but will require an Energy Performance Certificate to be provided at the cost of the seller. The cost of the local authority and drainage searches will once again fall upon the Purchaser. So, effectively, with the exception of the EPC which is being retained, the last 4 years and probably the 3 before that (whilst we were all preparing ourselves for the new HIPS revolution) were a complete waste of time, effort, money and a further erosion of our already depleted rainforests in terms of the monumental waste of paper involved. Thanks for everything Yvette (Cooper)! It remains to be seen whether any further changes will be made and we will keep you advised.
The rest is here:
Life Without HIPS
