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.

Author: Chris Cook

I am pleased to report that SA Law recorded a second straight win last night against Brasier Freeth.

Faced with the dilemma of having 4 players available at the start of the match, the skipper elected to bat first, being joined by Satinder at the crease.  The latter succumbed to a fourth ball duck and was followed by Gary, who fared even worse and was out first ball.  Terence survived the hat trick delivery and batted impressively to steady the ship, striking three consecutive fours on the way to reaching his 25 and retiring.  Ringer Josh Rose then struck some fearsome blows to accelerate the run rate, including a massive six with his last strike of the day.  12th man Nat rivaled Gary for the shortest innings of the day, walking back to the pavilion no sooner than he arrived.  Guy, Rob G, ringer Thomas (Guy’s nephew, not called Thomas Thomas) and Simon all batted well towards the end of the innings scoring some useful runs as SA Law recorded an impressive 145 from their 15 8-ball overs.

Having had too many players, the skipper was rightly punished by dropping himself for Brasier Freeth’s innings, vice skip Satinder taking the helm.  Simon rolled back the years with an unusually tidy spell of bowling, picking up the wickets of both of the opening batsmen along the way.  At the other end Chris A did his best to keep the run rate down, supported by some keen fielding from Nat, Terence and Guy in particular.  With the skipper off the field, Rob G was allowed to bowl and showed the skipper what he was capable of with some surprisingly straight deliveries.  Guy capped a good day with bat and ball, returning an economical three over spell.  Ringer Thomas was a breath of fresh air behind the stumps, stopping several wayward deliveries that would have eluded lesser keepers.  Satinder, Josh and Terence also bowled well, the latter also picking up two wickets.  Umpire John “sick note” Moore added a bit of theatre to the evening as he announced that he had to leave the field for a comfort break, leaving the skipper to both score and umpire the remaining 11 balls of the match.  Brasiers finished on 115, in a comfortable victory for SA Law.

Thanks to all who played and the spectators who came to watch.  Our next match is on Wednesday next week against Hillier Hopkins.

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.

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.

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.