Mean while back in court (26 Viewers)
- Thread starter sotonskyblue
- Start date
ajsccfc
Well-Known Member
Cool, back to kit threads it is for me then!
Link to full judgement -
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/ne...e11327569.ece/BINARY/Court of Appeal decision
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/ne...e11327569.ece/BINARY/Court of Appeal decision
The ramifications could have meant SISU winning back their initial investments and maybe selling the club to someone with a genuine interest in it without the loaded debt currently put in place to ward off any perspective buyers. Only conjecture of course but we're not going anywhere with these morons holding the purse strings. It's irrelevant now !
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I'm truly starting to believe that this is about reputation now. As far as I can tell the corner stone of SISU's business is built on their self proclaimed reputation for battering people in court. If that's gone so has their reputation and ability to business in the method they do business.
I said a while ago that they don't batter people in court, they use the courts to batter people. If I'm right in that opinion JR2 may well make more sense than JR1 if for no other reason than it involves Wasps. Someone pointed out earlier that councils have legal departments and the ability to fight someone like SISU all the way, basically SISU bit of more than they can chew with JR1. However with Wasps named on JR2 there may well be a soft (softer) target on offer. We might just be about to find out which hedge fund is the most ruthless or at least which has the deepest pocket's.
What would be interesting is to know what SISU's investors think about all this. I think I'd have had enough by now if I was one of their investors. Have SISU ever been in a legal battle that has either lasted this length of time of gone this far along the system before?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Concluding paragraphs of a 26 page document giving a unanimous judgement of all three judges
62. I agree with the judge. In my view there was ample material upon the basis of which he could properly conclude:
“131. . . .
ii) In fact, as we now know, restructuring the Bank loan and the SISU plan were not viable options. Undoubtedly, even if the Council pursued them more than they did (as Mr Thompson suggested they ought to have done), they would have not borne fruit. The Council's options were to buy out the loan on the terms that they did – because there is no evidence that the Bank would have accepted any lesser terms, and plenty of evidence that they would not – or to wind up ACL.
iii) Winding up ACL would have meant that, although the lease may have ultimately reverted to the Council as freeholder, the Council's investment in ACL would have failed. Although the worth of ACL on paper was, as at January 2013, nil, I consider a rational private market economic operator, with a view to longer-term returns, may have considered (as the Council in fact considered) that the failure of the company was temporary, brought on by the refusal of CCFC to pay any rent; and restructuring involving both the refinancing of the ACL debt by the investor himself and steps to improve ACL's cashflow – in terms of cutting costs and increasing revenue – would result in a realistic prospect and reasonable likelihood of future profits.”
63. The Appellants have not in my view come close to demonstrating that the judge reached an impermissible conclusion. I would dismiss the appeal. In doing so I would pay tribute to the judge’s impressive judgment. My reasons are simply those which the judge developed in much greater detail with a sure eye to the principles by which his decision-making should be informed.
Having skimmed through the 26 pages this judgement comes across more damning of the SISU actions and assertions than previous
62. I agree with the judge. In my view there was ample material upon the basis of which he could properly conclude:
“131. . . .
ii) In fact, as we now know, restructuring the Bank loan and the SISU plan were not viable options. Undoubtedly, even if the Council pursued them more than they did (as Mr Thompson suggested they ought to have done), they would have not borne fruit. The Council's options were to buy out the loan on the terms that they did – because there is no evidence that the Bank would have accepted any lesser terms, and plenty of evidence that they would not – or to wind up ACL.
iii) Winding up ACL would have meant that, although the lease may have ultimately reverted to the Council as freeholder, the Council's investment in ACL would have failed. Although the worth of ACL on paper was, as at January 2013, nil, I consider a rational private market economic operator, with a view to longer-term returns, may have considered (as the Council in fact considered) that the failure of the company was temporary, brought on by the refusal of CCFC to pay any rent; and restructuring involving both the refinancing of the ACL debt by the investor himself and steps to improve ACL's cashflow – in terms of cutting costs and increasing revenue – would result in a realistic prospect and reasonable likelihood of future profits.”
63. The Appellants have not in my view come close to demonstrating that the judge reached an impermissible conclusion. I would dismiss the appeal. In doing so I would pay tribute to the judge’s impressive judgment. My reasons are simply those which the judge developed in much greater detail with a sure eye to the principles by which his decision-making should be informed.
Having skimmed through the 26 pages this judgement comes across more damning of the SISU actions and assertions than previous
CCFC got the charming hedge fund and LCFC got guys like this :
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/L...-donating-2m/story-29264985-detail/story.html
It's depressing !
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/L...-donating-2m/story-29264985-detail/story.html
It's depressing !
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
SISU RESPONSE
We are obviously disappointed by the Court of Appeal’s decision. This is the first time that this legal principle has been considered by the superior courts and, whilst we respect the views of their Lordships, this judgment conflicts with guidance given by both the UK Government and the EU Commission.
Government bodies should not use access to public funds to further political and policy objectives in a way that adversely impacts competition between local businesses. There are significant public policy reasons why this matter should be reviewed by the Supreme Court. A reference of certain aspects of the matter to the European Commission is also under consideration. In the meantime, the owners remain fully committed to the success of the Club and this judgment does not affect that resolve in any way.
SISU’S LAWYER, ALEX CARTER-SILK: “The judgement on JR1 does not affect the legal position on JR2.”
And so it goes on. Whatever they say this will hold the club back.
Don't usually resort to this but
I wish they would stop all this crap and fuck off
We are obviously disappointed by the Court of Appeal’s decision. This is the first time that this legal principle has been considered by the superior courts and, whilst we respect the views of their Lordships, this judgment conflicts with guidance given by both the UK Government and the EU Commission.
Government bodies should not use access to public funds to further political and policy objectives in a way that adversely impacts competition between local businesses. There are significant public policy reasons why this matter should be reviewed by the Supreme Court. A reference of certain aspects of the matter to the European Commission is also under consideration. In the meantime, the owners remain fully committed to the success of the Club and this judgment does not affect that resolve in any way.
SISU’S LAWYER, ALEX CARTER-SILK: “The judgement on JR1 does not affect the legal position on JR2.”
And so it goes on. Whatever they say this will hold the club back.
Don't usually resort to this but
I wish they would stop all this crap and fuck off
Last edited:
Nick
Administrator
Yes but if it is about reputation, it only makes it worse.
It is like me trying to defend my reputation by keep starting on Anthony Joshua. Just makes me look sillier by keep getting beaten up.
I am all for the council being exposed as dicks towards the club, but it's quite clear they didn't break any laws with that loan.
Nick
Administrator
Quoting for clarity!
The swearing is up there with a dog on the playground or a classmate calling the teacher mum!
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
All this money could be used on the team and promotion. Ffs just stop and gain the money the old fashioned route.... Earn it
shy_tall_knight
Well-Known Member
Dal amtri - whatever happened to them
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
I know people say and it has been said this is separate from the club but the money could still be used on the team and I'm not entirely convinced we are not paying for it anyway. Even if it's sisu money then spend it on the team and this crap league.
And all this off pitch court cases can't help TM or anyone anyway regardless of separate or not. It just doesn't help
And all this off pitch court cases can't help TM or anyone anyway regardless of separate or not. It just doesn't help
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
..... or buying a 5 year bond and when it comes to an end going for another one. Investors on this one will make on the interest payments.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Maybe this is as worse as a reputation of battering people in court gets i.e. not battering people in court. What have they to lose with JR2? If anything they have something to gain i.e. losing the reputation of someone who doesn't batter people in court to regain the reputation of someone who does. The further appeal of JR1 seems absolutely pointless to me, it's beyond time to call it a day. JR2 on the other hand could gain them something. Lose however and who's going to invest in a hedge fund that you're expecting to batter people in court but can't? All supposition of course but I'm just trying to find some logic in it. I'm proper clutching at straws though I must admit.
rondog1973
Well-Known Member
What influence would the European commission have if we Brexit?
Nick
Administrator
I think the only thing JR2 could possibly do is reveal more about the Wasps deal.
Will it reveal the council as being dickheads? Probably
It won't be judged on morals or anything so I doubt any actual laws will be broken so judging on history I can just see them having to pay Wasps / Council's court costs.
RoperCCFC96
Member
Will Sisu appeal to the European court?
So, with Sisu losing the latest court case and now being forced to pay CCC's court costs, will they stop the pointless action or will they appeal to European court?
Just want an end to it all now...
You can check out my blog here - mattyroper.wordpress.com
So, with Sisu losing the latest court case and now being forced to pay CCC's court costs, will they stop the pointless action or will they appeal to European court?
Just want an end to it all now...
You can check out my blog here - mattyroper.wordpress.com
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I doubt it will change anything because it will
(a) take time to exit the EU
(b) it is the law at time of the transaction that will count
(c) and so long as application is made prior to exit then it will be an on going case
Well that's how I see it anyway, could of course be wrong
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
They should maybe look into the history of CCFC then pre-SISU and see how that works out...
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Can't see your basis for that assumption, what you really mean is because they won't do as you want you're going to indulge in some name calling.
Will make no difference, Cameron will be booted out & Boris will send in Gove or Fallon renegotiate. Then they'll be another referendum. The EU is like Hotel California doncha know.
Last edited:
Nick
Administrator
I meant towards the club, as well as morally after they went on about moving clubs etc when there was Sixfields.
You never did reply to my PM
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The same influence it has at the moment for the timebeing I think, the referendum doesn't mean an instant brexit, it means that the government are being instructed to open negotiations to brexit, it'll take years imo.
SkyBlueRuffian
Well-Known Member
errr so do many hardcore non floating supporters, I follow the court cases but generally don't give a flying fuck anymore.
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
Brilliant post.
Now get it done SISU.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The only thing it wont reveal is why didn't SISU bid when invited to. Let's face it, that is really the only outstanding question in the whole sorry Ricoh affair. We already know EVERYONE is dickheads, we really don't need JR2 to tell us that. What I want to know is why our owners who can spank what must be multi millions of pounds now on fruitless courtcases couldn't table a bid for a tangable asset that would have been in the best interest of the club. Everything else is just a load of playground he said she said nonsense.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
At least two years I think has been suggested.
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
They have no style, or class.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Yeah. It took Greenland 3 years from referendum to withdrawal, that was in the 1980s when the EU was simpler than it is now.
I wouldn't be surprised if we don't formally withdraw until say 2020. Part of the reason for that is that the European funding that Britain accesses is drawn in programs, the current one running from 2014-2020.
I wouldn't be surprised if we don't formally withdraw until say 2020. Part of the reason for that is that the European funding that Britain accesses is drawn in programs, the current one running from 2014-2020.
Amen
duffer
Well-Known Member
You do understand that at some point you have to pay all of the money back, right?
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
Seems likely the action won't stop. Eu appeal court appearance to be announced by sisu as next course of action.
Does it get any worse?
Does it get any worse?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Obviuosly !!
But as time goes on the risk becomes less and their ability to pay back becomes easier. Well that's the plan !!!
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
If it doesn't affect the club or the clubs budget then I can't see what the issue is. Let them appeal and throw their money away.