Higgs have legal clauses inserted to block CCFC and back Wasps only (21 Viewers)

[The Reverend Skyblue]

If it is true that Wasps don't want SISU at the Ricoh.
If it is true that they don't want them at the academy
If SISU were lying about building their own stadium and they can't afford it or won't pay for it.
If I were them I can genuinely only see one option.
Get the team into the championship so Wasps see the potential success achieves with the fan base.
Then offer the Golden share as an investment into a business ran by the people bankrolling Wasps and they run it as a joint venture at the Ricoh.
SISU negotiate staged returns on their investment and hope to god Wasps can get CCFC into the premiership.
I struggle to see any other solution if the start of this thread is correct of course

Don you know deep down there is not a snowball in hell chance of that happening.
If Wasps took us over thats it for me, one hedge fund to another, fuck that.
SISU will liquidate us, that is what they will do if they can't get a ground within another councils boundary.
SISU are far from down and out, off we go on our travels again.
I hate this fucking council and that so called charity, let's get rid of them and the insects all in one go. We would lose some support if we get a ground elsewhere but we would be able to draw new support from our new locations surrounding area.

 

---

[skybluetony176]

Steel manufacturer who is closing down in UK while we subsidise other parts of the group!

Tea bag maker.

 

[oldfiver]

Tea bag maker.

Is that because they bought Tetleys ?

 

[skybluetony176]

Is that because they bought Tetleys ?

Purely for the freeze drying technology they owned I seem to remember reading somewhere at the time. IIRC it was cheaper to buy Tetley's than start with a blank piece of paper. Good business nouns that.

 

[dongonzalos]

Don you know deep down there is not a snowball in hell chance of that happening.
If Wasps took us over thats it for me, one hedge fund to another, fuck that.
SISU will liquidate us, that is what they will do if they can't get a ground within another councils boundary.
SISU are far from down and out, off we go on our travels again.
I hate this fucking council and that so called charity, let's get rid of them and the insects all in one go. We would lose some support if we get a ground elsewhere but we would be able to draw new support from our new locations surrounding area.

If they liquidated us
They would still sell the golden share first.

 

[chiefdave]

SISU don't give a shit about how much damage CCC, Higgs and Wasps do to the club. These people aren't hurting SISU they are hurting the football club. They will hold onto the club while legal action is ongoing, once they've got no more appeals left they will probably liquidate us.

Speaking of which, on the basis that SISU won't just give up and walk away isn't this kind of thing good for SISU's legal action?
Hard for Higgs or CCC to stand up in court and claim they don't have it in for SISU.

 

[Ian1779]

If they liquidated us
They would still sell the golden share first.

It's not possible to do that.

 

[oldfiver]

Purely for the freeze drying technology they owned I seem to remember reading somewhere at the time. IIRC it was cheaper to buy Tetley's than start with a blank piece of paper. Good business nouns that.

Tetleys invented the tea bag - if you can invent a tea bag

 

[skybluetony176]

Speaking of which, on the basis that SISU won't just give up and walk away isn't this kind of thing good for SISU's legal action?
Hard for Higgs or CCC to stand up in court and claim they don't have it in for SISU.

I doubt what has happened since Wasps purchased ACL would even be considered. It's all about a certain timeline up to and including the takeover. What's happened nearly two years later has no bearing on it I would think.

 

[skybluetony176]

Tetleys invented the tea bag - if you can invent a tea bag

Square, round or pyramid?

 

[Hobo]

Seppella and fisher I would think have has more abuse on here that the self satisfied Peter Wyndham Knatchbull-hugerson.

Please don't try and defend him on here.

I am not defending him. I am suggesting abuse towards anyone is unacceptable and there is no justification for it.

 

[Nick]

That's makes the abuse he received okay then? Perhaps you should have an abuse given count so we all know who it is okay in your book to give abuse to?

It was quite bad.

His family are lawyers though. I am sure that can get rolled out if anybody disagrees or steps out of line.

 

[chiefdave]

I doubt what has happened since Wasps purchased ACL would even be considered. It's all about a certain timeline up to and including the takeover. What's happened nearly two years later has no bearing on it I would think.

But force SISU out and you certain there wouldn't be another court case started up because I'm not.

 

[Captain Dart]

Maybe, I think the reality is probably more that it's just Wasps acting in their own interests to be honest, and some of their objectives and those of CCFC are mutually exclusive. The council has shown that it doesn't care about CCFC, it has got a new friend now in Wasps and is staking its own reputation on Wasps' success (hence the City of Rugby drivel). The AHT has never really been interested in the club, in my opinion its only interest was ensuring that investment into CCFC or the stadium project by Higgs as a director was never lost.

That is absolutely not true. charity invested £8M to build the Alan Higgs Centre, http://leisureopportunities.co.uk/detail.cfm?pagetype=detail&subject=news&codeID=8948 without that investment the Academy could not have been cat 2 at all. They also took on 50% of the ACL shares on the understanding that they'd get their money back, they didn't in the end and lost around £4M.

At some point everything changed, I could only make a supposition as to why, and instead of actively supporting the club the charity has actively distanced itself from the club and continues to make sure that they won't get involved again in the future.

 

[Calista]

Just when you think it’s impossible for things to get worse.

Amongst all the talk of this being the end, I think people are overlooking the most likely scenario. That we keep on bumbling along staggering from one disaster to another, with the owners permanently dug in, and more and more corners cut on the budget.

As far as the Higgs position goes, it’s a nasty piece of vindictiveness that hurts so many people far more than it does SISU. On the other hand, does anybody really know what happened around 2012 to inspire such long-term hatred?

 

[CCFC Germany]

Coventry City AFC anyone ?

 

[Nick]

Coventry City AFC anyone ?

Not a chance for me.

 

[chiefdave]

Coventry City AFC anyone ?

I don't think it would work. There's too much apathy. You wouldn't have a situation like AFC Wimbledon with everyone working together and getting behind the club. Some would go to Wasps, some to Cov United and some to Sphinx. The others would either find something apart from football to occupy their time or by happy with their Sky subscriptions.

 

[Nick]

I don't think it would work. There's too much apathy. You wouldn't have a situation like AFC Wimbledon with everyone working together and getting behind the club. Some would go to Wasps, some to Cov United and some to Sphinx. The others would either find something apart from football to occupy their time or by happy with their Sky subscriptions.

It would be sad, but I'd be done with football full stop. Yeah I would probably watch England but that's about it

 

[shmmeee]

But force SISU out and you certain there wouldn't be another court case started up because I'm not.

Why? Private organisation refused to work with other private organisation is hardly a crime. You can't sue for someone being mean. This isn't Twitter.

Hate to say I told you so, but maybe burning all your bridges like a madman before working out your own plan isn't the great business genius we have been lead to believe.

Maybe it's a bunch of petty people without a fucking clue how to run a club.

We can bitch and moan about other actors, but at the end of the day the only people with a responsibility to ensure the club is viable is the owner. Sisu are increasingly like the guy in the after school special who acts like a nob for ages then complain when noone likes him. Or the naughty kids who whine about not being allowed on a trip. Actions have consequences, Joy decided long ago that petty games were more important than CCFCs long term future and was cheered on.

You reap what you sow, there'll be no tears from me if third parties decide their shit isn't worth it.

 

[Nick]

but at the end of the day the only people with a responsibility to ensure the club is viable is the owner.

How does that work with the council's promises about Wasps moving here?*

*This isn't sarcasm, it is just if they have written conditions that have been agreed etcthat the wasps move must not damage the club then surely they have some responsibility too between wasps and ccfc?

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Why? Private organisation refused to work with other private organisation is hardly a crime. You can't sue for someone being mean. This isn't Twitter.

Hate to say I told you so, but maybe burning all your bridges like a madman before working out your own plan isn't the great business genius we have been lead to believe.

Maybe it's a bunch of petty people without a fucking clue how to run a club.

We can bitch and moan about other actors, but at the end of the day the only people with a responsibility to ensure the club is viable is the owner. Sisu are increasingly like the guy in the after school special who acts like a nob for ages then complain when noone likes him. Or the naughty kids who whine about not being allowed on a trip. Actions have consequences, Joy decided long ago that petty games were more important than CCFCs long term future and was cheered on.

You reap what you sow, there'll be no tears from me if third parties decide their shit isn't worth it.

Cheered on by who?

 

[chiefdave]

Why? Private organisation refused to work with other private organisation is hardly a crime. You can't sue for someone being mean. This isn't Twitter.

Are you really doubting that SISU would not take further legal action? The general consensus is the council have done no wrong yet there's already one court case in progress and another on the way.

 

[skybluetony176]

Are you really doubting that SISU would not take further legal action? The general consensus is the council have done no wrong yet there's already one court case in progress and another on the way.

The general consensus is rulings in law from four highly qualified people who understand law infinitely better than anyone on here. It's more a statement of fact than a consensus.

 

[Nick]

The general consensus is rulings in law from four highly qualified people who understand law infinitely better than anyone on here. It's more a statement of fact than a consensus.

I think all that has been judged is that it wasn't illegal state aid wasn't it? Christ, seems a bit tame to some of the other shit.

 

[chiefdave]

The general consensus is rulings in law from four highly qualified people who understand law infinitely better than anyone on here. It's more a statement of fact than a consensus.

So if SISU are prepared to continue the existing court action why would anyone think they would hesitate to undertake further legal action irrespective of if they were still the clubs owners or not.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

The general consensus is rulings in law from four highly qualified people who understand law infinitely better than anyone on here. It's more a statement of fact than a consensus.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here of the point chiefdave was trying to make

 

[skybluetony176]

I think all that has been judged is that it wasn't illegal state aid wasn't it? Christ, seems a bit tame to some of the other shit.

I was replying specifically to the post Dave made about consensus and the JR's. It's not a consensus regarding the ACL a ruling has been made in law and upheld in law. That's not a consensus, that's fact. JR2 hasn't even been accepted as raising any point in law yet. Whatever SISU's argument is it may have no point in law to make in which case there will be no JR2.

 

[Nick]

I was replying specifically to the post Dave made about consensus and the JR's. It's not a consensus regarding the ACL a ruling has been made in law and upheld in law. That's not a consensus, that's fact. JR2 hasn't even been accepted as raising any point in law yet. Whatever SISU's argument is it may have no point in law to make in which case there will be no JR2.

Wasn't his point that SISU weren't shy of legal stuff so they would do some more if they got "forced out"?

 

[armybike]

Am I reading this wrong but even with this clause, they can still negotiate having the academy it just can't be a tenure for more than 7 years. After say 5-6 years could a new further lease be negotiated?

Yep, that's correct.

Technically the Academy could stay there, just a facility to combine the first team and Academy couldn't be built on the site which is something that Anderson had mooted.

 

[skybluetony176]

So if SISU are prepared to continue the existing court action why would anyone think they would hesitate to undertake further legal action irrespective of if they were still the clubs owners or not.

Have they even lodged an appeal yet? What form will that appeal have? Haven't they said that they're considering splitting JR1 up? Part to go to the supreme court, part to go to the European court? Sounds like more shit slinging to me hoping something sticks only now they're slinging in two different directions in a desperate scattergun attack.

They can try JR2 but don't they have to convince a judge first that there is merit in their argument for it to see a judicial review? Might never see the inside of a court room in anger for all we know at the moment.

 

[skybluetony176]

Wasn't his point that SISU weren't shy of legal stuff so they would do some more if they got "forced out"?

Based on what? Hostile takeovers are (dare I say it) standard business practice. I don't think you can take someone to court because they don't like you and won't deal with you meaning that you have no choice but to sell your business. That's life. It happens every day. People deal with people and by the same token chose not to deal with certain people. We live in a free market economy and the AEHC are under no requirement in law to deal with CCFC past the end of the current contract.

 

[Nick]

Based on what? Hostile takeovers are (dare I say it) standard business practice. I don't think you can take someone to court because they don't like you and won't deal with you meaning that you have no choice but to sell your business. That's life. It happens every day. People deal with people and by the same token chose not to deal with certain people. We live in a free market economy and the AEHC are under no requirement in law to deal with CCFC past the end of the current contract.

I guess they could base it on the promises when Wasps came in, who knows. I am sure they will try and find something.

 

[skybluetony176]

I guess they could base it on the promises when Wasps came in, who knows. I am sure they will try and find something.

I don't think a promise can be classed as a legally binding contract. I wouldn't pin my hopes in them finding anything if I was you. They haven't found anything that sticks in court as yet and this seems the flimsiest of all of the flimsy arguments. The nearest they've came to court success is with Higgs when the judge concluded that despite having a contract neither party had an interest in moving forward so basically the contract had been voided meaning Higgs couldn't get costs back as per the contract.

Higgs couldn't win that even with a signed contract in place. A promise is worth even less in a court of law. It's a non starter.

 

[Nick]

I don't think a promise can be classed as a legally binding contract. I wouldn't pin my hopes in them finding anything if I was you. They haven't found anything that sticks in court as yet and this seems the flimsiest of all of the flimsy arguments. The nearest they've came to court success is with Higgs when the judge concluded that despite having a contract neither party had an interest in moving forward so basically the contract had been voided meaning Higgs couldn't get costs back as per the contract.

Higgs couldn't win that even with a signed contract in place. A promise is worth even less in a court of law. It's a non starter.

Where was I pinning my hopes on anything? I was saying that SISU would try for court action over any little thing they could possibly find.
Higgs didn't win that because the signed contract didn't have anything about the situation that happened didn't they?