Pure guesswork in part.........
We all know that "stories" of events differ. When you go to court the barrister paints a picture of what went on in order to place his clients claim in the best light. It doesn't mean it is the whole truth or even the full picture, it wont be fantasy or untruth though. What SISU could be gathering in is "evidence" that points towards CCFC being forced out of the City. It doesn't mean that there is a plan by others (CCC etc) to do so, but there is a possibility there could be. It would just mean that SISU could paint a picture using selected facts, letters, emails etc. that could be the basis of a court action that their investment has been deliberately sabotaged and they are due compensation.
Pure guess but I can see further legal actions based on the story that can be painted in order to get compensation for loss of investment, deliberate sabotage, mis-representation etc - that doesn't mean they are right or will win but there is a chance however small/minute of arguing a case. That's the thing about English Law isn't it every dog can have its day in court even if the story can be rebutted. Seen it before haven't we. Of course that could go on for years, doesn't mean that SISU have to still own CCFC, and could be very costly in time and legal fees, it could even lead to a payment to make it go away
Similarly with the FL. The club will present to the FL the facts etc that best support the things they are reporting. The FL are not well staffed to go investigate all of the claims and counter claims and in any case are there to support and assist its member clubs. The club is not doing anything wrong in doing that, and it is in the best interests of the club to tell the FL the facts/story from the clubs point of view. There is plenty of "evidence " that could be presented to the FL to argue their case it is not up to the club to argue against itself.
Another alternative is that SISU do not have a clue what they are doing. Frankly I find that to be a bit of a stretch. They might not run the club how we want it to be, they might not employ directors that we believe are up to the job (although each has been a clever intelligent person in their own right) but this isn't really about running a football club for SISU though is it. The people operating at Kensington Rd London are clever and good at what they do - that isn't running a football club though its high risk investment projects/strategies.
The club is just a tool for the purpose of extracting the best return for the investors. Originally that return was a quick promotion to Premiership riches, then it became acquisition at cheapest price of the Ricoh and the cash flow based value that could provide, now it seems to be headed towards compensation by repeated court action
Whilst the club breaks even in cash flow terms, it will cost SISU no more investment. The club will be allowed to float to its own level on its own means. I suspect the investor losses were crystallised several years ago when ownership transferred from the original funds, so the Sconset value of CCFC has always been low from that time and the current situation doesn't alter that too much. SISU will look for ways to extract worth/value, the whole SISU business appears based on high(er) risk investment and gaining return for investors, it isn't about running the business invested in. Court cases are a way of extracting worth. In all that lays much to be worried about for CCFC fans. In that lays the potential for decisions that you would not normally associate with a community based football club and large amount of concern/worry for the future of CCFC
I believe they are looking for a way out but with a return, I suspect they wish they had never been involved. . A return doesn't necessarily mean selling the business for great value (see above)