Court hearing (2 Viewers)

Forums New posts
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
and to think not many weeks ago Fisher said it had been suspended and nothing other than bits of legal procedure to keep it open going on

and of course nothing to do with CCFC:facepalm:
 
bawtryneal

bawtryneal

Well-Known Member
Madness
Will not help the stadium negotiations for next season.
What is the betting that SISU win a small victory.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
All of the stuff with offers and u turns and then the dates coming out just makes you wonder about the games being played behind closed doors.

It's as if they are all there having a massive match that we don't really know about.

I'll predict now, we will probably find out a few things that make CCC and Wasps look bad but overall SISU will lose and then it will go to appeal.

I'll save a few quid on legal fees and just call it!
 
Ranjit Bhurpa

Ranjit Bhurpa

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
Wouldn't be a proper summer without it.
Click to expand...
And just as we were getting enthused about early signings such as Doyle and possible non-league strikers, this rears it's head again.
1 small step forward then 3 backwards.
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58 said:
and to think not many weeks ago Fisher said it had been suspended and nothing other than bits of legal procedure to keep it open going on

and of course nothing to do with CCFC:facepalm:
Click to expand...

It says that SISU wish to amend the claim form, though what that means in actuality I don't know.
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
basically rewording it to cover the bits of the kitchen sink they missed including in their rush to file in first place
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
So someone remind me what this one is actually about. Is this the main one against Wasps for the council loan or something? Will it be the same stuff as before with appeals and stuff? What can actually happen afterwards?
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
as I understand it this is presenting the outline case to a judge to get permission to go to a full hearing............... this will run for months even years

Deals with the Wasps purchase and the events concerning the CCC sale of their interest in 2014.

If SISU win the full case they gain nothing immediately, (CCC would appeal in any case) but may be able to bring a commercial case for compensation in future
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
So someone remind me what this one is actually about. Is this the main one against Wasps for the council loan or something? Will it be the same stuff as before with appeals and stuff? What can actually happen afterwards?
Click to expand...

It's just another JR examining a different council action, under the same grounds that the council breached State Aid regulations, this time about the sale of ACL to Wasps rather than loaning ACL money.
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
So is this one of the times where Fisher lies when suits and if yes which way does it suit? The SISU apologists or the council lovers ;)

Do you know I'm really surprised that anyone still uses that line to win / dismiss an argument on here. It's like arguing shit stinks when it suits.
 
Captain Dart

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
So someone remind me what this one is actually about. Is this the main one against Wasps for the council loan or something? Will it be the same stuff as before with appeals and stuff? What can actually happen afterwards?
Click to expand...

JR2 is a case in which the litigants make an almost diametrically opposed argument to JR1.

In JR1 it was argued the lease was practically worthless, in JR2 the argument will be that it was sold at a significantly less value than it was worth.

The situation sucks big time, it simply keeps the club unstable and unable to move back to where the only fully professional football club in the 9th largest City in the UK righly belongs.

Excuse me now I'm popping outside to scream at the world.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
It's just another JR examining a different council action, under the same grounds that the council breached State Aid regulations, this time about the sale of ACL to Wasps rather than loaning ACL money.
Click to expand...

Cheers. So it's against the council still but about the sale of ACL to Wasps?

And like before I take it only damages could be awarded? They can't undo the decision?
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Can someone do a list of their arguments from JR1 (5 IIRC) so we can play a sort of JR bingo and tick them of when they argue against their own arguments from JR1 in JR2. It seems to me that they'll have to.
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Captain Dart said:
JR2 is a case in which the litigants make an almost diametrically opposed argument to JR1.

In JR1 it was argued the lease was practically worthless, in JR2 the argument will be that it was sold at a significantly less vale than it was worth.

The situation sucks big time, it simply keeps the club unstable and unable to move back to where the only fully professional football club in the 9th largest City in the UK righly belongs.

Excuse me now I'm popping outside to scream at the world.
Click to expand...

JR1 wasn't about the value of the lease. It was about the council loaning money to a company at rates that an open market lender wouldn't due to the company's financial position.
 
Esoterica

Esoterica

Well-Known Member
Somebody make it stop!
giphy.gif
 
Captain Dart

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
JR1 wasn't about the value of the lease. It was about the council loaning money to a company at rates that an open market lender wouldn't due to the company's financial position.
Click to expand...

Yes and part of their argument was that loan amount was far greater than the value of the asset (the lease) upon which it was secured, hence it wasn't an acceptable commercial risk Do keep up.
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Cheers. So it's against the council still but about the sale of ACL to Wasps?

And like before I take it only damages could be awarded? They can't undo the decision?
Click to expand...

Don't think they could award damages. If the council are found to be in the wrong I think SISU would have to take out a separate case to persue compensation.
 
Sky Blue Harry H

Sky Blue Harry H

Well-Known Member
Big bingo phrase ' we can't reveal that information, as it's commercially senstive' that TF trots out

...also we ought to run a SBT forum competition for the next time TF's 'on air' defending the indefensible, for the number of patronising/condescending sighs he lets out.
 
Philosoraptor

Philosoraptor

Well-Known Member
If there is an argument to suggest the Councils sale to the London sports company was not fully compliant with law then shouldn't it be heard in court?

As I understand it, this is different from the first case and could not proceed until the other point of law was dealt with first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top