Is There Anything SISU Could Do? (10 Viewers)

[dongonzalos]

Football is there whether we win or lose though, go back to the start of pre season and you will see me saying that the decent recruitment was down to mr and tw....

Nobody bar about 2 mentalist would seriously try and credit sisu for the good form.

However there are clubs out there whose owners do get a lot of credit for the success in the pitch. Due to the way the club is run.
So it is important and It would be great one day if we get that type of owner.

 

---

[oldskyblue58]

So in real terms for Otium to pay the costs of failed judgement the football club would have to sell an assett to pay for it?

that is a potential risk yes. SBS&L do not have any income source other than from perhaps Otium. ARVO I assume has funds but is it keen to throw more money at associated CCFC things? Going to be hard to chase them in the Cayman Islands in any case. SISU could have given undertakings to the court about costs but you might expect some mention of that contingent liability in their financials. Which leaves third party legal fee providers, which could be available but don't necessarily cover all the costs. For anyone to think there is no potential for risk to CCFC is a little naïve but there are risks to much needed commercial relationships too for CCFC.

Of course it isn't the first time the owners have given assurances........ and we know how well that has gone. It might be different this time of course and Otium carries no risk or liability only time will tell

So will it happen, no idea. Could it happen yes (doesn't mean it will) Are there risks to CCFC brought by the JR yes. Are there ways to extract funds from Otium CCFC that are not a direct payment of court case costs but would allow ARVO or SBS&L to pay the costs yes - just draw down some of the interest that has been accrued for example

 

[Adge]

However there are clubs out there whose owners do get a lot of credit for the success in the pitch. Due to the way the club is run.
So it is important and It would be great one day if we get that type of owner.

Indeed! Southampton, Burnley and Huddersfield are good examples at the top level. Bradford in L1 too.

 

[chiefdave]

Of course it isn't the first time the owners have given assurances........ and we know how well that has gone.

Have legal costs been paid by the club for any of the past legal action?

 

[oldskyblue58]

The last Club statement said not. Have any costs been paid by anyone yet on the current case though? we do not know. Has the draw down of other debts covered any of the costs we don't know

Previous cases (JR1 etc) Otium/CCFC were not named as complainant so wouldn't be liable

But then that wasn't the assurances I was referring to

 

[skybluetony176]

Have legal costs been paid by the club for any of the past legal action?

Was the club liable for any of the past legal action? The only companies that formed part of the club last time that was involved was CCFC Ltd wasn’t it? And that had long disappeared before JR1 came to an end so a company that no longer existed couldn’t contribute. Very different to JR2 where despite the club issuing a statement saying it’s the owners who are bringing this case the court documents say different. There’s lots of potential for the club to be liable for costs. Unless there’s another administration around the corner.

 

[Warwickhunt]

that is a potential risk yes. SBS&L do not have any income source other than from perhaps Otium. ARVO I assume has funds but is it keen to throw more money at associated CCFC things? Going to be hard to chase them in the Cayman Islands in any case. SISU could have given undertakings to the court about costs but you might expect some mention of that contingent liability in their financials. Which leaves third party legal fee providers, which could be available but don't necessarily cover all the costs. For anyone to think there is no potential for risk to CCFC is a little naïve but there are risks to much needed commercial relationships too for CCFC.

Of course it isn't the first time the owners have given assurances........ and we know how well that has gone. It might be different this time of course and Otium carries no risk or liability only time will tell

So will it happen, no idea. Could it happen yes (doesn't mean it will) Are there risks to CCFC brought by the JR yes. Are there ways to extract funds from Otium CCFC that are not a direct payment of court case costs but would allow ARVO or SBS&L to pay the costs yes - just draw down some of the interest that has been accrued for example

horrible feeling of not being in control

 

[ccfcway]

The football isn't a side show, it will be here before and after sisu and court cases. It's the one single thing all ccfc fans have in common.

what about not being able to back down, we all have that in common as well

 

[dongonzalos]

Have legal costs been paid by the club for any of the past legal action?

If legal costs are paid by SISU.
It's a gamble that paying those legal costs will have more chance of getting their investors money back.
Than investing s similar amount on getting success on the pitch.

 

[oldskyblue58]

latest club statement on the issue

STATEMENT: Club response to recent Sky Blue Trust statement

misses the bit that the Club is actually jointly taking the action with others (the owners), in its Limited Company guise, against CCC and Wasps but the contents are fair enough

Couldn't be liable for previous court cases because they were not party to them. Would be interesting to know what it is that no longer makes them joint & severally liable for potential costs and its force in law.

As was said Otium & CCFC are one and the same thing - this CCFC statement confirms it - and that leaves options & risks going forward

Not sure it removes any potential risks as such, but will take the nil liability today at face value for now.

So the question I would want to ask is if the Club are not liable who is?

 

[Nick]

latest club statement on the issue

STATEMENT: Club response to recent Sky Blue Trust statement

misses the bit that the Club is actually jointly taking the action with others in its Limited Company guise against CCC and Wasps but the contents are fair enough

Couldn't be liable for previous court cases because they were not party to them

They could be addressing fans who think they have, or meant from the things earlier in the year for JR2.

I'd guess it's the work of Boddy behind the statement rather than Fisher, mainly due to this:

The club continues to strive to build relationships with supporters groups including the Sky Blue Trust, the board of which enjoyed a positive first meeting with club Chief Executive Dave Boddy recently.

We look forward to further such meetings, and continuing to make arrangements with the Trust for Manager Mark Robins to appear at a forthcoming open meeting alongside maintaining dialogue on other issues and improvements we can make by working together.

 

[oldskyblue58]

think you might well be right Nick

 

[fernandopartridge]

latest club statement on the issue

STATEMENT: Club response to recent Sky Blue Trust statement

misses the bit that the Club is actually jointly taking the action with others, in its Limited Company guise, against CCC and Wasps but the contents are fair enough

Couldn't be liable for previous court cases because they were not party to them. Would be interesting to know what it is that no longer makes them joint & severally liable for potential costs and its force in law.

As was said Otium & CCFC are one and the same thing - this statement confirms it - and leaves options

One worry that crossed my mind is what happens if the court finds against SISU / Otium. Are SISU positioning the club ready for another insolvency, i.e. it won't pay the council / Wasps costs because the claimants including the club cannot afford it?

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

One worry that crossed my mind is what happens if the court finds against SISU / Otium. Are SISU positioning the club ready for another insolvency, i.e. it won't pay the council / Wasps costs because the claimants including the club cannot afford it?

The first thing you've said that I 100% agree with.

 

[oldskyblue58]

One worry that crossed my mind is what happens if the court finds against SISU / Otium. Are SISU positioning the club ready for another insolvency, i.e. it won't pay the council / Wasps costs because the claimants including the club cannot afford it?

that is a risk fp. What I am not sure of is the jurisdiction of an English court over a Cayman Island based company, can ARVO be forced to pay? SBS&L have no funds to do so. SISU are not named on the court docs but have they underwritten the costs somehow?

Its a thought that keeps crossing my mind but are they waiting for someone else to press the button on a lot of the issues facing the club before taking control again........ "it wasn't us guv it was them"

 

[oldskyblue58]

Summary of rights under Cayman Island law regarding foreign judgements

http://www.applebyglobal.com/public...f-foreign-judgments-in-the-cayman-islands.pdf

Looks to me like it would be a long expensive process and not guaranteed - only had a very brief look though.

Far easier to chase assets in UK. But all Otium ones are charged to ARVO

 

[skybluetony176]

One worry that crossed my mind is what happens if the court finds against SISU / Otium. Are SISU positioning the club ready for another insolvency, i.e. it won't pay the council / Wasps costs because the claimants including the club cannot afford it?

That has been my worry all along. Seems to me that the club is perfectly poised to be put into admin again when ACL/CCC are owed money. ARVO’s charges and accrued interesting is the mechanism to do it.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Only thing against administration is the cost to SISU to regain the control. Last time it cost them £1.5m. That was effectively spent on the administrator. Would the court costs be significantly more than that to make it a possible scenario and worthwhile?

Clearly they have a strategy and plan...... what it is who knows............. but my own guess is that its an investment strategy not a football one

The thing about joint and several liability for costs is that each party is liable for the full amount not a proportion of it ....... any creditor would chase the assets to get settlement...... easiest target first .....

 

[fernandopartridge]

Only thing against administration is the cost to SISU to regain the control. Last time it cost them £1.5m. That was effectively spent on the administrator. Would the court costs be significantly more than that to make it a possible scenario and worthwhile?

Clearly they have a strategy and plan...... what it is who knows............. but my own guess is that its an investment strategy not a football one

The thing about joint and several liability for costs is that each party is liable for the full amount not a proportion of it ....... any creditor would chase the assets to get settlement

In this case, it may be that Otium must be a claimant as SISU may argue that it is Otium who would have been the likely bidder had CCC gone through some other type of or open process to sell their half of the Arena, but then again not sure it matters that much

 

[oldskyblue58]

all about maximising the compensation if successful I would agree, seems strange they would have Otium take a share of the riches but not carry any of the risk or costs.......

 

[skybluetony176]

Only thing against administration is the cost to SISU to regain the control. Last time it cost them £1.5m. That was effectively spent on the administrator. Would the court costs be significantly more than that to make it a possible scenario and worthwhile?

Clearly they have a strategy and plan...... what it is who knows............. but my own guess is that its an investment strategy not a football one

The thing about joint and several liability for costs is that each party is liable for the full amount not a proportion of it ....... any creditor would chase the assets to get settlement...... easiest target first .....

That’s assuming that they want to take back control again. Is It possible that ARVO could take Ryton and then let the administrators sell what’s left? Or even the adimin splitting the assets and selling them. With ARVO having charges over the assets wouldn’t they get everything minus the administrators costs?

 

[Covstu]

Summary of rights under Cayman Island law regarding foreign judgements

http://www.applebyglobal.com/public...f-foreign-judgments-in-the-cayman-islands.pdf

Looks to me like it would be a long expensive process and not guaranteed - only had a very brief look though.

Far easier to chase assets in UK. But all Otium ones are charged to ARVO

So this could be the reason why they are intent to extend the legal process as no one can tie down costs even if they pick up costs for all parties?

 

[Nick]

So Gilbert is pushing it as well and has busted out his Fake Amazon Book Review account to try and back himself up / discredit in advance.

What is suddenly going on for the massive push on this now, when we have known for over 2 and a half years? Do the Trust etc know something we don't that is happening now that wasn't happening 2 years ago? (That's a genuine question).

OSB: In regards to making it hard to get court fees from Arvo, how would it work the other way in awarding them "damages" if for some strange reason they won?

 

[skybluetony176]

So Gilbert is pushing it as well and has busted out his Fake Amazon Book Review account to try and back himself up / discredit in advance.

What is suddenly going on for the massive push on this now, when we have known for over 2 and a half years? Do the Trust etc know something we don't that is happening now that wasn't happening 2 years ago? (That's a genuine question).

OSB: In regards to making it hard to get court fees from Arvo, how would it work the other way in awarding them "damages" if for some strange reason they won?

What is it with you and conspiracy theories? All anyone has done is clarifying the reality of it. The only thing attempting to muddy the water is the statements coming out the club. Why don’t you question that.

SBS&L, ARVO & OEG are liable for costs if the court action fails. The court papers confirm that. If for some reason they don’t get paid in the event of a loss who is going to be pursued to recover those costs? A secretive company based in an offshore tax haven or the two companies based in the local vicinity. It really isn’t that hard Nick.

 

[Nick]

What is it with you and conspiracy theories? All anyone has done is clarifying the reality of it. The only thing attempting to muddy the water is the statements coming out the club. Why don’t you question that.

SBS&L, ARVO & OEG are liable for costs if the court action fails. The court papers confirm that. If for some reason they don’t get paid in the event of a loss who is going to be pursued to recover those costs? A secretive company based in an offshore tax haven or the two companies based in the local vicinity. It really isn’t that hard Nick.

How is it muddying the water by them saying the club havent or wont be paying the fees? I guess we will find out if they will or not wont we when it hopefully gets kicked out at the next step.

As for you shouting conspiracy when I point things out, you usually miss out that I am usually right when I point things like this out that there is more to it than what meets the eye.

Again, the court papers are over 2 and a half years old. Why the sudden emphasis and push now? That's what I am asking. I can understand at the time when the named people came out, so what's different now?

 

[oldskyblue58]

So Gilbert is pushing it as well and has busted out his Fake Amazon Book Review account to try and back himself up / discredit in advance.

What is suddenly going on for the massive push on this now, when we have known for over 2 and a half years? Do the Trust etc know something we don't that is happening now that wasn't happening 2 years ago? (That's a genuine question).

OSB: In regards to making it hard to get court fees from Arvo, how would it work the other way in awarding them "damages" if for some strange reason they won?

Wouldn't be a problem Nick because the defendants are UK based with a UK court jurisdiction

 

[Nick]

Wouldn't be a problem Nick because the defendants are UK based with a UK court jurisdiction

It just seems silly how they can say "We can't take court fees etc as you are abroad" but they can say "Here, have all this compensation even if you are abroad".

Would the judge be able to have any say on that?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Doesn't affect the award of damages to say ARVO as it could all take place in UK and in UK courts.

enforcement in another country is always going to be more difficult

My assumption is that whoever is liable to pay the costs will pay them

 

[oldskyblue58]

As for something going on in the background ....... really not sure there is. Cant think of anything that hasn't hit a brick wall other than JR2

 

[Captain Dart]

Lets look at this from the other direction.

If CCFC are not liable for costs then are they still entitled to damages?
Or has a deal been struck that ARVO take all the risks but also get all the rewards.

 

[skybluetony176]

How is it muddying the water by them saying the club havent or wont be paying the fees? I guess we will find out if they will or not wont we when it hopefully gets kicked out at the next step.

As for you shouting conspiracy when I point things out, you usually miss out that I am usually right when I point things like this out that there is more to it than what meets the eye.

Again, the court papers are over 2 and a half years old. Why the sudden emphasis and push now? That's what I am asking. I can understand at the time when the named people came out, so what's different now?

There’s always more than meets the eye from all sides. You’re not some genius who gets it when no one else does. It’s being questioned because two statements from the club now have failed to show the situation for what it truly is. So the club issue a statement saying that the club won’t be paying any legal costs, so we’re in a new ground then? The exciting announcement in the new year happened then? These are all statements that have appeared on the clubs site so you’ll forgive me for taking anything to do with politics posted on the clubs site with a very large pinch of salt. Remember TF only lies when suits, that statement works both ways.

I don’t understand why you have such an issue with people clarifying the situation when waters are deliberately being muddied. If something is going on behind the scenes wouldn’t you prefer to have clarification on what we do know? Or are you happy that the club issues a statement that the owners are taking the council to court when in fact the owners aren’t even listed on the court papers? Unless there has been a change of ownership that we’re yet to find out about.

 

[Nick]

There’s always more than meets the eye from all sides. You’re not some genius who gets it when no one else does. It’s being questioned because two statements from the club now have failed to show the situation for what it truly is. So the club issue a statement saying that the club won’t be paying any legal costs, so we’re in a new ground then? The exciting announcement in the new year happened then? These are all statements that have appeared on the clubs site so you’ll forgive me for taking anything to do with politics posted on the clubs site with a very large pinch of salt. Remember TF only lies when suits, that statement works both ways.

I don’t understand why you have such an issue with people clarifying the situation when waters are deliberately being muddied. If something is going on behind the scenes wouldn’t you prefer to have clarification on what we do know? Or are you happy that the club issues a statement that the owners are taking the council to court when in fact the owners aren’t even listed on the court papers? Unless there has been a change of ownership that we’re yet to find out about.

That is why I am asking why all of a sudden is it desperation to get that point across and not 2015 when the court papers came out? That is why I said we will see about the court costs and what happens, but as of yet have they paid any? I am not disputing and saying that it is never possible CCFC will pay, I am not disputing anything to do with Otium, I am asking why the sudden urge and campaign to get that across now?

If things are going on behind the scenes then surely we would prefer to know that?

It is pretty clear who is pushing the court stuff isn't it?

Do you think TF is behind the latest statements? They seem to be a bit better and faster to react than he would usually get credit for.

 

[skybluetony176]

That is why I am asking why all of a sudden is it desperation to get that point across and not 2015 when the court papers came out? That is why I said we will see about the court costs and what happens, but as of yet have they paid any? I am not disputing and saying that it is never possible CCFC will pay, I am not disputing anything to do with Otium, I am asking why the sudden urge and campaign to get that across now?

If things are going on behind the scenes then surely we would prefer to know that?

It is pretty clear who is pushing the court stuff isn't it?

Do you think TF is behind the latest statements? They seem to be a bit better and faster to react than he would usually get credit for.

Are you talking about the club or the trust? I would say that the trust response is based on the continuation of JR2, fans concerns (although not yours apparently) and possibly of the back of the initial club statement that said it was the owners bringing the the case, when the court papers clearly say different. The clubs second statement is in response to the trusts yet is still very aloof in acknowledging that the owners aren’t bringing the court case and the club is along with ARVO. JR2 has moved forward, it’s now taken on another life. Are you really surprised that there’s been a response to that or are you just pretending again?

What I would like to know is all available, that word again, available facts and an understanding of what that means. The clubs statements muddy that and presumably deliberately, the trust clarify it. What’s your problem?

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Are you talking about the club or the trust? I would say that the trust response is based on the continuation of JR2, fans concerns (although not yours apparently) and possibly of the back of the initial club statement that said it was the owners bringing the the case, when the court papers clearly say different. The clubs second statement is in response to the trusts yet is still very aloof in acknowledging that the owners aren’t bringing the court case and the club is along with ARVO. JR2 has moved forward, it’s now taken on another life. Are you really surprised that there’s been a response to that or are you just pretending again?

What I would like to know is all available, that word again, available facts and an understanding of what that means. The clubs statements muddy that and presumably deliberately, the trust clarify it. What’s your problem?

How dare you back the trust.
You know they all tell lies are only in it for themselves and have stolen everyone pound.

If it comes from the Trust or the telegraph then some posters will question everything, the same posters ether don't question sisu or just keep quiet on the thread.

 

[skybluetony176]

How dare you back the trust.
You know they all tell lies are only in it for themselves and have stolen everyone pound.

If it comes from the Trust or the telegraph then some posters will question everything, the same posters ether don't question sisu or just keep quiet on the thread.

CWR are in on it now. They just mentioned it so must have an ulterior motive being so desperate to get that point across. When will people leave SISU alone, they don’t deserve people pointing out facts.