Gary Hoffman’s long-distance attempt to meet Coventry City’s chief Tim Fisher (3 Viewers)

[true sky blue]

you feckin moron - without the council there wouldn't be a ground to argue about - they had to save the deal because the previous owmers blew the money and we nearly didnt have anywhere to play. Sisu have put in hardly any money - they have sold all our decent players and hardly bought anyone (we were embargoed most of the time) and charged ccfc a fortune for feck all to build up fictitious debts to give them the upper hand in an administration that they were always planning. That's what these feckers do - asset strip, screw partner organisations and then having taken them over on the cheap - either asset strip them too or sell to take their profit and look for the next poor buggers to shaft!!

exactly : Without the council we would not be in the ricoh, we would still be in highfield road, and probably back in top flight by now. The coucil are by no means our saviours

 

---

[true sky blue]

You are aware of hotel development, exhibition halls, retail, the casino etc...
If SISU have fucked off to northants and acl put up the Ricoh for sale, why would you erroneously assume only someone owning a football team would bid for it?

According to their published accounts, income from CCFC accounts for approx 9% of their income.

Yet you insist on repeating this lie about then being dead in the water ad finitum. I wonder why you would do such a thing?

hahaha "INCOME FROM SISU IS 9%" YES BECAUSE SISU WILL NOT PAY. WHAT IS THE INCOME FROM THE REST OF THE ARENA THOUGH INCLUDING THE RENTS, THE FOOD AND BEVS ETC... OF COURSE THE INCOME FROM SISU IS LOW WHEN THEY REFUSE TO PAY!!

 

[duffer]

HAVE A SEARCH YOURSELF BUD:: IM TOO BUSY TO BE HONEST.. YOU WILL FIND ONE OR TWO

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/

OR HERE

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_...EMENTS&method=boolean&highlight=1&mask_path=/

1. VINTER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 66069/09 130/10 3896/10 - Grand Chamber Judgment [2013] ECHR 645 (09 July 2013) (View without highlighting) [100%]
   ([2013] ECHR 645; From European Court of Human Rights; 215 KB)

... other listings removed... pointless

I've looked through a few here. They're absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Be honest, there's not a single example of a JR being used in the way that you've outlined is there? Not one.

Sorry to catch you out, but with regard to JRs you're going on entirely on opinion and not evidence. You are misinformed.

So c'mon bud. You've made the claim. Back it up.

 

[Seyeclops666]

exactly : Without the council we would not be in the ricoh, we would still be in highfield road, and probably back in top flight by now. The coucil are by no means our saviours

Doh Doh Doh !!!!! :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

The club had already sold Highfield Road before the Council were forced to step in a save the ground deal (and by the way this was Conservative led Council and not the lot that are in now)!! I didnt want to leave Highfield Road either but you are blaming the Council for that now too - epic fail!!

 

[The Penguin]

exactly : Without the council we would not be in the ricoh, we would still be in highfield road, and probably back in top flight by now. The coucil are by no means our saviours

Oh right, so it was the council that sold Highfield Road and paid just shy of a million pounds per season to rent it back!

Bryan Richardson will be so pleased that it wasn't his fault after all!

edit: Seyeclops beat me to it!

 

[oldskyblue58]

Sorry but in business, especially if you are financial experts, then bad luck or blaming it on the players performance really does not wash too well. They still made the decisions to spend on wages more than turnover to acquire the player for example. They havent detailed the mistakes they made though have they, so do they know or is it a sound bite to try mellow fan reactions?

strictly speaking the council is not a share holder in ACL - North Coventry Holdings is

The document you refer to seems to cover govenment grants - this wasnt

Plus the policy is dated after the refinancing of ACL was completed

That aside the JR action is brought under the European anti competition rules

 

[Seyeclops666]

Oh right, so it was the council that sold Highfield Road and paid just shy of a million pounds per season to rent it back!

Bryan Richardson will be so pleased that it wasn't his fault after all!

edit: Seyeclops beat me to it!

Even though we have both pointed it out I still don't think he will get it!!

 

[true sky blue]

sorry you said earlier:

(my bolding)

so did you just mean cov city council or any council?

no council can loan to a company it is a share owner in. None. It can grant, it can provide government funding, but it cant simply loan. However if all parties agree on a loan there would be no civil action to prevent it or action to recoup after the fact. There is also tax payer consultation for figures of that amount. To think the coucil have gone ahead and released 14 million pounds without any consultation of tax payers is an absolute disgrace. Wrongful and unlawful. The council must account for each pound - propping up their own company is simply not one of those scenarios

 

[true sky blue]

i'm afraid most of that seems to relate to stuff coming in the future. Could you be bothered to read a little further, i think the local government act 2003, section 12 (which is i believe is still in force) might inform you further:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/26/section/12

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/26/notes/division/4/1/9

here's the key note:

A local authority may invest—
(a)for any purpose relevant to its functions under any enactment, or
(b)for the purposes of the prudent management of its financial affairs.

For the avoidance of doubt, section 12 makes clear that authorities have power to invest, not only for any purpose relevant to their functions but also for the purpose of the prudential management of their financial affairs.

Are sisu challenging that with their judicial review, do you think? Pretty tough one to win, i'd say.

Unless you know of any other law or rule they might've broken - the stuff you've sent is rather vague and wishy-washy i'm afraid.

to be clear the issue is that the council are part owners of the firm they have loaned to. That is the sole issue.

 

[RegTheDonk]

I've looked through a few here. They're absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Be honest, there's not a single example of a JR being used in the way that you've outlined is there? Not one.

Sorry to catch you out, but with regard to JRs you're going on entirely on opinion and not evidence. You are misinformed.

So c'mon bud. You've made the claim. Back it up.

Careful bud, he'll have you in court.

JR's dead anyway.

 

[true sky blue]

i've looked through a few here. They're absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Be honest, there's not a single example of a jr being used in the way that you've outlined is there? Not one.

Sorry to catch you out, but with regard to jrs you're going on entirely on opinion and not evidence. You are misinformed.

so c'mon bud. You've made the claim. Back it up.

i hope you clicked on the link: There are about 50,000 judicial reviews for you to search - over the last 10 years. Youll need to search further
even the best qc in the uk wouldnt have found one that fast bud: Sorry to catch you out there

 

[true sky blue]

Doh Doh Doh !!!!! :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

The club had already sold Highfield Road before the Council were forced to step in a save the ground deal (and by the way this was Conservative led Council and not the lot that are in now)!! I didnt want to leave Highfield Road either but you are blaming the Council for that now too - epic fail!!

thats not entirely correct. t

 

[Dhinsa's_Millions]

exactly : Without the council we would not be in the ricoh, we would still be in highfield road, and probably back in top flight by now. The coucil are by no means our saviours

Clueless post.

 

[James Smith]

no council can loan to a company it is a share owner in. None. It can grant, it can provide government funding, but it cant simply loan. However if all parties agree on a loan there would be no civil action to prevent it or action to recoup after the fact. There is also tax payer consultation for figures of that amount. To think the coucil have gone ahead and released 14 million pounds without any consultation of tax payers is an absolute disgrace. Wrongful and unlawful. The council must account for each pound - propping up their own company is simply not one of those scenarios

So Swansea Council are just as guilty as Coventry City Council then? Will SISU be going after them too?

37. In the case of Swansea County Council, the Council put direct money
into the scheme (£27 million plus £6.854 million from the sale of Council
owned land) as well as providing a loan of £2 million to the Stadium
Management Company to cover fit out costs. This loan is over a 20year
period and was provided via prudential borrowing. In addition, the
Council provided a £2.5 million rental guarantee to the retail developer,
Capital & Regional; in the event this guarantee has not been required
and the Council are due overage monies due to the success of the retail
development. Finally, Swansea Council agreed to meet the remediation
and piling costs of the stadium at risk; in the event, these costs were as
predicted and further monies were not required from the Council.

(http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/ObjView.asp?Object_ID=5756 - page 28 paragraph 37)

 

[duffer]

to be clear the issue is that the council are part owners of the firm they have loaned to. That is the sole issue.

Apart from the fact that technically they're not, where does it say in law that the council can't invest in something that they part-own? If that was the case then Ricoh doesn't even get built.

Regardless, again, show me one single case that backs up your contention.

 

[true sky blue]

Sorry but in business, especially if you are financial experts, then bad luck or blaming it on the players performance really does not wash too well. They still made the decisions to spend on wages more than turnover to acquire the player for example. They havent detailed the mistakes they made though have they, so do they know or is it a sound bite to try mellow fan reactions?

strictly speaking the council is not a share holder in ACL - North Coventry Holdings is

i guarantee this JR is regards solely the lawfullness of the payment of loan, not so much anti - comp. though the anti comp matter can be another litigation in the high court and i believe it should as the council in essence used tax to prop up ACL when they were clearly beat and about to go under.. leaving the door open for sisu.. there is some competition issues there.

The document you refer to seems to cover govenment grants - this wasnt

Plus the policy is dated after the refinancing of ACL was completed

That aside the JR action is brought under the European anti competition rules

 

[duffer]

i hope you clicked on the link: There are about 50,000 judicial reviews for you to search - over the last 10 years. Youll need to search further
even the best qc in the uk wouldnt have found one that fast bud: Sorry to catch you out there

Mate, seriously, you're making the claim. You prove it. Who has caught who out here, really?

 

[oldskyblue58]

to be clear the issue is that the council are part owners of the firm they have loaned to. That is the sole issue.

Actually no they own shares in North Coventry Holdings Limited who own shares in ACL. The money has been lent bearing an interest charge to ACL not NCH ltd. ACL being a seperate legal entity over which, based on the issued share capital, CCC has no overall control.

Going to be some interesting legal arguments I think

I would guess that you would call that not actual ownership but "beneficial ownership"........... now where have I heard that before?

 

[true sky blue]

it still is not the same as our situation. were the owners of the club and the stadium in a pitch battle at the time? no .. it seems to me the swansea method was agreed by all parties

 

[duffer]

(the first post from TSB)

JUDICIAL REVIEW: there is no higher rate of claim than a judicial review. the council have paid 14 million pounds to prop up a business they are partners in!! unless there has been a law change councils can not invest council owned monies into business they have a part in, it unethical and i believe it is against the law. There have been a few cases of council doing this in the past and they have been hammered for doing so.

TSB's evidence...

<tumbleweed>

No point in wasting any further time on this one.

 

[true sky blue]

Mate, seriously, you're making the claim. You prove it. Who has caught who out here, really?

i havent got the time duffer and i am no where near case judgements. it takes days if not weeks to find case judgement. its easy to discount - and there the difference between a winner and loser in a court trial

 

[RegTheDonk]

i havent got the time duffer and i am no where near case judgements. it takes days if not weeks to find case judgement. its easy to discount - and there the difference between a winner and loser in a court trial

Besides time is money, and you know how much you bleedin' lawyers charge.

 

[RPHunt]

i hope you clicked on the link: There are about 50,000 judicial reviews for you to search - over the last 10 years. Youll need to search further
even the best qc in the uk wouldnt have found one that fast bud: Sorry to catch you out there

Immigration cases make up the vast majority of judicial reviews.

Less than 15% of judicial reviews make it beyond the first stage.

Less than 2% of judicial reviews are ultimately successful.

I wouldn't put a lot of money on SISU's request being successful.

 

[true sky blue]

Actually no they own shares in North Coventry Holdings Limited who own shares in ACL. The money has been lent bearing an interest charge to ACL not NCH ltd. ACL being a seperate legal entity over which, based on the issued share capital, CCC has no overall control.

Going to be some interesting legal arguments I think

I would guess that you would call that not actual ownership but "beneficial ownership"........... now where have I heard that before?

i totally agree - they are, both sides, playing the same game. got to say though judicial reviews are much more expensive than straight forward high court money claims. it is unlikely that sisu have gone down the wrong path on wrong advice, their barristers will have all the case judgements (i do not) but my memory tells me there is one or two cases where the specific against the local authority is the misplaced use of tax monies ---- government grants and incentives from central government and endorsed by central is ok but local authority tax gained monies -- its a big no

 

[duffer]

i havent got the time duffer and i am no where near case judgements. it takes days if not weeks to find case judgement. its easy to discount - and there the difference between a winner and loser in a court trial

So you haven't got anything to support what you said then, other than your opinion. Fair enough.

 

[RPHunt]

got to say though judicial reviews are much more expensive than straight forward high court money claims.

Total and utter bullshit!

 

[true sky blue]

Besides time is money, and you know how much you bleedin' lawyers charge.

i dont charge high rates at all, im in family law and employment law now after becoming bored with money claims. my only interest in this is my love of the club and my past history in judicial reviews. they are a strange animal and council lose more than they publish to the public.

 

[The Penguin]

Well, according to Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, I'm not sure that SISU can pursue a claim of state aid.

One of the tests is that the aid provided by the State must "affect trade between Member States".

Not quite sure how providing a loan to a stadium management company in Coventry is going to affect trade between other Member States of the EU.

 

[true sky blue]

Total and utter bullshit!

yep thats the kind of clever response i expect from some. its why the council have you so easily believe them

 

[RPHunt]

i dont charge high rates at all, im in family law and employment law now after becoming bored with money claims. my only interest in this is my love of the club and my past history in judicial reviews. they are a strange animal and council lose more than they publish to the public.

So the results of judicial reviews are not made public and councils keep quiet about the outcome - your imagination is now going into overdrive.

 

[true sky blue]

Well, according to Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, I'm not sure that SISU can pursue a claim of state aid.

One of the tests is that the aid provided by the State must "affect trade between Member States".

Not quite sure how providing a loan to a stadium management company in Coventry is going to affect trade between other Member States of the EU.

oh dear :facepalm:

 

[The Penguin]

oh dear :facepalm:

Thank you for your erudite and insightful reply.

I assume you have nothing useful to say?

 

[RPHunt]

yep thats the kind of clever response i expect from some. its why the council have you so easily believe them

That, I admit, is not my usual sort of response, but it is the only credible response to someone who first claims to be a lawyer and then claims that a judicial review is an expensive way of litigation.

 

[James Smith]

it still is not the same as our situation. were the owners of the club and the stadium in a pitch battle at the time? no .. it seems to me the swansea method was agreed by all parties

So what you're basically saying is that your original statement is incorrect and councils can loan money to companies they are part owners in?

All the parties in our case agreed on the loan (namely ACL & a unanimous Cov Council etc.) and seem perfectly happy. SISU are alleging that they were involved in something prior to this but haven't yet proved anything.

I guess we'll have to see whether SISU actually do have the signed papers that Young Timothy has claimed that they do, about distressing ACL.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Here are the problems I have with all this JR stuff

The loan wasnt from central government it was from the Public Works Loan Board at a favourable rate of interest - nothing I have seen from that body says they can not make the loan
Certainly the PWLB doesnt seem to be acting outside its powers
The Council with unanimous support of the councillors approved the deal in a meeting where you would assume full details were provided
Councillors on both sides represent the local taxpayers
The loan to ACL is at a higher rate of interest than the Council is paying - so in theory no loss to the tax payer
ACL is not just a stadium operator (in the sense that football comes first in terms of turnover or share of turnover) and forms part of a clear documented plan to regenerate North Coventry ie there is more at stake for them than the interests of a League1 football club
The reduction in loan repayments reduced ACL cashflow and increased profits to enable them to pass on the benefits to the club in their reduced rent offer
ACL did not go bust as could have happened under the old loan arrangement - if had there was a minimum £2m loss to the tax payer
CCFC still had a good opportunity to improve their arrangement and finances because of it

So leaving aside whether there is some small print that leaves open a challenge by someone prejudiced by the loan - where is the down side for Taxpayer, Council, ACL even CCFC ?
Unless the prejudice was to stop the club getting hands on an asset valuable to the City of Coventry at below market value:thinking about:Is that a vexacious claim?