Breaking News - Judge kicks out SISU's judicial review against CCC / ACL (19 Viewers)

[Warwickhunt]

The Council have won, but they still putting up your council tax next year

And the Council have got to find £19million of Cuts this year, i don't know where the council is going to find the money because normally they have a contigency fund for this sort of event but for som reason they have'nt got one anymore

 

---

[Deleted member 5849]

Temper, temper.

Please review your replies to my posts and THEN tell me who made this personal. Thank you.

Shut up, ignore me, stop being a cocksucker and trying to deliberately derail a thread for whatever agenda.

 

[oldskyblue58]

the clubs response is

Short statement following this morning's Judicial Review ruling
Coventry City Football Club has noted the ruling by Mr Justice Males on the Judicial Review and will consider the decision before taking its next steps.


Read more at http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/club-statement-060813-971908.aspx#xuo3HvXztr2ppB5A.99

interesting as the club apparently now rests with Otium who were not party to the JR claim which was instigated by SISU, ARVO and CCFC H. I would suggest the club has no steps to take in this.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

I think the chances of ACL getting the lost rent have gone with the Administration.

This is the bit I'm not sure about.

I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that ACL took legal advice on all aspects of the administration before they made their decision to reject the CVA.

Rejecting the CVA was always likely to lead to the proposed liquidation and hence the loss of the £590k (if I remember correctly) offer. So why not take it?

If I'd been in ACL's situation and a creditor had walked away from contracted debts and then told me that (despite what the most recent accounts said) the relevant company was now non-trading, I'd have been straight on to the most aggressive lawyers I could find and briefed them to go after the associated companies and the Directors.

Will this be the next step from ACL?

 

[Sub]

im glad mr fisher stated in his previous statement that we can concentrate on football matters nowointlaugh:

 

[Sisued]

So these legal fees couldn't possibly end up on otiums books then?

 

[jimmyhillsfanclub]

goldsharer

Man with the Golden Share.

For Joy...."The world is not enough"

 

[skybluehugh]

I am getting more and more pissed off with SSN. No mention at all about the major decision regarding our club. Unless it's Hearts, Rangers or Pompy we are just a filler when they have a couple of minutes to fill.

 

[sw88]

How long before the club release a statement in response?

 

[deanocity3]

On Her Majesty's Secret Sisu
with Joy Seppala as miss notapennymore

 

[oldskyblue58]

was told that Labovitch will be on SSN around 2 30 not sure if it is correct though.

he might even pull the interview following todays news

 

[The Penguin]

How long before the club release a statement in response?

They have.

http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/club-statement-060813-971908.aspx

 

[skybluehugh]

Shut up, ignore me, stop being a cocksucker and trying to deliberately derail a thread for whatever agenda.[/

You do like your name calling don't you.

 

[deanocity3]

How long before the club release a statement in response?

they have,its the shortest statement ever...F**K you

 

[The Penguin]

was told that Labovitch will be on SSN around 2 30 not sure if it is correct though.

he might even pull the interview following todays news

I hope not. I want to see/hear how he tries to flub his way around this.

 

[Sisued]

Man with the Golden Share.

For Joy...."The world is not enough"

Skyblues are forever

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Rejecting the CVA was always likely to lead to the proposed liquidation and hence the loss of the £590k (if I remember correctly) offer. So why not take it?

If I'd been in ACL's situation and a creditor had walked away from contracted debts and then told me that (despite what the most recent accounts said) the relevant company was now non-trading, I'd have been straight on to the most aggressive lawyers I could find and briefed them to go after the associated companies and the Directors.

Will this be the next step from ACL?

Wouldn't there then be the danger you do that, we go through the same process again... as said associated companies still owe lots of cash, they get wound up too?

You are right though, it's a slightly absurd decision if there isn't a future 'plan' to reject the cash... although given dropping the JR was a condition (a condition SISU didn't accept - which they could have done to make themselves look better too), one could also assume although thrown out, there was an element of doubt whether it would be.

Which means going forward, nothing is certain.

For a change(!)

I'd contribute to an anti statement fighting fund mind you.

 

[deanocity3]

was told that Labovitch will be on SSN around 2 30 not sure if it is correct though.

he might even pull the interview following todays news

I heard that too,not heard anything today

 

[covhead1]

I can almost hear timmy crying

Hahahaha

 

[The Penguin]

I'd contribute to an anti statement fighting fund mind you.

After today's statement, so would I.

We've finally hit that point where someone has basically said, "This statement is to say we don't actually really have a statement".

 

[duffer]

But and I know it is a big BUT, if it can be proven hat our owners DID move assets from one to the other then ACL/CCC can go after Shitsu not just the club company's . Well I hope so anyway.

Ooh, it's better than that. I'm not saying this has happened, mind, but if a company's directors are found guilty of fraudulent and/or wrongful trading, then they themselves can be held liable for the debts of the company. (Edit: This includes shadow directors, fwiw).

This is something I think the liquidator would typically investigate, rather than the creditors. But if the creditors don't think the liquidator is doing a robust enough job I presume they can challenge his decisions in court. This in much the same way Mr Appleton may find himself challenged.

I don't know the former as fact, I should say - the latter about PA is true though I believe, there is a right to challenge an administrator's decision in court.

 

[skybluehugh]

Shut up, ignore me, stop being a cocksucker and trying to deliberately derail a thread for whatever agenda.

Also can you please show any post on here other than the ones to YOU, where I have tried to derail this thread?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

After today's statement, so would I.

We've finally hit that point where someone has basically said, "This statement is to say we don't actually really have a statement".

Frankly it's one of the few I can handle.

Apart from the fact it's a statement that announces a prelude to another statement.

And here we go again!

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Also can you please show any post on here other than the ones to YOU, where I have tried to derail this thread?

Nice of you to admit to trying to derail the thread. Please stop, ignore me if I offend you that much.

 

[Otis]

Where is True Sky Blue? Would love to see his take on this, PUSB

He's boarding up his letterbox.

 

[skybluehugh]

Skyblues are forever

Not just for Christmas

 

[sw88]

They have.

http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/club-statement-060813-971908.aspx

Short. Not sweet. And surprisingly not aggressive

 

[skybluehugh]

Ooh, it's better than that. I'm not saying this has happened, mind, but if a company's directors are found guilty of fraudulent and/or wrongful trading, then they themselves can be held liable for the debts of the company.

This is something I think the liquidator would typically investigate, rather than the creditors. But if the creditors don't think the liquidator isn't doing a robust enough job I presume they can challenge his decisions in court. This in much the same way Mr Appleton may find himself challenged.

I don't know the former as fact, I should say - the latter about PA is true though I believe, there is a right to challenge an administrator's decision in court.

Am I right in thinking that Appleton still has to go back to court and explain why he has made the decisions he has made? It could be interesting to hear his excuses.

 

[duffer]

This is the bit I'm not sure about.

I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that ACL took legal advice on all aspects of the administration before they made their decision to reject the CVA.

Rejecting the CVA was always likely to lead to the proposed liquidation and hence the loss of the £590k (if I remember correctly) offer. So why not take it?

If I'd been in ACL's situation and a creditor had walked away from contracted debts and then told me that (despite what the most recent accounts said) the relevant company was now non-trading, I'd have been straight on to the most aggressive lawyers I could find and briefed them to go after the associated companies and the Directors.

Will this be the next step from ACL?

Yep - not saying that that won't happen, but the tricky thing is that CCFC Ltd is a separate entity in law. I don't know how you could extend the claim to the associated companies. Similarly, with the claims against the directors, I'm not sure you can do much more than flag it up to the relevant authorities like the police (for fraud) and the Administrator and/or liquidator.

I think this is why ACL voted down the CVA, because they genuinely believe there's something that needs investigating more thoroughly than Appleton has done, and this is their best chance of getting that investigation.

I'm not trying to defend SISU here to be clear. I'd like them to come to the table and negotiate honestly to get CCFC back home. Failing that I'd enjoy seeing them pulled apart limb by limb (metaphorically speaking).

 

[skybluehugh]

Nice of you to admit to trying to derail the thread. Please stop, ignore me if I offend you that much.

Just like Fisher, very selective in how interpret what is in front of you.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Just like Fisher, very selective in how interpret what is in front of you.

Please stop trying to derail the thread, please ignore me if I offend you that much.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

Wouldn't there then be the danger you do that, we go through the same process again... as said associated companies still owe lots of cash, they get wound up too?

You are right though, it's a slightly absurd decision if there isn't a future 'plan' to reject the cash... although given dropping the JR was a condition (a condition SISU didn't accept - which they could have done to make themselves look better too), one could also assume although thrown out, there was an element of doubt whether it would be.

Which means going forward, nothing is certain.

For a change(!)

I'd contribute to an anti statement fighting fund mind you.

That's true - but if it were established that all the companies were "associated" (in the context of the lease), then if SISU went down the administration route, we'd have a proper administration i.e. the football club would be in administration rather than "a non-trading property owning subsidiary".

Then potential buyers might have a chance of competing on a more level playing field.

Seems I might be in a minority of one, but I think some of the statements have been marvellously entertaining. Much better than the bland nonsense that normally gets pumped out!

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Seems I might be in a minority of one, but I think some of the statements have been marvellously entertaining. Much better than the bland nonsense that normally gets pumped out!

Christ, I know watching |City can addle the mind of what's entertainment but...!

It's just so depressing they can't talk to one another, but can talk about!

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

Yep - not saying that that won't happen, but the tricky thing is that CCFC Ltd is a separate entity in law. I don't know how you could extend the claim to the associated companies. Similarly, with the claims against the directors, I'm not sure you can do much more than flag it up to the relevant authorities like the police (for fraud) and the Administrator and/or liquidator.

I think this is why ACL voted down the CVA, because they genuinely believe there's something that needs investigating more thoroughly than Appleton has done, and this is their best chance of getting that investigation.

I'm not trying to defend SISU here to be clear. I'd like them to come to the table and negotiate honestly to get CCFC back home. Failing that I'd enjoy seeing them pulled apart limb by limb (metaphorically speaking).

I think that you'd have to show that the trade was in Ltd, was transferred out to Holdings for no sensible consideration and that it was done to avoid the liabilities in Ltd.

Not sure how easy that would be to prove, but if you could "we'd have a whole new ball game going" (if you're old enough to remember Hugh Johns on Star Soccer!!).

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

Christ, I know watching |City can addle the mind of what's entertainment but...!

It's just so depressing they can't talk to one another, but can talk about!

As a serious point, it does show how bad relations have got between the parties.