Judicial Review (26 Viewers)

[skybluetony176]

Is this bit here not irrelevant?

Mr Thompson alleged the council was “riding two horses” by negotiating with Sisu while “behind their backs” the council was seeking a deal with the bank to buy out the mortgage itself.

Unless some sort of exclusivity agreement had been signed then I don't understand why they are bringing that up.

someone remind me what timmy's statement was about having more than 1 site in the offing for HR2?

something along the lines of not going into the final furlong with one horse and it being sensable business practice?

so timmy, is it OK to ride 2 horses or not? because you sound confused!

 

---

[Hobo]

You've just said it yourself.

But what is wrong with that? Surely it is potentially for the benefit for all and therefore good use of public funds?

 

[chiefdave]

I may be missing something here. Would you mind explaining the difference and your take on the two scenarios?

I will but I will first apologise for using the house analogy as it's the best thing I can come up with.

You have a £100K mortgage with Yorkshire Bank. That costs you £1K a month as you took it out when interest rates were high. You have a tennant that pays £1K a month rent to live there. You take out a new mortgage with Coventry Building Society, as you've made overpayments you now only need to borrow £75K and your monthly payments are now £500. You take the money you recieve from CBS and use it to clear the balance owed at YB (in practice this is probably done directly between the 2 lenders). You have just remortgaged to obtain a lower interest rate which most people would think is sensible. You are happy as your repayments are lower, YB are happy as they have been repaid and CBS are happy as they have a new customer they will make money out of.

Lets then take the same £100K mortgage with Yorkshire Bank. Your tennant has stopped paying their rent and YB know this and are worried you won't be able to keep up your montly payments. Your other half works at Coventry Building Society so they have 'inside info' in what is happening and, knowing YBs concerns, they make an offer to buy the mortgage off YB for, as an example, 50% of it's value. You are happy as you don't have hassle from YB about how you're going to make repayments and your montly payments are lower, CBS are happy as they have a new customer they will make money out of. YB may not be quite so happy as they haven't recieved the full value of the mortgage.

Of course in both those scenarios it should make absolutly no difference to your tennant as it's none of his business. In fact they should be delighted if you turn up one day and offer to cut his rent by 90% as you know he is in financial trouble.

 

[Hobo]

I will but I will first apologise for using the house analogy as it's the best thing I can come up with.

You have a £100K mortgage with Yorkshire Bank. That costs you £1K a month as you took it out when interest rates were high. You have a tennant that pays £1K a month rent to live there. You take out a new mortgage with Coventry Building Society, as you've made overpayments you now only need to borrow £75K and your monthly payments are now £500. You take the money you recieve from CBS and use it to clear the balance owed at YB (in practice this is probably done directly between the 2 lenders). You have just remortgaged to obtain a lower interest rate which most people would think is sensible. You are happy as your repayments are lower, YB are happy as they have been repaid and CBS are happy as they have a new customer they will make money out of.

Lets then take the same £100K mortgage with Yorkshire Bank. Your tennant has stopped paying their rent and YB know this and are worried you won't be able to keep up your montly payments. Your other half works at Coventry Building Society so they have 'inside info' in what is happening and, knowing YBs concerns, they make an offer to buy the mortgage off YB for, as an example, 50% of it's value. You are happy as you don't have hassle from YB about how you're going to make repayments and your montly payments are lower, CBS are happy as they have a new customer they will make money out of. YB may not be quite so happy as they haven't recieved the full value of the mortgage.

Of course in both those scenarios it should make absolutly no difference to your tennant as it's none of his business. In fact they should be delighted if you turn up one day and offer to cut his rent by 90% as you know he is in financial trouble.

Thanks for that, it's why SISU are moaning I have a problem with? Because one they could potentially renegotiate a cheaper rent. Or if they bought potentially they could take on the loan to the council at the preferential rate.

Just think it is SISU muddying waters as usual.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Because it demonstrates that the council were seeking to distort the market.

There is no law against that though in its broadest sense. Basically whats happened is the councils actions improved the profitability of ACL, and therefore increased the value of ACL. Perfectly legal as far as I'm aware.

Just hard luck on Sisu that the value of ACL went up and they didn't want to pay.

 

[fernandopartridge]

But what is wrong with that? Surely it is potentially for the benefit for all and therefore good use of public funds?

Benefit for all with the exception of SISU, this is their point mate.

 

[Hobo]

Benefit for all with the exception of SISU, this is their point mate.

But that is what I don't see. A preferential rate would benefit them in negotiations.

Unless they were trying to distress ACL

That is my point moaning about unfair tactics when their illegal tactics haven't worked.

 

[fernandopartridge]

But that is what I don't see. A preferential rate would benefit them in negotiations.

Unless they were trying to distress ACL

That is my point moaning about unfair tactics when their illegal tactics haven't worked.

The negotiations about the rent are irrelevant, their point is that they were due to buy out ACL's mortgage and effectively takeover. The council stopped this by strengthening ACL's position with a state aid.

 

[chiefdave]

But that is what I don't see. A preferential rate would benefit them in negotiations.
Unless they were trying to distress ACL
That is my point moaning about unfair tactics when their illegal tactics haven't worked.

That's exactly it, the refinancing strengthens ACLs position so in any negociation they are working from a firm footing rather than worrying about how they are going to meet their payments and if they bank is suddenly going to call the loan in. It doesn't benefit SISU as if ACL were distressed they have a chance of picking up the Rioch on the cheap. It could be argued that it benefits CCFC as it allows ACL to offer them a much lower rent.

Of course the key thing is why were ACL in that position in the first place and the one and only reason is that SISU stopped paying the rent.

 

[valiant15]

The negotiations about the rent are irrelevant, their point is that they were due to buy out ACL's mortgage and effectively takeover. The council stopped this by strengthening ACL's position with a state aid.

Well done to the council then.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Well done to the council then.

Well done as long as the court finds in their favour. If not, it's curtains for ACL and curtains for whoever made the decision on the council.

 

[chiefdave]

The negotiations about the rent are irrelevant, their point is that they were due to buy out ACL's mortgage and effectively takeover. The council stopped this by strengthening ACL's position with a state aid.

there's 2 ways you can look at that. SISU were negociating with Yorkshire Bank while also talking with the council. If that's the case then why are they complaining about the council leaving more than one option open? In that scenario their offer to YB wasn't accpeted which is really just tough luck I would have thought. Think they would need to present some pretty strong evidence that they were about to close a deal with YB and even then that probably wouldn't be enough for them to win the case.

The other way you can look at it is that SISU were going to enter into an agreement with the council to pick up 50% of the loan and become a partner in the Ricoh. As we know from what PWKH has told us and what was reported on the podcast SISU never followed through on the requirement to purchase the Higgs share so they've only got themselves to blame on that.

In either case it seems to be that SISU came up with a plan and it's didn't work so now it's toys out the pram.

 

[Hobo]

The negotiations about the rent are irrelevant, their point is that they were due to buy out ACL's mortgage and effectively takeover. The council stopped this by strengthening ACL's position with a state aid.

Yet Seppala claims to have assisted in those negotiations, then they went behind her back. So what was she negotiating for?

Did they ever make an offer?

It is a bit like me moaning I was about to buy that house because the owners were struggling to pay the mortgage. They have now renegotiated the mortgage with a new lender and can afford to carry on living there. That's unfair!

They haven't explored making an offer to see if they will sell anyway.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Well done as long as the court finds in their favour. If not, it's curtains for ACL and curtains for whoever made the decision on the council.

Why is it?

 

[Captain Dart]

Judgement tomorow morning.

 

[robbiethemole]

Well bugger me!!!!!!! there was I thinking it was only anti-SISU people who were involved in the conspiracy theory........................ but look at what Mr Rhodri Thompson,SISU's QC, has come up with " this was a secret plan to drive SISU out of Coventry, probably concocted months ago".

Touchy aint they, when things don't go their way. Next he'll be wanting a JR over CCC keeping 10,000 fans away from Northampton, thereby damaging Fisher's business plan.

For God's sake SISU, just bloody go we DON'T want you here. PUSB

 

[fernandopartridge]

Why is it?

If it's found to be an illegal state aid it has to be repaid in full by the recipient organisation, a £14m bill would do a lot of damage to ACL.

The council would be hauled over the coals by the PAC over something like that.

I personally don't believe SISU will win the case but I think it's worth talking about the implications if they did.

 

[chiefdave]

If it's found to be an illegal state aid it has to be repaid in full by the recipient organisation, a £14m bill would do a lot of damage to ACL.

Does that automatically follow or is that just one of the possible outcomes if the case goes in SISUs favour? What happens if ACL then go to a regular bank and get a £14 loan to cover that, not much SISU can do about that and now ACL can no longer offer them the lower rent as their payments have gone back up.

 

[Hobo]

Can't wait for Grendals input!

 

[bigfatronssba]

Does that automatically follow or is that just one of the possible outcomes if the case goes in SISUs favour? What happens if ACL then go to a regular bank and get a £14 loan to cover that, not much SISU can do about that and now ACL can no longer offer them the lower rent as their payments have gone back up.

Well if the court finds in favour of Sisu, its only against the Council. ACL would not have been found of any wrongdoing, I imagine they would just be told to give the money back.

Providing they can find a bank willing to lend to them it wouldn't benefit sisu in the slightest.

 

[shmmeee]

If it's found to be an illegal state aid it has to be repaid in full by the recipient organisation, a £14m bill would do a lot of damage to ACL.

The council would be hauled over the coals by the PAC over something like that.

I personally don't believe SISU will win the case but I think it's worth talking about the implications if they did.

And if my aunt had bollocks she'd be my uncle.

It's not state aid in any way shape or form and all parties know this.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Does that automatically follow or is that just one of the possible outcomes if the case goes in SISUs favour? What happens if ACL then go to a regular bank and get a £14 loan to cover that, not much SISU can do about that and now ACL can no longer offer them the lower rent as their payments have gone back up.

Would a commercial lender borrow them money in the circumstances? This is the reason why they've had to borrow from the council in the first place isn't it?

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Well bugger me!!!!!!! there was I thinking it was only anti-SISU people who were involved in the conspiracy theory........................ but look at what Mr Rhodri Thompson,SISU's QC, has come up with " this was a secret plan to drive SISU out of Coventry, probably concocted months ago".

Touchy aint they, when things don't go their way. Next he'll be wanting a JR over CCC keeping 10,000 fans away from Northampton, thereby damaging Fisher's business plan.

For God's sake SISU, just bloody go we DON'T want you here. PUSB

That'll be their next courtroom battle. All those former season ticket holders will be sued on the grounds of selective commercial discrimination. Refusal to buy a ST from the club simply because it's not in the City but still going to away games which are even further away than Northampton!
They'll be outside MK Dons on Saturday with clip-board & camera taking names & photo's!
DON'T TELL THEM PIKE!!!

 

[Hobo]

"If people don't know what you're doing, they don't know what you're doing wrong." Quote from Yes Minister

SISU mission statement?

 

[James Smith]

Would a commercial lender borrow them money in the circumstances? This is the reason why they've had to borrow from the council in the first place isn't it?

Only because of the actions of one tenant not paying their agreed rent which I think is what the Judge said in his summary of the first Appeal Application wasn't it?

 

[chiefdave]

Would a commercial lender borrow them money in the circumstances? This is the reason why they've had to borrow from the council in the first place isn't it?

things have moved on since Yorkshire Bank got a bit twitchy. CCFC are now not tennants refusing to pay rent, they are not tennants at all. If ACL can produce accounts and forecasts showing they can meet repayments without CCFC being there then there's a good chance someone will lend them the money. Probably not at the same rate they're getting it from the council but so long as they can service the debt that's not a huge issue.

 

[Houdi]

Well done as long as the court finds in their favour. If not, it's curtains for ACL and curtains for whoever made the decision on the council.

I'm not sure it does, this court is only deciding if a JR hearing will be allowed, not making a final decision.

 

[Hobo]

A sensible discussion for once. Differing view points without abuse or the normal your on that side bollocks.

 

[italiahorse]

This will just drag on and on.
How can ACL/CCC ever deal with SISU again. They will have to put their thoughts aside and be businesslike in there conversations.
I would be inclined to say shove it, but they continue to offer SISU an option.
I can understand why ACL/CCC will only rent. A lot of bridges will need to be built before SISU will ever own the Ricoh.
SISU continue to gamble with the future of our club and it feels like death by a 1000 cuts.

 

[italiahorse]

Would a commercial lender borrow them money in the circumstances? This is the reason why they've had to borrow from the council in the first place isn't it?

A commercial lender had lent them money based on the income they were receiving. Once SISU stopped paying the income was not sufficient to cover the loan. At the end of the day they are risking our club in the vain attempt to make themselves money. It's not illegal but I'm not happy that my club is the stake they are playing with, nor should you.

 

[Grendel]

Only because of the actions of one tenant not paying their agreed rent which I think is what the Judge said in his summary of the first Appeal Application wasn't it?

So you admit that we were paying their mortgage and not receiving a penny in commercial revenues?

Doesn't that anger you? Actually stupid question forget it.

 

[shmmeee]

So you admit that we were paying their mortgage and not receiving a penny in commercial revenues?

Doesn't that anger you? Actually stupid question forget it.

Not really. I was paying my landlord's mortgage when I rented, all I got was a place to live. Same as renting the Ricoh really.

Am I angry we sold our commercial revenues to Higgs cheaply? Yes. Would I like to see the club buy them back? Yes.

Why haven't they? You'd have to ask Joy The Wonder Businesswoman that.

 

[James Smith]

One of the things that I don't understand is why SISU didn't just buy the Higgs share which would have given them a third of the seats on the board of ACL and therefore a say in things. It's not like they weren't willing to sell their share, can't wait to offload it by all accounts and the club would have been the perfect purchaser. SISU did enter negotiations with the charity subsequent to starting the rent boycott, then walked away and having agreed to reimburse the Higgs costs haven't yet done so (as far as I know).

And what about the smoking gun signed council deal, why have we never seen that produced? Or was it produced in court and deemed irrelevant given that fact that the judge was minded that it was all the fault of SISU in the first place with their rent boycott?

 

[Grendel]

Not really. I was paying my landlord's mortgage when I rented, all I got was a place to live. Same as renting the Ricoh really.

Am I angry we sold our commercial revenues to Higgs cheaply? Yes. Would I like to see the club buy them back? Yes.

Why haven't they? You'd have to ask Joy The Wonder Businesswoman that.

With so called fans like you we deserve all we get.

 

[Jim]

So you admit that we were paying their mortgage and not receiving a penny in commercial revenues?

Doesn't that anger you? Actually stupid question forget it.

No commercial revenue because we sold the rights to it. If we want those revenues then SISU need to put their hand in their pocket and pay for it. Oh wait.......