Was surprised that they won on all the grounds put forward, expected they might on maybe one ............. but lets be clear what they have won.......... thats the right to have the evidence examined in court supported and put forward by legal counsel. That does not mean they will win, that the council are acting outside of their powers, that loans have to be repaid etc etc ....
My understanding is that the Council have not supplied the Court with detailed evidence to rebutt any of the claims made, and the decision today has been made on the basis that the judge found the SISU barrister's assertions that there may be a case to answer more compelling than the CCC barrister's
As they say every dog has its day in court.
It will drag on for many months yet. That I suspect means that while it is going there will be no chance of a CCFC return to the Ricoh. Will a new site be purchased, maybe but developed ? we will have to wait see. If the new stadium were to be built then wouldnt that render the JR largely pointless. The remedies for a JR of this sort do not include the right to compensation as i understand it - that would require a further action after the JR case finishes it appeals etc. In any case it would be hard to prove great financial loss because the counciltook action because of a delinquent tenant .
What I do not understand ....... from purely a fans point of view ....... how does this benefit the football club, or the fans ............ looks like several more years at Sixfields with the increasing financial pressure that brings in terms of FFP etc. How does that benefit the team or fans?
one last question ........ it has been mentioned by plenty as to who is paying the ACL legals etc ...... but who is going to bare the the costs of the SISU legal actions ..... SISU or CCFC ? (i do not mean who actually pays over the cheque btw)
