shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Yeah! Of course that big guy hit you! What do you expect if you don't give him your lunch money?
FFS. Seriously?
Disheartening Sky Blue's Story On The Way.. (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter RoboCCFC90
- Start date
Yeah! Of course that big guy hit you! What do you expect if you don't give him your lunch money?
FFS. Seriously?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
In English law a verbal contract as I understand it is just as strong as a written one ...... the only problem is proving it existed
In this case as I understand it there was a proper agreement before they started negotiations. Don't forget these talks started after the rent stopped highly likely a formal agreement would be made in those circumstances
The action to counter claim doesn't seem to deny the existence of that agreement as far as I can tell but more seeks to tie the charity in to the shenanigans surrounding the Yorkshire bank. Is there in law actually a link to view this as a counter claim or is the claim by SISU actually a claim about something else? and designed to tie up the charity in expensive legals knowing one asset they could dispose of to settle are the ACL shares :thinking about:
The claim by SISU is six figures....... is that £100,000 or £200,000 or £300,000 or £999,999......... and to be honest for what was actually seeming to have been done (discussions between SISU directors and Charity trustees to agree a price on shares plus an initial but incomplete amount of due diligence) it seems damn expensive
In this case as I understand it there was a proper agreement before they started negotiations. Don't forget these talks started after the rent stopped highly likely a formal agreement would be made in those circumstances
The action to counter claim doesn't seem to deny the existence of that agreement as far as I can tell but more seeks to tie the charity in to the shenanigans surrounding the Yorkshire bank. Is there in law actually a link to view this as a counter claim or is the claim by SISU actually a claim about something else? and designed to tie up the charity in expensive legals knowing one asset they could dispose of to settle are the ACL shares :thinking about:
The claim by SISU is six figures....... is that £100,000 or £200,000 or £300,000 or £999,999......... and to be honest for what was actually seeming to have been done (discussions between SISU directors and Charity trustees to agree a price on shares plus an initial but incomplete amount of due diligence) it seems damn expensive
Last edited:
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
I don't know what your issue is shmmeee the AEHC wanted to play a game in Sisu's back yard, now if Sisu signed a contract to say they'd pay the fees then they'll win hands down in Court, however according to most Sisu never signed anything, so what are they going to say in court "Tim Fisher said he pay it" while PWKH was stood having a piss next to him the John?
You punch in that type of game expect one back and it can come back harder and quicker than you can throw..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
"Wanted to play a game in Sisu's back yard"????
Excuse me, but I could've sworn they were part owners of ACL waaay before Sisu wanted to buy the Ricoh.
Seems that Sisu came into CCC and Higgs' back yard to me.
Again. For like the millionth time. Once Higgs were owed money, they legally HAD to try and get it back. If anything there were jumped, a sack put over their head, bundled into a white van and thrown into Sisu's back yard.
http://www.contractsandagreements.co.uk/law-and-verbal-agreements.html
Verbal agreements are legally binding. But I suppose you subscribe to the "who cares what's right as long as you win in court" argument that ccfc4life, Nick, Torchy and the rest of the Easy Crew have been spouting all day.
Last edited:
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
I think you maybe misunderstanding by Sisu's back yard I mean court..
With regards to the verbal agreement, if there is anyone who can confirm it great, but it's just more tit for tat.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Why would Higgs assume SISU would take them to court just because Higgs want a debt paid? ACL took SISU to court for non payment of rent and SISU didn't even bother showing up to put in a defence!
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
They shouldn't of assumed it but they definitely should have considered it, especially with the situation as tense as it is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Yeah, it's almost like they WANTED to lose that case!
Can't be, must be they were shaking from the Council's crack legal team!
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
How should they have got their money back?
mds
Well-Known Member
Wouldnt think buying the loan would be a snap decision and done and dusted overnight without input from Higgs trustees.
Would of thought the council, ACL and Higgs reps would have had many ongoing discussions before agreeing to allow the council to buy.
Cant see an innocent party in any of this, then again i dont have the facts and even if i did not sure i would totally understand!
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Look shmmeee I don't disagree with the AEHC are doing but fact is Sisu are sharks and this was a possibility.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
That doesn't excuse it.
I've always been a rapist! Shouldn't have worn a short skirt around me!
I accept what you're saying, it just comes across as fuel to fire for those that are cheering this as a great move for the club.
When's the point we fuck them off? When do they cross the line and we, en masse, do something. Protest, sit in, legal action of our own, whatever.
I fucking hate watching an institution that is part of my very identity being hijacked by a bunch of cunts.
I'm not proud to be a CCFC fan today. And I hate the people that made it that way. Just like I hate them for personally attacking my family (long story that I can't go into). Just like I hate them for making it even less likely that we'll ever see the promised land again.
It doesn't help that they're the very fucking embodiment of the neo-liberal mindset that has fucked up society for the last 30 years either.
I fucking hate them Rob and that means I get angry when I think others are defending or justifying their actions. I know you're a decent bloke and you're just trying to do whatever it is you were trying to do, but I don't think they deserve your thoughts, and they certainly don't need help weaselling out of their responsibilities either.
Last edited:
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone is 'cheering' the Club in this instance..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
mds
Well-Known Member
Would guess it moves the goalposts significantly, weakens Sisu`s bargaining power, half of ACL is the council, effectively they are their own bankers, makes it harder for sisu to get a stranglehold on everything!
skybluefred
New Member
Or you could use this.:sarcasm:
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
ccfc4life is. rodney is. there's been posters on here all day cheering Sisu for "smashing the council" or similar.
I know that the regulars on here, you Torch, Nick, etc. do it for balance, do it to try and add some calm into the mix. But personally I don't think that's useful. We should be angry. We need black and white, not shades of grey. They fucking thrive in shades of grey.
What they are doing is wrong, all actions that stem from this are therefore fruit of the poisoned tree.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
but that doesn't impact on the deal with Higgs? As PWKH tells it a HOT was agreed and SISU walked away so it's not like in the middle of things the terms suddenly changed as ACL was deemed more stable. It's not going to be a strong case in court if SISU are going to argue they wanted to get hold of Higgs share and then pull a fast one on the council to get control of everything!
Specs WT-R75
Well-Known Member
We know that Sisu wanted to become the mortgage holder for ACL and effectively get the interest on CCC share of the rent. But regardless if the loan with CCC was on better terms, it ultimately boils down to the share of the loaded debt on the asset they were buying - 14m vs the distressed price they were trying to get from Yorkshire bank.
Clearly the deal is FAR better if you end up with 50% of a company with a 6-7m debt, and of that debt you are collecting the interest on half of it...and that has to affect the price you would be prepared to pay.
Heck it is clear that this all backfired, but you can kinda see what they were trying to do, right or wrong.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
I can't speak for all the posters on their opinions on the situation but I can say that myself, Nick, Torchy, ccfc4life we are all angry with what Sisu have done and although we don't show it, we are angry with what Sisu have done, but we don't have the power to change it..
What does getting angry and caught up in the emotion really give us in terms of trying to understand the situation? It doesn't, it just purifies hatred and not all the facts are yet clear.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rob S
Well-Known Member
OK, so I used shorthand. Apologies.
AEHT, as part owners of ACL, have been involved with instigating a few legal actions of their own.
The strange thing is, you seem to prefer to have rumour, counter rumour and more decide the truth on this rather than having the facts come out in court.
Well we've only got a lesser version of that now. At least in court everything can come out and a decision is made by a judge or jury as to the outcome rather than who can yell the loudest or who has the most expensive PR people. (Who the people of Cov are indirectly paying for although it seems to be very hard to find out how much.)
The other strange thing is that people seem to be worried about what might come out in court. I can understand why anyone who has been stridently anti- any of the many sides in this dispute might be wary that their worldview is challenged, but for me, I'd rather see as much real facts & truth come out. If it damns Sisu, ACL, CCC, AEHT, Craigavon, Sphere, Arvo, Otium, any number of ancillary organisations & advisors or the myriad individual players then so be it.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Just reading through the reports of the JR application again. I'd love to see the claim in full.
From the Telegraph it says the plan was for Sisu to buy the mortgage at a distressed rate and "In return, the prospective deal would have seen the Sky Blues agree to an extended 125-year lease for playing at the Ricoh."
Leaving aside the whole leasehold thing. I strikes me that the council should never have gone through with this deal as it'd then give Sisu control of ACL.
Surely Sisu as the new mortgage holders could then call in the debt to ACL, which they couldn't have paid (without "state aid") leaving Sisu free to break the 125 year lease, pick up ACL for peanuts and get what they wanted for free.
Can someone poke holes in that argument for me?
If that's right, why on earth did the council ever consider it?
Specs WT-R75
Well-Known Member
I guess the council get a mortgage for their 50% share?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
It's not that my worldview will be challenged. Frankly I don't care if the Higgs did what Sisu are claiming. Good on them. They have a stated purpose of doing whats best for the city and it seems they did that.
It's that it won't actually solve anything. One side will interpret the documents (and any legal decision) according to their world view and visa versa.
The point is that I couldn't give a fuck what us lot think. We're not important in the long run. What I care about is A) abuse of the court system and B) the club being secure going forward.
A Sisu win, or even allowing the case to go forward, does what Sisu have said they will do, it ties up bodies that should be doing public good in legal action. Which makes it more likely that they will have to make a decision for reasons other than what is best for their constituents/the people the charity serves.
I don't want Sisu to get the Ricoh. I don't want that because I don't want to see the club I love turned into a vehicle for debt that goes POP in a few years time and disappears/ends up in the Rymans league or whereever dead clubs go. (In fact I'm not too bothered about that, I'll still support them, but if it's going to happen lets do it now rather than waiting another 5 years)
I want my club home, in the city that shares it's name as soon as possible. But more importantly than that, I want my daughter and hers after her to be able to follow the passion of me and my dad. I don't see any scenario after Sisu either get the freehold or build a new grounds where that will happen.
Rob S
Well-Known Member
I've seen it. In fact I've got a copy as it's in the public domain. You'll have 126 paragraphs to get through spread over 41 pages.
skybluefred
New Member
Had the CCC not bailed CCFC out and built the Ricoh for them we would have had nowhere to play
our games, In fact it's just like now--we would have been homeless. If our useless owners had an iota of sense
they would go cap in hand to CCC and ask for a return to the RICOH. You I and everybody who cares for CCFC
and it's fans would do the same--Sisu on the other hand do not give a toss,money is their god and they don't care how they get it.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Link? (yes I'm that sad)
cloughie
Well-Known Member
justice in this case
That justice is your version
Yet it was made quite clear early days in the so called sisu 'buying' the Higgs share about who should pay the said costs.
In sisu world if they were one step ahead of you then tough sh@t,
Seems this time sisu were one step behind
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
To defend against the Charity claim of £29000 (pocket money surely to our owners) then you do not need to counter sue. All you have to do is prove there was no such agreement to pay the costs. However if you cant do that, need to put pressure on the other side and their associates you put in a huge counter claim, not saying SISU are not entitled to "counter" sue if they so wish but I get the feeling this action is part of a bigger game.
Say the Charity withdrew their claim (i do not think they will for a second) then I doubt SISU would withdraw theirs. If you think about it though it isnt a big leap to think that such an action against the Charity was inevitable and SISU can now hide behind argument of Higgs sued first. The most vulnerable point financially is the Charity, they do not have lots of money to fund long expensive legal battles, embroil them in that and it puts pressure on them and their partners ACL & CCC.
All perfectly legal and part of business at its hard nosed money edge but like many, probably nearly all Coventry citizens that are aware of this action it leaves a very nasty taste all the same.
Say the Charity withdrew their claim (i do not think they will for a second) then I doubt SISU would withdraw theirs. If you think about it though it isnt a big leap to think that such an action against the Charity was inevitable and SISU can now hide behind argument of Higgs sued first. The most vulnerable point financially is the Charity, they do not have lots of money to fund long expensive legal battles, embroil them in that and it puts pressure on them and their partners ACL & CCC.
All perfectly legal and part of business at its hard nosed money edge but like many, probably nearly all Coventry citizens that are aware of this action it leaves a very nasty taste all the same.
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Pretty good shout that.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
So are you saying that shareholders in a business are responsible for the acts of that business? Because if you are then shareholders in News International had better watch out
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
In amongst the understandable emotions around this latest move I think we need to keep sight of what we actually know. SISU are litigious, it is their tool of preference in business and when they use it they do so for a purpose. They are more than happy to throw hundreds of thousands of pounds at legal cases if they believe it furthers their overall objective. Keep that in mind and it isnt difficult to think that this not about rebutting a claim for a relatively small amount.
Nor should we think they are overly concerned by the negative PR, that is just simply something that they do not have to deal with when the overall objective is targeted and in a SISU land where money and making the deal is King. Peoples feelings really do not matter where a maximised return for anonymous investors is the simple focus of all they(SISU) do
Nor should we think they are overly concerned by the negative PR, that is just simply something that they do not have to deal with when the overall objective is targeted and in a SISU land where money and making the deal is King. Peoples feelings really do not matter where a maximised return for anonymous investors is the simple focus of all they(SISU) do
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
I'm incensed!! Are we going to lie down and let the scum get away with this as fans, supporters and human beings? We must find ways of showing our solidarity! Every opportunity we must ensure the media are aware that sisu holdings sues charities that help kids gets access to opportunities they wouldnt ordinarily have