A Question for The Accountants (6 Viewers)

Astute

Well-Known Member
Are you thick or just ignorant or both?

The asset is protected. The company shouldn't be given assistance, no.

If you owned a business in Coventry that was struggling and the bank called in your loan, what do you think CCC would say to you if you asked them to provide a loan to keep you afloat?

Both I suppose if that is what it means to not agree with your view.

What has it got to do with anyone else asking them for a loan? What don't you understand about them looking after their own asset? Yet you bring in companies with nothing to do with CCC.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Both I suppose if that is what it means to not agree with your view.

What has it got to do with anyone else asking them for a loan? What don't you understand about them looking after their own asset? Yet you bring in companies with nothing to do with CCC.

Jesus wept
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
He doesn't understand the simple concept that regardless of its ownership, ACL is a private limited company and as such is competing in the open market with other private companies.

Next time grendel refers to acl as a quango then can you remind him of this?

As I'm sure your aware a quango isn't a private company.
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
I was taught be sure of your case in legal action. You don't want any surprises. I can't believe that sisu are fishing for information. Too risky
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
I was taught be sure of your case in legal action. You don't want any surprises. I can't believe that sisu are fishing for information. Too risky

Do you remember what happened last time Joy was in court? The judge didn't say anything complementary about her and her memory. The case was thrown out of court.

This could easily be the last throw of the dice for SISU. The last time I remember them telling the truth was when they said we were moving to Northampton.
 

Nick

Administrator
According to some though, the JR would never happen as it would be laughed out of court?
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Do you remember what happened last time Joy was in court? The judge didn't say anything complementary about her and her memory. The case was thrown out of court.

This could easily be the last throw of the dice for SISU. The last time I remember them telling the truth was when they said we were moving to Northampton.

The last time SISU went to court they were granted a judicial review, despite the consensus on here being that they didn't have a case to even get that far.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
According to some though, the JR would never happen as it would be laughed out of court?

The JR hasn't happened though. What did the first judge say when he saw the evidence? The second one said there might be a reason for it to be looked at.
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
You agree with me then. They haven't denied it (but there may be reasons why).

I agree that they haven't confirmed or denied it, so at the moment we only have the statements from one side namely Sisu. The council haven't made comments on anything that may come up in the JR, I suspect on the advice of lawyers.

Did you know that the maximum you can go to jail for if a judge finds you in contempt is 24 months? That's scary!
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
The last time SISU went to court they were granted a judicial review, despite the consensus on here being that they didn't have a case to even get that far.

That wasn't for a court case though. It was seeking permission for a court case. There wasn't a case to lose. But the first judge had a totally different idea to the second one. Not exactly clear cut on behalf of SISU is it?
 

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
Well turnover has increased, but what counts is cash available for servicing the debt after paying for anything essential (which includes investment to sustain the business). You are trying to make it too simple and absolute.

It was a simple(factual) answer to the statement that ACL's income was reduced becuase the club wasn't paying rent.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
Isn't it June?

Think so.

Would pay to watch this. Timothy gets flustered. Labo seems petrified when questioned by someone who asks the right questions. And he will not be able to spin answers. Joy is known to have a poor memory by the last judge she came against.
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
According to some though, the JR would never happen as it would be laughed out of court?

It was originally
You must admit it is bizarre to have one judge literally laugh it out of court not even allowing the question to be asked.
Then another allow the question to be asked.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
135 posts on a thread that is irrelevant
136 counting this
I am gob smacked
Fairplay Grendel you must be chuckling your ass off.

Its wholly relevant as it will be a vital element regarding the JR and therefore critical to our future. Its also making for amusing reading as Godiva and Fernando make the same key points over and over again and astute fails to get the points over and over again.

As for not being relevant well Don I think you should perhaps look in the mirror to find that.
 

Nick

Administrator
It was originally
You must admit it is bizarre to have one judge literally laugh it out of court not even allowing the question to be asked.
Then another allow the question to be asked.

I am no expert in law but wouldn't like to say.

I just know that some people on here said it would never happen, it is happening... take from that what you will?

No doubt the judge is corrupt, a friend of joys etc.
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
And we also know of other allegations they have made over this.....and have had to backtrack when questioned elsewhere. Like when they tried to say that ACL was trading at a loss......then admitted they didn't know.

To me they have been fishing for answers and something they can use against CCC. You would think that they would have proof of something like this if it did happen. Like wanting the freehold and having independent valuers be able to look at the books. All we have had so far is threats and allegations from SISU. Not one shread of evidence on anything. To me if they had anything it would be on the offal like other things seem to find their way on.

Equally they may want to keep the evidence between themselves until it can be presented in court.
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
I am no expert in law but wouldn't like to say.

I just know that some people on here said it would never happen, it is happening... take from that what you will?

No doubt the judge is corrupt, a friend of joys etc.

I take from it

It was laughed out of court

Then we have moved to let's let them ask the question

So I still think that is quite far away from SISU will win in my own opinion.

A decision just needs to happen quickly. Fingers crossed an appeal process is not allowed and we will then be back in Coventry one way or the other.
 

Nick

Administrator
I take from it

It was laughed out of court

Then we have moved to let's let them ask the question

So I still think that is quite far away from SISU will win in my own opinion.

A decision just needs to quickly. Fingers crossed an appeal process is not allowed and we wi then be back in Coventry one way or the other.

You only take from it what you want to....

The fact is the second judge thinks there is something and it is happening, after people on here were quite confident it ever would. I have no idea who will win, maybe SISU showed them different evidence that swung it?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
I take from it

It was laughed out of court

Then we have moved to let's let them ask the question

So I still think that is quite far away from SISU will win in my own opinion.

A decision just needs to quickly. Fingers crossed an appeal process is not allowed and we wi then be back in Coventry one way or the other.

It wasn't laughed out if court. The judge ruled sisu's non payment of rent was a key factor - no evidence was presented.

Non payment is now not relevant and all evidence must be supplied.
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Its wholly relevant as it will be a vital element regarding the JR and therefore critical to our future. Its also making for amusing reading as Godiva and Fernando make the same key points over and over again and astute fails to get the points over and over again.

As for not being relevant well Don I think you should perhaps look in the mirror to find that.

My point is no one has ever said it is a completely independent company apart from you in this thread.

Everyone (I thought) has always known what the crux of the JR is.

So I failed to see the point of asking what someone in a hypothetical situation that is completely different to the one we are facing would do.
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Now that its pretty clear the maths don't add up for building a new stadium, taken in conjunction with the accounts suggesting ACL are sustainable without CCFC. The more poignant question is

If SISU win the JR what will they do
If they lose what will they do.

Personally I think both ways Coventry will return to the Ricoh. But only via the first method will it be without SISU
 

Nick

Administrator
Now that its pretty clear the maths don't add up for building a new stadium, taken in conjunction with the accounts suggesting ACL are sustainable without CCFC. The more poignant question is

If SISU win the JR what will they do
If they lose what will they do.

Personally I think both ways Coventry will return to the Ricoh. But only via the first method will it be without SISU

Isn't that unrelated to the original posts too?
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member

Hobo

Well-Known Member
I am no expert in law but wouldn't like to say.

I just know that some people on here said it would never happen, it is happening... take from that what you will?

No doubt the judge is corrupt, a friend of joys etc.

Nick,

With a JR it is not unusual for the initial paper application to be rejected and then on appeal it is accepted on a verbal submission. In fact it happens in most JR cases.

All SISU have done is outline they have a point of grievance.

I would suggest, both sides feel they have a case, the legislation is complex and the judge felt the only way a fair decision can be made is by hearing all the evidence from both sides.

Without any of us having access to the relevant evidence/information it is difficult to decide who may or may not have the stronger case. For instance SISU may be arguing without access/disclosure of paperwork between CCC and YB or documents between CCC and ACL , no one could say whether it is unfair funding? They may have just posed a what if scenario and that is the reason The JR is going ahead? June 10th the date I think?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top