Higgs vs CCFC Court Row (2 Viewers)

[skybluetony176]

Simon Gilbert‏@TheSimonGilbert19sOn the legal representatives count it's Sisu 7-2 Higgs. I'm not sure if we'll get to the witnesses today at this pace. Time will tell.

suddenly i'm remembering a scene from Erin Brocovic (or however that was spelt). Glass of water anyone.

 

---

[James Smith]

That's more lawyers there than players we signed the year we went down ain't it?!

What a depressing thought.

 

[blueflint]

How was that defending, it was asking a question?

it was deemed as defending by the nature of the question

 

[Sub]

it was deemed as defending by the nature of the question

i wish the football team could defend

 

[James Smith]

So if SISU win it is just down to resources?

Not sure I agree with that but if your opponents are lawyered up with a few QC people and you've just got someone fresh out of law school - my money is going to lean towards the other guy unless you've got a smoking gun.

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

Come on no one wants Sisu to win against a Coventry charity, no one likes them, right?

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

Hey Simon are you still awake fella??!! :0)

 

[Rob S]

Keep the juicy stuff coming!

On Twitter @CovBackToRicoh

Anyone thinking Sisu can control a judge should see this. QC having a rough ride.

Seems to be saying Ok for Sisu to approach bank but not AEHC.

Not got into arguments yet. Lots if legal points relating to what can be argued.

 

[Nick]

Come on no one wants Sisu to win against a Coventry charity, no one likes them, right?

I'd rather it be fair based on the evidence, if the charity win I still think all costs and a donation as a gesture, not sure if by law that could be put in. I by no means want to a charity get ripped off but then again don't want people let off because they are a charity.

 

[sotonskyblue]

guardian/david conn

David Conn/Guardian have not been silenced,at least not yet. Their original article is still posted on the Guardian website and they stand by their story.How do I know? DC told me on 28 feb..

No argument from me there, and even less so when you look at things like how the threat of a defamation claim (for which there is no legal aid) can be used by those with enough money to silence dissent. (e.g. SISU v SBT, and the David Conn article. A scandal.)

 

[Rob S]

Judge might be about to decide the case right now!

 

[Nick]

Judge might be about to decide the case right now!

Really? That would be a massive statement!

Without witnesses etc?

 

[wingy]

Liked Godiva's reference to building a narrative .

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

I'd rather it be fair based on the evidence, if the charity win I still think all costs and a donation as a gesture, not sure if by law that could be put in.

Yeah but you would LIKE Sisu to lose, wouldnt you :0) haha

 

[wingy]

Settled out court ? Too late for that?

 

[Nick]

Yeah but you would LIKE Sisu to lose, wouldnt you :0) haha

If they are in the wrong then yes of course!

 

[chiefdave]

Judge might be about to decide the case right now!

That would be the worst possible for scenario and in my opinion the best result for a quick return to the Ricoh. If the judge turns round and basically tells them to get stuffed and stop wasting everyones time they might think twice about how the JR will go.

 

[Rob S]

Really? That would be a massive statement!

Without witnesses etc?

Yup. He can rule if approach to bank by AEHC was ok or not (based on the contract that's in dispute).

On a break now waiting for prep for arguments.

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

If they are in the wrong then yes of course!

Bit like watching a Cov match, you want the best team to win, right? x

 

[James Smith]

I'd rather it be fair based on the evidence, if the charity win I still think all costs and a donation as a gesture, not sure if by law that could be put in. I by no means want to a charity get ripped off but then again don't want people let off because they are a charity.

A customer who was a lawyer once told me that once the lawyers get involved, what's fair doesn't come into it.

 

[Otis]

If they are in the wrong then yes of course!

Trouble is if they win the case that doesn't necessarily mean they are in the right does it.

 

[mark82]

Come on no one wants Sisu to win against a Coventry charity, no one likes them, right?

Surely what we should all want is for the truth to come out? I don't get all this wanting Higgs to win or sisu to win nonsense. I want to know what has been happening at my football club.

 

[Nick]

Trouble is if they win the case that doesn't necessarily mean they are in the right does it.

It's the same both ways though isn't it?

 

[mark82]

Trouble is if they win the case that doesn't necessarily mean they are in the right does it.

It would mean the guy who is way more qualified than us to decide thinks they are.....

 

[Otis]

It would mean the guy who is way more qualified than us to decide thinks they are.....

You never heard of mis carriages of justice then?

 

[mark82]

It's the same both ways though isn't it?

Obviously not Nick. It's only if the baddie wins.

 

[Nick]

Bit like watching a Cov match, you want the best team to win, right? x

Well no because I support ccfc, I support neither sisu or higgs. If I was watching a neutral game I'd want it to be entertaining and the best team to win.

 

[shmmeee]

It's an interesting question isn't it? Not legally but ethically, if a group of CCFC fans (who happen to be in a position to actually do something) did conspire to remove an owner the majority of fans were against, should that be wrong?

Isn't it a bit like a shareholder revolt or the governors sacking a head? I don't mean legally, as obviously technically it's not our club, but a private business. But in a perfect world, should that be allowed? I suppose in a perfect world there'd be a mechanism for fans to change ownership.

This whole thing certainly raises a lot of questions about club ownership that no-one seems to want to answer.

 

[mark82]

You never heard of mis carriages of justice then?

My problem is that everyone states that if Sisu win this will be the case. Not necessarily so. Would much rather see the evidence before forming an opinion.

 

[Rob S]

Judge will rule on whether he can rule now or has to hear evidence.

 

[The Gentleman]

Give Simon a break - he typed as fast as he could.

He typed one tweet and you had decided the fate of the JR.

 

[shmmeee]

Judge will rule on whether he can rule now or has to hear evidence.

Sounds like our announcements about announcements.

 

[The Gentleman]

Will both sides need to show their list of costs? Invoices, bills etc?

Thank god Nikki Sinclaire isn't in there

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Judge will rule on whether he can rule now or has to hear evidence.

That insinuates it could be thrown out. Is that how I should be reading this?

 

[mark82]

It's an interesting question isn't it? Not legally but ethically, if a group of CCFC fans (who happen to be in a position to actually do something) did conspire to remove an owner the majority of fans were against, should that be wrong?

Isn't it a bit like a shareholder revolt or the governors sacking a head? I don't mean legally, as obviously technically it's not our club, but a private business. But in a perfect world, should that be allowed? I suppose in a perfect world there'd be a mechanism for fans to change ownership.

This whole thing certainly raises a lot of questions about club ownership that no-one seems to want to answer.

In a perfect world we'd all love that. In the real world it would depend how you went about it. Guess that is what the JR is to decide.