Higgs vs CCFC Court Row (99 Viewers)

olderskyblue

Well-Known Member
Higgs brought this to court didn't they? Each side to cover own costs?
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
If the judge says the deal failed by the end if August 2012 and never side had an appetite to complete the deal.

SISU said ACL were conspiring with the council to buy the loan and that is why the deal fell through.

This is also the crux of their JR.

However the council plan was well after August 2012. So the judge is saying their was no conspiracy.

If ACL were not conspiring with the Council. Then will this now be used in the JR
 

ccfcway

Well-Known Member
As a cov fan, its an all too familar story about getting hopes up for a result, only for it all to end on a drab note
 

The Gentleman

Well-Known Member
If the judge says the deal failed by the end if August 2012 and never side had an appetite to complete the deal.

SISU said ACL were conspiring with the council to buy the loan and that is why the deal fell through.

This is also the crux of their JR.

However the council plan was well after August 2012. So the judge is saying their was no conspiracy.

If ACL were not conspiring with the Council. Then will this now be used in the JR

God knows, 198 pages (and counting) and still not sure what is going on!
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
If the judge says the deal failed by the end if August 2012 and never side had an appetite to complete the deal.

SISU said ACL were conspiring with the council to buy the loan and that is why the deal fell through.

This is also the crux of their JR.

However the council plan was well after August 2012. So the judge is saying their was no conspiracy.

If ACL were not conspiring with the Council. Then will this now be used in the JR

No. He's said there was no will to make a deal post Aug 12 but hasn't explored all the reasons why.

It doesn't mean there wasn't an unlawful state aid either.
 

AJB1983

Well-Known Member
Probably not a total surprise.
Ultimately if the clause in negotiations said that if for any reason they broke down sisu should pay, then that would have been the ruling today.
Must mean that as in the judgment neither wanted them to succeed then sisu aren't liable.
Shame but as said above it may have implications for jr
 

hill83

Well-Known Member
He's heard the case from both sides. I maintain that there is no will to make a deal and this is the fault of all parties.

I'm sure this will be accepted by all and we can now move on with the last few matches of the season, the JR, the world cup and then us getting back to the Ricoh.
 

martcov

Well-Known Member
Exciting finish! Only winners are the lawyers. Shows considerable lack of judgement by both sides. Hopefully we as fans are a bit wiser as to what SISU's position is and what their aims are. Generally speaking I am not impressed with their business strategy. It all seems pretty desperate to me and they are not the "hard-nosed" business people that we may have thought, but a rather pathetic bunch of chancers.
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
No. He's said there was no will to make a deal post Aug 12 but hasn't explored all the reasons why.

It doesn't mean there wasn't an unlawful state aid either.

The conspiracy has to be after August 2012.

This is when he says both sides lost interest in the deal.

SISU claimed in this they lost interest because of the conspiracy (the same conspiracy that is the crux of the JR)

So I ask again can this case be used in evidence for the JR?
 

AFCCOVENTRY

Well-Known Member
Another interesting fact is that Seppala actually valued the Higgs share in Acl as worthless!

So that's pretty much sisu demanding Higgs hand their share to them for nothing!

Sound familiar?

We won't buy Coventry unless all fans hand in their club shares.
 

olderskyblue

Well-Known Member
I'm sure this will be accepted by all and we can now move on with the last few matches of the season, the JR, the world cup and then us getting back to the Ricoh.

What?? we have people on here far more qualified than the judge, so I expect his decision to be ripped to bits very soon...!!
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
Ah well the judge has judged its been an interesting yet sad sideshow
Back to your desks now everyone
I'd have to say he may been less impressed with the HIGGS argument /witnesses as they couldn't convince him of the validity of a clause in a contract.

Edit; 200 It Is
 
Last edited:

James Smith

Well-Known Member
Judge has obviously seen all the evidence and decided accordingly, we've only had tweets but thanks Simon and Rob for those they've been great.

Would be nice if we now got to see the evidence.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top