James Smith
Well-Known Member
If you ever get to see the picture of Bernie with his lawyers (there was one in the Standard last night) he is dwarfed by them who are around 6 foot each.
Marilyn Knatchbull Hugessen answers questions (13 Viewers)
- Thread starter lamtara2006
- Start date
If you ever get to see the picture of Bernie with his lawyers (there was one in the Standard last night) he is dwarfed by them who are around 6 foot each.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
An interesting statement. Perhaps it helps balance out some of the things that have been said or made public as "fact" recently. We are after all looking for a kind of balance in order to get to a solution are we not? But we all have our own view point on all this. My comments based on the statement are .....
As I understand it and as stated by Justice Leggatt the recent action ended in a nil all draw. From what was said in the court transcripts and the Judgement it would seem that the SISU claim was thrown out because it had no basis in law and the Charity case failed because the wording in the clause relied on failed to cover the situation that occurred.
I think that people miss the significance of the judgement. It isn't that the Charity didn't win £29k or that SISU didn't get their £290k or that each side paid their own costs (something that Leggatt said would have been the case what ever claimed or gracious acts). The key point being that it has been decided by a Judge having been presented with the facts that there was no prospect of any deal past 31/08/12 and that the Trustees of the Charity had acted in good faith. His comments were clear.
If there was no deal with the charity because both sides had let it die........
1) then there was little prospect of successful talks in November/December with CCC as that depended on the charity deal.
2) If no prospect of a deal then how is there a conspiracy between CCC and Charity to stop the deal?
3) There was no duty of care owed by the Trustees to SISU past 31/07/12, so how can SISU claim there was such a duty by late 2012?
4) It is stated by the Judge that the Trustees had acted properly and in good faith, that's not a "maybe" that's a clear statement, going to be hard to shake that.
So we are left with the state aid and European competition law part of the Judicial Review then aren't we. Even if SISU win that it does not necessarily mean that the ACL loan is called in. It doesn't necessarily mean administration for ACL either. One solution could be that the Judge simply orders CCC to revisit the process and dot the right i's and cross the right t's. He could order the repayment but from what I have read it is not an immediate process and ACL could have a year to refinance. Under European competition Law then the Council could face a penalty if they lose outright - but that money doesn't go to SISU. So does that get SISU any closer to owning the Ricoh? probably not and quite likely they would be last in line for any possible suitors because of it (they might be the only one interested but I suspect that wont be the case). CCC will still own the encumbered freehold.
The Judge at the Judicial Review in much the same way as Justice Leggatt (who made the point several times) will be concerned with the facts and clarifying points of law. He will seek to cut through the opinion, the intentions, the favourable portrayals etc. It could be there are many further facts to come out, equally we may already know the important ones. If there is something equivalent to a silver bullet then why have we not yet seen it. If criminal acts have occurred (and I am not saying there have) then surely the professionals involved have a legal duty to report that to the authorities (Police etc).
The statement of facts is agreed by both sides, as I understand it, but is a skeleton statement of what went on, the process and what is disputed, it should not be legal argument but a clever lawyer will seek to use it to imply things about a case. As such it is not the sum of all the facts - but a summary of selected ones and a timeline. A judge will use it as a guide but will seek to get to the facts and only the facts then apply the law to those facts. It doesn't matter how often or loudly "facts" are said in public, or peoples ethics, probity or character attacked the Judge will not be swayed by such things ..... only the facts presented in court and the law that applies counts
There seems to be more mention of "SISU is finished funding the club" At some point these threats might well become more than that. It would be interesting to see what the net funding (including share conversion)from SISU & ARVO now stands at compared to 31/05/13, will it have greatly increased and is that increase actually rolled up interest? Personally I do not see how the finances stack up at Sixfields or with a new stadium. I am certainly concerned about what might result from all this
You get the impression that the value of ACL investment in ACL to the Charity is much more than £2m offered in a casual meeting in October 2012. There does not appear to be a need for the Charity to sell, other projects are on going are being financed and require no public donation to do so. That doesn't mean that the Charity see themselves as ACL shareholders for ever more just that they wont be pressured in to selling under the value the Charity feels is right for them. Bridges have been and continue to be burnt in this fractious dispute, but that is what happens when disputes go to legals.
ACL current turnover. Well if the lady says current (ie 2014) turnover is £14m without the club then there is no evidence that she is wrong or mistaken. That is £14m without CCFC or the Olympics. Have profits been hit well yes but 2013 was a year of reconstruction and cost savings had not kicked in but equally there was the costs of the dispute to factor in as will be the case in 2014. Profit levels will depend on that and whether margins achieved are greater with or without CCFC. But keep in mind many believe SISU still want it so there must be good financials reasons for that and in my opinion that is not primarily about CCFC
The use of PR agencies. Interesting that the Charity at one time used the same one CCFC still use. I think the statement is pretty clear the Charity at least does not have big PR bills and rarely but no longer use Weber Shandwick. The Charity will do its own PR and for the most part stay quiet
I welcome another viewpoint. It will be interesting to see how this all pans out. It is frightening to see how much damage has been done to CCFC, for me it is hard to see where the Trustees of the Charity are responsible for that and should be held to account. Seems to me they have been doing the "right thing" with in the powers that they have......
This statement by Mrs Knatchbull-Hugessen at least gives us plenty of background to the Charity, clears a fair few misconceptions about its activities, gives their view point of what is going on. Is there much that can be disputed in terms of any facts presented - I would think not. I can not see that SISU etc will like reading it however
As I understand it and as stated by Justice Leggatt the recent action ended in a nil all draw. From what was said in the court transcripts and the Judgement it would seem that the SISU claim was thrown out because it had no basis in law and the Charity case failed because the wording in the clause relied on failed to cover the situation that occurred.
I think that people miss the significance of the judgement. It isn't that the Charity didn't win £29k or that SISU didn't get their £290k or that each side paid their own costs (something that Leggatt said would have been the case what ever claimed or gracious acts). The key point being that it has been decided by a Judge having been presented with the facts that there was no prospect of any deal past 31/08/12 and that the Trustees of the Charity had acted in good faith. His comments were clear.
If there was no deal with the charity because both sides had let it die........
1) then there was little prospect of successful talks in November/December with CCC as that depended on the charity deal.
2) If no prospect of a deal then how is there a conspiracy between CCC and Charity to stop the deal?
3) There was no duty of care owed by the Trustees to SISU past 31/07/12, so how can SISU claim there was such a duty by late 2012?
4) It is stated by the Judge that the Trustees had acted properly and in good faith, that's not a "maybe" that's a clear statement, going to be hard to shake that.
So we are left with the state aid and European competition law part of the Judicial Review then aren't we. Even if SISU win that it does not necessarily mean that the ACL loan is called in. It doesn't necessarily mean administration for ACL either. One solution could be that the Judge simply orders CCC to revisit the process and dot the right i's and cross the right t's. He could order the repayment but from what I have read it is not an immediate process and ACL could have a year to refinance. Under European competition Law then the Council could face a penalty if they lose outright - but that money doesn't go to SISU. So does that get SISU any closer to owning the Ricoh? probably not and quite likely they would be last in line for any possible suitors because of it (they might be the only one interested but I suspect that wont be the case). CCC will still own the encumbered freehold.
The Judge at the Judicial Review in much the same way as Justice Leggatt (who made the point several times) will be concerned with the facts and clarifying points of law. He will seek to cut through the opinion, the intentions, the favourable portrayals etc. It could be there are many further facts to come out, equally we may already know the important ones. If there is something equivalent to a silver bullet then why have we not yet seen it. If criminal acts have occurred (and I am not saying there have) then surely the professionals involved have a legal duty to report that to the authorities (Police etc).
The statement of facts is agreed by both sides, as I understand it, but is a skeleton statement of what went on, the process and what is disputed, it should not be legal argument but a clever lawyer will seek to use it to imply things about a case. As such it is not the sum of all the facts - but a summary of selected ones and a timeline. A judge will use it as a guide but will seek to get to the facts and only the facts then apply the law to those facts. It doesn't matter how often or loudly "facts" are said in public, or peoples ethics, probity or character attacked the Judge will not be swayed by such things ..... only the facts presented in court and the law that applies counts
There seems to be more mention of "SISU is finished funding the club" At some point these threats might well become more than that. It would be interesting to see what the net funding (including share conversion)from SISU & ARVO now stands at compared to 31/05/13, will it have greatly increased and is that increase actually rolled up interest? Personally I do not see how the finances stack up at Sixfields or with a new stadium. I am certainly concerned about what might result from all this
You get the impression that the value of ACL investment in ACL to the Charity is much more than £2m offered in a casual meeting in October 2012. There does not appear to be a need for the Charity to sell, other projects are on going are being financed and require no public donation to do so. That doesn't mean that the Charity see themselves as ACL shareholders for ever more just that they wont be pressured in to selling under the value the Charity feels is right for them. Bridges have been and continue to be burnt in this fractious dispute, but that is what happens when disputes go to legals.
ACL current turnover. Well if the lady says current (ie 2014) turnover is £14m without the club then there is no evidence that she is wrong or mistaken. That is £14m without CCFC or the Olympics. Have profits been hit well yes but 2013 was a year of reconstruction and cost savings had not kicked in but equally there was the costs of the dispute to factor in as will be the case in 2014. Profit levels will depend on that and whether margins achieved are greater with or without CCFC. But keep in mind many believe SISU still want it so there must be good financials reasons for that and in my opinion that is not primarily about CCFC
The use of PR agencies. Interesting that the Charity at one time used the same one CCFC still use. I think the statement is pretty clear the Charity at least does not have big PR bills and rarely but no longer use Weber Shandwick. The Charity will do its own PR and for the most part stay quiet
I welcome another viewpoint. It will be interesting to see how this all pans out. It is frightening to see how much damage has been done to CCFC, for me it is hard to see where the Trustees of the Charity are responsible for that and should be held to account. Seems to me they have been doing the "right thing" with in the powers that they have......
This statement by Mrs Knatchbull-Hugessen at least gives us plenty of background to the Charity, clears a fair few misconceptions about its activities, gives their view point of what is going on. Is there much that can be disputed in terms of any facts presented - I would think not. I can not see that SISU etc will like reading it however
Last edited:
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Turnover doubled, profit down by 30%.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Didn't someone say that the security preparations for the olympics had affected the bookings they had been able to take for a long period before and during (obviously) the games. Might be the reason - get extra income from the games but have to spend more on security.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Just because Mr Labovitch is not great at answering the question or getting his points across doesn't necessarily mean he's making it up on the spot - that's not fair. However having said that, he wouldn't have been my first choice for person to do the PR and media appearances.
Last edited:
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
There was a piece somewhere (probably the Telegraph or Midlands Today) about the huge amount of work that was needed prior to the Olympics. Every single logo (including manufacturers names on toilets, hand dryers etc) had to be covered so as not to upset the official sponsors would imagine all that took a while!
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Indeed it doesn't but it's not just him, it's also Fisher who has the same problem and not just in the way they present their points. The points they are trying to make keep changing, doesn't really leave you with the impression that its a solid plan they're all working towards!
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Tim is more confident talking to the media and answering questions than Mr Labovitch seems to be. Tim may not always answer the question satisfactorily but he's always seemed more sure of what he's saying. Whether he or we believe it is another matter.
Last edited:
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
To be honest this emotive bullshit is wearing thin.
This woman, just like ACL,CCC and SISU don't give a fuck about CCFC. When push comes to shove they care more about their bottom line than they do about the city, or the football club.
I'm bored of everyone pretending they care, and making out through their various media outlets that they feel passionately about the situation. If they all felt that passionately we wouldn't have got to this point.
This woman, just like ACL,CCC and SISU don't give a fuck about CCFC. When push comes to shove they care more about their bottom line than they do about the city, or the football club.
I'm bored of everyone pretending they care, and making out through their various media outlets that they feel passionately about the situation. If they all felt that passionately we wouldn't have got to this point.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I think on this particular one you maybe off the mark a bit.
She has been on a Coventry charity for 30 years. Her family have supported the club financially. She has been a fan since she was 10. Her charity has been messed around and maligned by our hapless hedge fund managers and you have the audacity to slag her off. I have never sworn on this forum....but fuck you!
King of the Lesbians
Well-Known Member
Yay! _brian_ seems none the worse after meeting (not)Mickey Gynn the other night...
Astute
Well-Known Member
SISU want it their way only.
Have you fallen for the SISU spin? Can't you see that it has been mainly one way traffic?
And why do you think that she has made accusations when they have already been threatened with litigation? I still await Grendel and others to keep using the Weber Shandwick lies.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
What an outrageous statement, I know that I'd trust the Higgs family over Joy ('I only care about my family and investors') Seppala any day of the week on any matter.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Mobile like from me.
I find it sad that some have to make things up to make SISU look better. We get lots of lies from them yet we have a few trying to make them sound trustworthy. Look how many were pointed out by the judge, yet they used at least one of them again.
As I have been saying I see Higgs as innocent and look forward to the JR.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I may already have used it. You wouldn't know as posts mentioning them get deleted.
@Grendel. Regarding the SISU "hopeless case". Didn't you follow the official ML spin line that SISU did the decent thing by paying their own costs? Both sides would have had to pay their own costs anyway according to the judge. Strange that you take the SISU skeleton argument as fact although the Judge through it out and rebuked SISU for their unfortunate language. I really think you have fallen for the SISU spin. I do though agree with you that the Pie in the Sky Stadium will never be built.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
Last edited by a moderator:
James Smith
Well-Known Member
I thought you had finally come round to the idea that ACL was a private company.
she dont sound like a fan to me you
What does a fan sound like? "You
"? Her family have done more for CCFC than some keyboard fan with the vocabulary of a Neanderthal man.
Last edited by a moderator:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry - what are you saying? The charity involvement on ACL should be viewed dispassionately and not as a charity? I agree so if they get "screwed" its not screwing a charity but just another faceless private company.
You're wriggling Grendel... Desperate times....
lewys33
Well-Known Member
That would be fine if it were ACL in court ........
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
What does a fan sound like? "You
her family tied sisu out balloons to a car
WOW THANK YOU SO MUCH
184 posts lmao..council employee for sure. or maybe you are PKWH daughter?
Last edited by a moderator:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The only Higgs involvement is through ACL and their holdings in it. Therefore the question stands - when "distressing" ACL is that distressing a charity or not?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Not sure if you're just on the wind up but assuming you're not if you think this is Higgs families only contribution to the club, ignoring the rest of their work in the city, then you need to do some background research.
No matter what anyone things of the current situation or the role any of the involved parties have played in it to dismiss what they Higgs family have done in the past for the club is very poor form.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
her family tied sisu out balloons to a car
WOW THANK YOU SO MUCH
184 posts lmao..council employee for sure. or maybe you are PKWH daughter?
I have to correct you there. It was placing a deflated balloon on a car not tying one.
I think that's right isn't it Peter?
Last edited by a moderator:
Placed a half inflated balloon under the wiper actually.... I don't pretend to know your IQ, but I would hazard a guess that it is around the number of your shoe size. The balloon "scandal" by her husband does not detract from the support given to CCFC and to less privileged children by her family and their charity. The words "dumb prick" are very apt when describing you.
lewys33
Well-Known Member
No it isn't. But you are asking a very pinpointed question there aren't you?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Is that the same Higgs that helped CCFC keep going by buying their ACL share with the offer to buy it back when they wanted with little if any profit from the sale?
If so, then the answer is yes, Sisu are stressing a charity.
her family tied sisu out balloons to a car
WOW THANK YOU SO MUCH
184 posts lmao..council employee for sure. or maybe you are PKWH daughter?
Just out of interest, for your pea brain to attempt to digest, I no longer live in Cov, but live abroad. So no, I am not a council employee, nor am I female. But facts don't really count for Neanderthals, so carry on foaming at the mouth and throwing insults.
Last edited by a moderator:
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
her family tied sisu out balloons to a car
WOW THANK YOU SO MUCH
184 posts lmao..council employee for sure. or maybe you are PKWH daughter?
If you think Whoberley is foreign, then I am a foreigner to you. Most people accept that it is Coventry and I was a regular at Highfield Road back to the 60's when I lived in Cov. I still go when I get the chance - even been to Sixfields. So being called a foreigner by some Neanderthal is a joke. It just shows, once again, how thick and ignorant you are.
Last edited by a moderator:
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
either you live abroad or you dont?
and you went sixfield? scab
brian-dont make me turn on you! LOL!
and you went sixfield? scab
brian-dont make me turn on you! LOL!