Council and Sky Blues in court tomorrow (37 Viewers)
- Thread starter SimonGilbert
- Start date
Nick
Administrator
If they thought / knew that, why would they be pushing for it to be revealed and if it was worth way over what ACL borrowed surely it would be the first bit of evidence the council put forward?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
You'd think the other party would have already done so if they had.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
ACL is not the building.
Astute
Well-Known Member
But you are insinuating that the lease is worth less than a quid a year.
From what we can gather it is making a profit without our club playing there. That puts a value on the lease. It looks like the naming rights are nearly due. This has a value without our club being there, although it would be worth more if they were. This could pay off a large amount of the loan.
How many of you agree with keeping our club in Northampton to try and make the arena worth a lower amount? How many are happy to travel there for home games or not go to home games because of the SISU plan?
Astute
Well-Known Member
But the lease is for the building. And it has over 40 years to go.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
The loan covered ACL's outstanding debt, which in turn covered the build costs. If the cost to build the Arena had not exceeded the finance available to build it the stadium management company would be able to chug along without the need to find interest payments on a £14M loan.
Anyway, maybe the euro rules are not all about raw monetary values, maybe they encompass social purposes also and Labovich's issues are not important.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Again, I'm not sure I buy the Sisu are tactical geniuses line. Could be bog standard fishing exercise. But if someone has, why not go public and claim the electoral rewards for whistleblowing?
Nick
Administrator
Surely the lease value would have been factored in to the business value?
Nick
Administrator
I'm not saying they are geniuses and it could just be fishing.
It said in the CET that all council people are banned from talking to SISU, lawyers orders. Maybe they are shit scared?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Or maybe they are fed up of SISU twisting everything. Most of us are. If you don't speak to them they can't twist what you say.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Don't be silly. If there's wrongdoing in an organisation you can't be "banned" from talking about it. What would they do to you? You'd be an elected official serving your constituents.
I just find is funny that the only person close to the council who will speak out at all is the mental Spurs fan guy that's split from almost every party he's been with and appears to be another Sinclaire.
Basically, I just wonder why no-one with any credibility in this is speaking out for Sisu. Councils are notoriously leaky when it comes to information and from what I gather from the outside Coventry Labour party isn't always a bastion of harmony (like, I'm sure all local parties).
Just seems odd, that's all. All it would take is one person to leak the minutes, or even just to speak out publicly, but as far as I know no council member has (unless I missed it).
Nick
Administrator
What have they twisted what you said?
Surely they can't twist something if it is there in black and white?
Yesterday you were saying Timmy was twisting about paying the police directly, which was wrong.
If they have evidence and go to court using it as their evidence, of course they will try to twist it their way. The same as CCC will try and twist it theirs.
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't say shit scared. I think we all know the council haven't spoke about anything to anyone. It's what their lawyers have told them. Don't know why as ML hasn't stopped talking. They say it's to do with JR and to be honest I would rather hear nothing than bs. Nothing will change until the jR anyway.
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
Or maybe some council officials are not adept as others at not shooting their mouth off in which case keeping quiet until after the review is a very sensible thing to do.
duffer
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure they've been banned from talking to SISU as much as advised by the legal department to refrain from commenting on the case. I think this is fairly common when you've got a big legal case coming up - the idea is that you don't want to give the other side something that they'll try to twist around to suit their case. And you probably don't want to find yourself dragged into court as a witness either, which is the other possiblity. Have a read of the Higgs transcripts again if you want to see how things get used in the court, and judge whether you'd fancy seeing yourself on the stand.
Sh*t scared is an interesting phrase - do you think SISU are sh*t scared about discussing the current or past accounts? It's just that I notice that they're not as forthcoming as they might be either.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Oh wow. This is a new level of Stockholm Syndrome for you mate. No, Sisu never twist what has happened or in fact lie outright to taint people. No. Never.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Also must be "shit scared" of discussing the new stadium.
I like this new measure. Nick and Grendel didn't mention the Labovitch meetings because they were shit scared.
Works for all kinds of things.
Nick
Administrator
I know what you mean and have no idea if they do have a leak somewhere but it is quiet until the JR. I agree it is strange there is no "hero" or "SISU plant" who has come out and gone all Wikileaks.
Nick
Administrator
I haven't said they don't? I think all parties are full of shit!
I just mean how can they twist evidence? They can spin it their way, but if it is black and white?
Nick
Administrator
Also must be "shit scared" of discussing the new stadium.
I like this new measure. Nick and Grendel didn't mention the Labovitch meetings because they were shit scared.
Works for all kinds of things.
Have you seen ML? He would have hunted me down and kicked the shit out of me for telling.
Oh, by the way it wasn't just me and Grendel. Lots of people have also been and stayed quiet.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Ah, not banned just "advised by the legal department to refrain from commenting". Totally different.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Now you are twisting what I said.
I said we are fed up of them twisting everything. You ask me what have they twisted what I have said.
The offer of rent free was made. SISU said it wasn't made to them, making out as though the offer wasn't made as they didn't want to accept it. They are trying to devalue the Ricoh.
I showed the ACL statement where they said about the policing being included as part of the expenses for the rent free and 150k for the two years after. You said they had never said so. Timothy had said that the ploicing still had to be paid.....or are the ones always backing what SISU are attempting twisting things for him? Not me twisting it. Are you?
Of course they will twist things in court. Just like they did against Higgs, including the value of the Ricoh.
Nick
Administrator
There was an article in the CET saying the word "banned" and an awkward situation where ML said hello to somebody and the other person stuttered and walked off.
Edit: Just re-read and it doesn't say banned. It says:
Apologies!
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
I think you'll find they've just been advised by Legal to refrain from commenting. By Legal mind.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
Yes, totally different. what's your point torch?
Nick
Administrator
What I am saying is, if the valuation is there in black and white how can they twist it? If CCC take that evidence (valuation) to court then SISU can't spin it can they as it is there?
I never said ACL never said it, I said it wasn't true as ACL had also said the opposite and it was in the accounts that CCFC paid for it. As well as the posts at the time discussing why on earth would they charge us for things.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Absolutely no point at all. Just being mischievous to Duffer, Astute, Shmmeee and their "mates" at the council.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Thanks for letting us know.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Oh yes, never thought of that. Nice one. Ha, ha.
Fair enough. Pity your never mischievous to others, like Nick, or Grendel....
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I call shenanigans.
Sorry, you can't keep pulling the "oh you're attached to one side of the argument" thing after the other side are in direct contact with Sisu and doing jobs for them like arranging meetings. Sorry, that's a total busted flush. There's only one side that has "mates" on here and it's lead by Mr Labovitch, that's been made quite clear.
When are you going to get back to posting about CCFC instead of just coming on to slag off fans? As it is literally all you have done for the past few months.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Ooh, that's a bit below the belt. I post a lot about the team. Always have.
Not sure why you're ranting about "direct contact", etc. I've never had anything to do with either side, directly or indirectly and have never been or invited to any meetings.
Similarly when are you going to challenge others such as Spion, MMM etc to do the same and not slag off their fellow fans?
I guess I'll be waiting a while for that, eh?
Not sure why you're ranting about "direct contact", etc. I've never had anything to do with either side, directly or indirectly and have never been or invited to any meetings.
Similarly when are you going to challenge others such as Spion, MMM etc to do the same and not slag off their fellow fans?
I guess I'll be waiting a while for that, eh?
Houchens Head
Fairly well known member from Malvern
Never trusted Mark Labovitch from the start. Why did he walk out of Tony Blair's company to come to CCFC. Strange move? http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/sep/24/tony-blair-mark-labovitch-resignation