shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Judicial Review thread (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter ccfcway
- Start date
- Status
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Rob S
Well-Known Member
As we are nearly 500 posts deep into a thread about the judicial review you're going to find a lot of dwelling on things pertaining to the whole history of the arena. If you want the brave new world of a resolution to this saga then you'll best be served in other threads on this forum.
I don't think the potential origin of the costs of the Ricoh is spin as such and I was quite clear to qualify that it was something I'd heard and will look to be backing up at a later date. It's purely offered for discussion – e.g. other people might have heard different or could corroborate.
If you're pissed off about people discussing arcane minutiae of this case then you're in the wrong place.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
I'm not being funny; but is this it? I mean seriously; is this it? This was already declared and dismissed last time.
Whatever your feelings with regards culpability, even those who oppose the council's stance in this, must have expected more of a 'smoking gun' barrage of revelations given it's SISU QC who's opening, and giving it everything he can.
Is this really why we are playing football in Northampton?
The least I would have hoped for was something stupid from Mutton - which I wouldn't be surprised at. But this? It just makes me sad more than anything else...
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
They certainly didn't a lot to keep us up !
Rob S
Well-Known Member
WRONG! Did not dismiss a similar argument. Judge dismissed the claim that Higgs was obliged (through agreed terms) not to negotiate with other parties and that the prospective deal had likely fallen apart by Aug 2012 for several reasons inc. council vetoing any deal on Higgs share of ACL.
Rob S
Well-Known Member
I'll take this in the Cyndi Lauper sense but unfortunately cannot reciprocate.
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately probably is. Just what is the sisu bottom line in all this nonsense is a mystery, they lose this JR so what ! they win it so what ! Meanwhile our football team is playing 35 miles away, selling the best players, buying no-one of any significance and for what ? What is Sepella's end game ?
Last edited:
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
I'm struggling at the moment to see how this has even got to court !!
All this has done is delay negotiations for a year...
All this has done is delay negotiations for a year...
Nick
Administrator
That doesn't make sense at all to go with their argument?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Rob S
Well-Known Member
I think the angle is that the council wanted Sisu to carry on funding the club until such time that the 'new ownership project' could be fully activated. Allegedly. Is anyone reporting any evidence being read into court?
My thoughts exactly.
No future with SISU
New Member
It is more than 91%.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
I smell BS, that would make turnover £25m. Must have based that on the old PL days.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Last edited:
Dhinsa's_Millions
Well-Known Member
As we are nearly 500 posts deep into a thread about the judicial review you're going to find a lot of dwelling on things pertaining to the whole history of the arena. If you want the brave new world of a resolution to this saga then you'll best be served in other threads on this forum.
I don't think the potential origin of the costs of the Ricoh is spin as such and I was quite clear to qualify that it was something I'd heard and will look to be backing up at a later date. It's purely offered for discussion – e.g. other people might have heard different or could corroborate.
If you're pissed off about people discussing arcane minutiae of this case then you're in the wrong place.
We await your bullshit post with baited breath then.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sky Blues
Active Member
:Thinking about: - or whatever the code is for that rubbing chin smiley.
Last edited:
Sky Blue Dal
Well-Known Member
I believe this was dismissed as it had no relevance in the Higgs and SISU case as the CCC were a third party but it would be of relevance in this case as it involves SISU vs CCC. I maybe wrong but I don't think the judge will dismiss it this time round and keep it in.
duffer
Well-Known Member
Erm... at what point did the council veto the deal?
What I took from the Higgs case transcripts is that the deal fell apart because SISU offered £5m on buy-now, pay-later terms without any security that Higgs could accept. I didn't see any evidence of the Council shooting down the deal, in fact there can't be any because no agreement between Higgs and SISU was ever struck - in essence then, no deal to veto.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
So what's the supposed point this new ownership project kicked off? And again, how could any of it go ahead without Sisus approval as owners?
It just doesn't stack up. Why was all the PR at the time about the rent rather than this devious plot to remove them? If you were tricked into not paying rent why not go public? If you did it willingly why not stop the admin process?
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
I'm waiting for the sisu qc to say pkwh tied balloons to fishers car Hahahahaha (not joking really)
Really is a pathetic showing from sisu. Is this how they batter people is court? Pricks. Don't think they actually have won one as this is their home fixture.
Really is a pathetic showing from sisu. Is this how they batter people is court? Pricks. Don't think they actually have won one as this is their home fixture.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I smell BS, that would make turnover £25m. Must have based that on the old PL days.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Was thinking that those figures didn't make sense too stupot. Turnover for 2012 and 2013 were 10.8m and 6.6m respectively and rents paid (was it all at Ricoh?) 1.7m and 1.2m respectively.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Was this at the time Joy was unaware of the rent strike ?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I smell BS, that would make turnover £25m. Must have based that on the old PL days.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
That seemed funny to me. Why would Sisu downplay the level of rent? (This was a Sisu argument right?)
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
What the Judge said on the Higgs case
“On the facts, as I perceive them, by the time the trustees entered into an agreement to vary the joint venture agreement on 14 January 2013, the transaction contemplated by the term sheet had already fallen apart or fallen away, to use Miss Deering's expressions this morning, long before that. It follows that the criticisms made of the trustees by SISU as to the propriety of their conduct in December or January and the arguments made about them undermining the bargain by their actions at that time seem to me to be misplaced and it is unfortunate that allegations were made in some of the terms which have been put forward by SISU in these proceedings. I have come to the conclusion, however, that in circumstances where the transaction fell apart or fell away in August 2012, effectively because neither party wished to pursue the transaction contained in the term sheet, that is not a circumstance in which the trustees are entitled to recover their wasted costs.” MR JUSTICE LEGGATT
“On the facts, as I perceive them, by the time the trustees entered into an agreement to vary the joint venture agreement on 14 January 2013, the transaction contemplated by the term sheet had already fallen apart or fallen away, to use Miss Deering's expressions this morning, long before that. It follows that the criticisms made of the trustees by SISU as to the propriety of their conduct in December or January and the arguments made about them undermining the bargain by their actions at that time seem to me to be misplaced and it is unfortunate that allegations were made in some of the terms which have been put forward by SISU in these proceedings. I have come to the conclusion, however, that in circumstances where the transaction fell apart or fell away in August 2012, effectively because neither party wished to pursue the transaction contained in the term sheet, that is not a circumstance in which the trustees are entitled to recover their wasted costs.” MR JUSTICE LEGGATT
Rob S
Well-Known Member
This all has to be answered as part of Sisu's case. I'm not giving their argument any support or credence, just explaining what I think it is. TBH, the only way to really find out is to be in the court and pore over the papers afterwards.
(Thankfully my suitcase has returned so I may yet get to do just that.)
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
No I get that. I was just shaking my fists at clouds, not you personally.
The Reverend Skyblue
Well-Known Member
Be aware OSB , your point isn't acceptable to some because you might be in the labour party
duffer
Well-Known Member
Quite. If the rent's paid, or even a lower rent agreed (as was, supposedly, being negotiated), then there's simply no way to replace SISU as owners unless they chose to sell. You can't force someone into selling the club, even via admin, unless they refuse to pay their bills.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
power to the people Rev power to the people !:laugh:
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
I can't see this going the distance the Sisu qc sounds like he is getting a kicking from the judge.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
I might be wrong but I think it's from a higgs memo.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
Re point 2, I think there is a difference between criticising and mud slinging.
- Status