ccfcway
Well-Known Member
I assume that cant be the bit that SISU wanted "out in the open" so all fans could judge
Judicial Review thread (10 Viewers)
- Thread starter ccfcway
- Start date
- Status
I assume that cant be the bit that SISU wanted "out in the open" so all fans could judge
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Just because the Judge appears to be being harsh to the SISU QC, I wouldn't take bets on the outcome of the case yet. It's just as likely he'll tear apart any flaws he sees in the Council QC's argument. I sense it's just what Judges like to do.
Have the Council got anything to defend yet ?
Rob S
Well-Known Member
Are you sure? Martin Reeves is ex- from Feb this year but I think CW is still on the board.
Current list is:
Mr Peter Wyndham Knatchbull-Hugessen
19 Dec 2003 — Present (10 years, 5 months, 22 days)
Ms Marilyn Freda Knatchbull Hugessen
27 Jan 2006 — Present (8 years, 4 months, 14 days)
Mr Christopher Thornby West
28 Sep 2007 — Present (6 years, 8 months, 12 days)
Mr Paul Harris
01 Sep 2011 — Present (2 years, 9 months, 9 days)
Mr Richard Edward Moon
29 Jan 2014 — Present (4 months, 12 days)
Mr Christopher Peter Robinson
30 Jan 2014 — Present (4 months, 11 days)
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
Fucking hell, we've found the smoking gun!!
Dhinsa's_Millions
Well-Known Member
rofl
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
They have: a video of Cllr Mutton chanting 'We Want SISU Out' along with 10,000* others, including me and Scam Jnr
Disclaimer: *obviously Grendull or RFC weren't chanting this
No Grendell and RFC were at sixfields that same day chanting "we want Sisu in"
And they got their wish !!
TheRoyalScam
Well-Known Member
Useful that you've pulled out this. In Keith Perry's CT article today
Sisu are claiming the council’s decision to make the loan (to be repaid over 40 years) was irrational and motivated by a desire to “drive Sisu out of Coventry and force Sisu to sell to new owners”.
The conspiracy argument was also made in last month’s Higgs v Sisu court case and rejected by the judge as “misplaced”.
Quite serious to misquote a judge. He did not say that claims the council were involved in a conspiracy were misplaced.
Hopefully the Cov Tel will correct this as it is very serious to misrepresent a High Court judge. They don't tend to like that kind of thing
No. He says that claims that Higgs were involved in a conspiracy were misplaced. Without Higgs being involved there was no conspiracy - it takes at least two parties to conspire. So, in other words, the claims that CCC were in involved in a conspiracy with Higgs were misplaced as stated by the judge.
Nothing for CT to correct.
What is he studying?
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
AFCCOVENTRY
Well-Known Member
Goalkeeping for beginners
James Smith
Well-Known Member
That's quite a difference!
The Reverend Skyblue
Well-Known Member
The judge sounds fair so I presume the council will have equally a hard time tomorrow, or when they present their defence.
I just pray the two sides realise how non progressive, (its my simple way of saying egotistical maniacs trying to shoot the other down without a single thought to the likely damage party in the middle), they have both been and restart some sort of contact with a view of getting us back where we belong, by August this year hopefully
I just pray the two sides realise how non progressive, (its my simple way of saying egotistical maniacs trying to shoot the other down without a single thought to the likely damage party in the middle), they have both been and restart some sort of contact with a view of getting us back where we belong, by August this year hopefully
duffer
Well-Known Member
Useful that you've pulled out this. In Keith Perry's CT article today
Sisu are claiming the council’s decision to make the loan (to be repaid over 40 years) was irrational and motivated by a desire to “drive Sisu out of Coventry and force Sisu to sell to new owners”.
The conspiracy argument was also made in last month’s Higgs v Sisu court case and rejected by the judge as “misplaced”.
Quite serious to misquote a judge. He did not say that claims the council were involved in a conspiracy were misplaced.
Hopefully the Cov Tel will correct this as it is very serious to misrepresent a High Court judge. They don't tend to like that kind of thing
But he did say that the trustees weren't involved in a conspiracy, didn't he, which shot down a fair part of SISU's case. It also leaves it a bit light on the conspiracy argument, leaving ACL as the only other possible party, who of course are 50% council-owned.
And again, there's no way to force SISU to sell up - unless they don't pay the rent. No one can 'force' them to do that.
Seyeclops666
New Member
@TheSimonGilbert: Court hears CBRE valuation of ACL was £19.5m with £1.2m rent per annum and £6.4m with no rent.
now we see SISU's game!!
now we see SISU's game!!
Rob S
Well-Known Member
From our original petition back in Oct 2013:
'This independent campaign is not “pro-Sisu”, but recognises all parties must urgently resume talks over stadium revenues and ownership – not simply a return to having the club as tenants.
Many fans believe whoever owns the club should own the stadium to help maximise crucial club revenues – and that selling the Ricoh Arena to the current owners could represent the best possibility of a Sisu exit strategy.
We therefore say the council should not exclude from negotiations selling the stadium – on a freehold or leasehold arrangement – to the club’s legal and rightful owners, whoever they may be.'
We were very particular about our wording. We were calling for negotiations and said they should not exclude freehold & leasehold.
Of course a few strange people have tried to misrepresent that as anything from 'giving the stadium to Sisu' to 'selling it on the cheap' when we only called for negotiations. We still are, and many people agree. Any reasonable alternatives to offer?
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Can't wait to read the transcript of todays proceedings on our club website, sounds fascinating.
@ Nick: Was Mr Harris correct in thinking this? Or did Chris West well unterstand the implications of CCC buying the loan and therefore brief the councillors correctly? Even if Chris West didn't unterstand the implications, does this effect the legality of the loan? The question is "was the restructuring legal or not?". Not whether Mr Harris was concerned or not.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
So have you got it in writing that Sisu would leave the stadium intact with the club, when they exit. Or will the club be paying to service Arvo loans. Which currently stands at 1.8million a year interest only ?
Yes. Ask SISU to drop the JR and the words "unemcumbered freehold" as a precondition of negotiations.
duffer
Well-Known Member
In truth though Rob, there was never any pressure from your campaign on SISU to talk about a rent deal, was there? You focused solely on the council, from what I saw.
And indeed it seemed to fail to recognise that whilst the very court case which you are watching now was threatened, it would be difficult to expect anyone from the Council to discuss anything surrounding it. Is that fair enough?
Rob S
Well-Known Member
The article has been corrected so there you go (& fair play to the CT).
Don't forget that Paul Harris said that he had assurances from Chris West that Sisu were aware of what was going on.
BTW, I'm not giving any favour to Sisu's conspiracy story, just pointing out inconsistencies in reporting. It's up to Sisu's legal team (all 300 of them) to make that case and we'll see how that goes. Evidence required!
Danceswithhorses
Well-Known Member
Only SISU and your small group want the Ricoh sold to SISU.
Maybe not 'pro-Sisu', but you must admit you certainly have a common goal.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
We all knew this would be the case. Nice to see it in black and white.
PLAN A : Pull the lease to devalue ACL and pick it up for £6.4M. Bring back the club and value increases to make an instant £13.1M profit for Sisu*.
Note* : Not Coventry City.
Ba£$ards
Dhinsa's_Millions
Well-Known Member
SISU's legal team - Can you polish a turd?
Why has the article been corrected? It was true as it stood. Without ACL, any talk of a conspiracy was misplaced - as stated by the judge. CCC could not conspire with itself.
How does the article now read?
This is getting silly.
Rob S
Well-Known Member
I think we're a little late for the JR bit.
I don't think there's anything wrong with Sisu going in with 'unencumbered freehold' and the council with 'rent' at the top of their lists as long as as many other options are on the table and can be sensibly negotiated. It's the negotiations that are the most important thing.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
TheRoyalScam
Well-Known Member
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
I think we're a little late for the JR bit.
I don't think there's anything wrong with Sisu going in with 'unencumbered freehold' and the council with 'rent' at the top of their lists as long as as many other options are on the table and can be sensibly negotiated. It's the negotiations that are the most important thing.
Sorry but for crying out loud Rob, It is Sisu who need to be back in Coventry at the Ricoh and not just for themselves and the millions they are losing but the thousands of fans that have followed their club for years and years. Cut out all the bullshit and take a rental deal to show willing and once there and have proved to be workable, negotiate from there. Could you imagine what the weight of opinion would be against CCC if they then turned round and said no. That is your negotiation to get back to the Ricoh, not make demands that Sisu know cannot be met.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
I think we're a little late for the JR bit.
I don't think there's anything wrong with Sisu going in with 'unencumbered freehold' and the council with 'rent' at the top of their lists as long as as many other options are on the table and can be sensibly negotiated. It's the negotiations that are the most important thing.
Tell me Rob what percentage of fans do you think trust Sisu ?
I think we're a little late for the JR bit.
I don't think there's anything wrong with Sisu going in with 'unencumbered freehold' and the council with 'rent' at the top of their lists as long as as many other options are on the table and can be sensibly negotiated. It's the negotiations that are the most important thing.
You drew up your policy in 2013 - not too late then to drop the JR, if you were really interested in "fair" negotiations. An example with Northern Ireland. The republic dropped their claim to Northern Ireland territory in order to move forwards - a major gesture in order that people could have a peaceful future.
You expect the council to make a gesture, but not SISU. That is why your campaign failed and also why we are here following a bad soap opera. SISU are not interested in fair and open negotiations or the long term future of our club - otherwise they would have offered the olive branch of dropping this crap JR.
I hope they get trounced and told to stick their flimsy "evidence". That is the only way to move us forwards. JR done and dealt and a clarified situation.
No more BS from ML or TF. Back to the Ricoh and real negotiations.
Rob S
Well-Known Member
No it's not. There were discussions back in November when the JR appeal was pending and there have been attempts to start discussions recently. There is nothing to stop any negotiations to bring the club back to the Ricoh happening right now. The could all nip over to the pub when this session finishes. It's not like they need to go far to get hold of any lawyers.
You're right about us not publicly pressurising regarding a rent deal as that was being covered by both the Sky Blue Trust and KCIC/NOPM. We've said time & time again that we look to fill in the gaps in campaigning to make sure that all sides come to the table.
That said, we have discussed different rent deals (e.g. if a new stadium is built 'hopscotching' there via the Ricoh) in meetings with various Sisu people.
Last edited:
- Status