Judicial Review thread (11 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rob S

Rob S

Well-Known Member
Danceswithhorses said:
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.
Click to expand...

Jesus, read the thing. We are not saying 'sell to Sisu'. We are saying 'negotiate with all possible ownership scenarios.' A lot of regular fans don't care about who owns what – they want their club back in the city.

Negotiating – no matter how icky and distasteful some anti-Sisu fundamentalists might find it – with the club's owners is a start down that road. The alternative is many, many more days in court and rattling around in Northampton.

My goal is getting the club back to the Ricoh.
 
M

martcov

Well-Known Member
Rob S said:
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.
Click to expand...

They can hardly nip over to the pub now. They could have done on the steps and asked the judge for an adjournment whilst they discussed the case together.

Sorry, but this JR prevented any negotiations. Your pressure should have been applied to SISU first - drop the JR - and then to CCC - look they have dropped the JR can we start something moving?

That was the middle way. We now have to await the outcome of the JR. All personal relationships between SISU and CCC have been destroyed. The air is full of bitterness.

What a mess.
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Nope. Neither side does.

sky blue john said:
No sorry !
Just don't trust them. Sisu through their actions have done nothing to warrant my trust.
I take it they have yours though ?
Click to expand...
 
Danceswithhorses

Danceswithhorses

Well-Known Member
Rob S said:
-Negotiating with the club's owners is a start down that road.Yes negotiating with SISU has worked brilliantly in the past. SISU have such a poor reputation on that score.
-We are not saying 'sell to Sisu'. We are saying 'negotiate with all possible ownership scenarios.You may have noticed that CCC don't want to sell the Ricoh, so isn't that totally pointless ?
Click to expand...
 
ccfcway

ccfcway

Well-Known Member
"Sisu QC tells court that Yorkshire Bank was concerned about ACL pursuing a winding up order against the club over the unpaid rent as it could harm ACL commercially."

surely thats common sense ?
 
TheRoyalScam

TheRoyalScam

Well-Known Member
TheRoyalScam said:
Expected to be SISU: Day 1, morning session of Day 2, then CCC: afternoon session of Day 2 and Day 3.
Click to expand...

Bit of a game of two halves, SISU having all the possession for the first half, but being thwarted by a well-read referee. Haven't scored yet, apart from nearly scoring an own-goal.
 
Rob S

Rob S

Well-Known Member
martcov said:
They can hardly nip over to the pub now. They could have done on the steps and asked the judge for an adjournment whilst they discussed the case together.

Sorry, but this JR prevented any negotiations. Your pressure should have been applied to SISU first - drop the JR - and then to CCC - look they have dropped the JR can we start something moving?

That was the middle way. We now have to await the outcome of the JR. All personal relationships between SISU and CCC have been destroyed. The air is full of bitterness.

What a mess.
Click to expand...

You know, you are perfectly at liberty to start up your own campaign with these specific aims & objectives.
 
G

Godiva

Well-Known Member
italiahorse said:
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
Click to expand...

Hmm ... as they would only own 50% of the shares, the 'profit' would be £6.5m - the council would have the other half.
In addition sisu would have to buy Higgs shares to get access to that 'profit' - was it £5m or something like that?
The council would not have to pay anything for that 'profit'.

And before I get shot down by the resident accountant - 'profit' should be probably be called 'value increase' or 'asset increase'.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Rob S said:
You know, you are perfectly at liberty to start up your own campaign with these specific aims & objectives.
Click to expand...

I think to be honest mate, most people didn't see what you did other than hold a protest against the council when the majority felt the ball wasn't in their court.

You claim you're the only one pressuring all sides, but I know for a fact that's bollocks as the Trust have been doing it since day 1, until the club stopped talking to them.

You also hide your links to Reid, and by association Sisu, while claiming to be unbiased. And that's before today's antics on this thread towards OSB. The one thing that makes GCBTTR stand out from KCIC and SBT is the complete lack of transparency, the lack of fan engagement and the one sided protesting.

Can you really blame people if they don't think you're 100% balanced (in both senses of the word)? The weak claim of "Oh I'm filling gaps in the market" was never going to wash.

I'm sure you're a good bloke who's just taken his mate's word for a few things and been a willing pair of ears for some others, but surely you can see the mistakes you made if the aim was to move things forward? Or did you genuinely think more secrecy and division was the answer?
 
Danceswithhorses

Danceswithhorses

Well-Known Member
covcity4life said:
so fuck the council then if they wont sell

finnaly dances gets it

well done!
Click to expand...
Ever thought about studying a second language-may i suggest English ?

EDIT..I think you mistakenly believed i was coming round to your point of view ?
Please don't make that mistake again ;)
 
Last edited:
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
Rob S said:
Jesus, read the thing. We are not saying 'sell to Sisu'. We are saying 'negotiate with all possible ownership scenarios.' A lot of regular fans don't care about who owns what – they want their club back in the city.

Negotiating – no matter how icky and distasteful some anti-Sisu fundamentalists might find it – with the club's owners is a start down that road. The alternative is many, many more days in court and rattling around in Northampton.

My goal is getting the club back to the Ricoh.
Click to expand...

I'd largely agree with this, for what it's worth - but I think the obvious and first thing to do is to come back to the Ricoh on a short-term rent deal whilst the longer and far trickier issue of ownership is thrashed out.

For SISU to say that they can't do that because they don't trust the Council is ridiculous, imho, and no one should accept it as a legitimate argument. ACL/CCC cannot hurt the club via a short-term rent deal with an unambiguous contract, but of course SISU can impact the value of ACL by holding out. That, to me, has seemed to be their main motivation for a good while now.
 
AFCCOVENTRY

AFCCOVENTRY

Well-Known Member
Sisu's QC revealed a woman called Ann, who was presumed to be council leader Ann Lucas, was quoted in a Labour group meeting as saying a deal with Sisu would happen "when hell freezes over."

The judge interrupted him to ask if it mattered, saying: "Does it affect the issue of state aid?" He also added it was the stalemate in negotiations that drove the council's decision, not councillors' animosity towards Sisu.

The judge added: "There were two commercial courses being pursued and it may have been necessary to keep one confidential from the other," before asking Sisu's QC: "are you saying there is anything wrong in that?"

"Yes," he replied. "The club was being funded when the council had no commitment to the project at all."
 
Sky Blues

Sky Blues

Active Member
So it's over for the day. What have we learned? Here's a few to get started based on what I've read today - I'm sure someone will correct me if I've misunderstood.

1. Sisu don't like other people hedging.
2. Sisu's agents valued the stadium at between £6.4m and £19.5m more than nothing.
3. Sisu would have stopped funding the club in the summer of 2012 if it had known it wasn't going to get half the Ricoh.

What else?
 
R

RPHunt

New Member
'The judge interrupted him to ask if it mattered, saying: "Does it affect the issue of state aid?"'

Has anything we have heard today any bearing on the issue of state aid? It comes across as one big whinging session from SISU blaming everybody else for their own inability to strike a deal with other parties.
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
So CBRE value ACL at 19.5m with the full lease and licence, at 8.4m with a rent of £200k and 6.5m with no rent at all.

January 2013 CCFC still had the original lease & licence in place.

Loan to value for the council should be 75%. Loan made was 14.4m which puts the value of ACL at £19.2m.

But according to SISU QC that over values ACL by 15m so they believe the value was 4.2m. Which is actually below CBRE's lowest value. But told charity it was worthless but prepared to pay £2m

none of this seems to join up
 
Last edited:
T

The Gentleman

Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58 said:
So CBRE value ACL at 19.5m with the full lease and licence, at 8.4m with a rent of £200k and 6.5m with no rent at all.

January 2013 CCFC still had the original lease & licence in place.

Loan to value for the council should be 75%. Loan made was 14.4m which puts the value of ACL at £19.5m.

But according to SISU QC that over values ACL by 15m so they believe the value was 4.5m. Which is actually below CBRE's lowest value. But told charity it was worthless but prepared to pay £2m

none of this seems to join up
Click to expand...

Careful OSB58, you'll have Rob calling you out again!
 
A

AndreasB

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
I think to be honest mate, most people didn't see what you did other than hold a protest against the council when the majority felt the ball wasn't in their court.

You claim you're the only one pressuring all sides, but I know for a fact that's bollocks as the Trust have been doing it since day 1, until the club stopped talking to them.

You also hide your links to Reid, and by association Sisu, while claiming to be unbiased. And that's before today's antics on this thread towards OSB. The one thing that makes GCBTTR stand out from KCIC and SBT is the complete lack of transparency, the lack of fan engagement and the one sided protesting.

Can you really blame people if they don't think you're 100% balanced (in both senses of the word)? The weak claim of "Oh I'm filling gaps in the market" was never going to wash.

I'm sure you're a good bloke who's just taken his mate's word for a few things and been a willing pair of ears for some others, but surely you can see the mistakes you made if the aim was to move things forward? Or did you genuinely think more secrecy and division was the answer?
Click to expand...

Come of it, he is no better or worse than the trust - saying a pressure group run by an ex council leader is unbiased and transparent is laughable. The club stopped talking to the trust when is behaved like giddy schoolkids around haskell. They HAVE repaired some of this under their new leadership but are far from "transparent"
And when did talking to Reid become a thoughtcrime then? What has he actually done that winds you all up so much?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 12 (members: 0, guests: 12)
Top