Sisu to build new relationships with council and residents (8 Viewers)

AFCCOVENTRY

Well-Known Member
Taxpayers could be hit with a bill for millions of pounds if the owners of the Sky Blues have successfully proved their case at a recent judicial review.
Supporters will have to wait at least two weeks before Justice Hickinbottom passes down his judgment following a three-day hearing at Birmingham High Court to determine whether a £14.4million Coventry City Council loan to Ricoh Arena operators ACL amounted to unlawful state aid.
Court documents show that, if successful in proving the loan was contrary to European law, Sisu have requested the judge orders another hearing to allow the club to seek damages from Coventry City Council.
That hearing would allow Sisu to set out the losses it believes it has suffered as a result of the council loan with a view to recovering them from the authority.
Those costs would likely include any loss of commercial sponsorship, the cost of the rent at Sixfields and any additional shortfall of income suffered as a result of the move to play ‘home’ fixtures 35-miles away in Northampton.
With attendances plummeting from an average of 10,900 at the Ricoh Arena to 2,348 at Sixfields this season the total bill is likely to run into millions of pounds.
Sisu has also asked the judge to order ACL to repay the loan to the council and a further payment equal to any commercial interest rate the judge believes should have been paid from the date of the loan to when it is recovered.
They have also sought a “prohibition order” in order to prevent the council from: “taking further actions to injure the claimant’s interests in the club and, specifically, from seeking to remove the claimants as owners of the club.”
During the hearing Sisu’s legal team asserted the loan was part of a plan to remove Sisu as owners of Coventry City.
However, the council’s legal team argued the club had only brought about the recent legal action in an attempt to distress ACL and gain control of the Ricoh Arena.
An order to repay £14.4million and attempt to source an alternative stream of funding would likely present significant business challenges to ACL.
If the council successfully defends the claim, the loan to ACL will remain in place and the company will continue to trade as normal.
Justice Hickinbottom will pass down his judgement at Birmingham High Court during the week commencing June 30.
 

Evans1883

New Member
To be honest and i am totally anti sisu , then the balme for the taxpayers bill has to lie at the feet of the council , but it will be spun by them to make sisu look to blame , i just wish this whole saga would end :mad:
 

CovFan

Well-Known Member
So if SISU win the JR the feeling is that they will sue the council for loss of earnings from the move to Sixfields?
 

Kingokings204

Well-Known Member
Just a quick thought.

If the loan is repaid back doesn't that put YB in trouble or liable from ACL for selling them the loan or it being against EU law
 

Kingokings204

Well-Known Member
I don't see this as nothing new. Its a bit obvious isn't it.

If sisu win then they will seek damages and loan to be repaid.

If CCC win then ACL will trade as normal.

Article seems to state the obvious to me.
 

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
Just a quick thought.

If the loan is repaid back doesn't that put YB in trouble or liable from ACL for selling them the loan or it being against EU law

Wouldn't have thought it would have anything to do with YB really.

Though the fact that the Council QC said that YB were willing to loan money to ACL at the time rather damages the CCC case that they had to loan ACL the money to "protect their asset".
 

Jim

Well-Known Member
How are SISU going to prove the the loan caused them to leave the Ricoh?

They had stopped paying rent well before, had been offered new rental terms at least twice by ACL and ultimately were the ones who made the decision to leave.
 

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
How are SISU going to prove the the loan caused them to leave the Ricoh?

They had stopped paying rent well before, had been offered new rental terms at least twice by ACL and ultimately were the ones who made the decision to leave.

Didn't ACL mind them not paying rent then at the Ricoh?

Could have saved a lot of trouble and court cases if they'd just said that at the outset.
 

kmj5000

Member
I don't see this as nothing new. Its a bit obvious isn't it.

If sisu win then they will seek damages and loan to be repaid.

If CCC win then ACL will trade as normal.

Article seems to state the obvious to me.

Except that didn't Tim Fisher say at a meeting a few months back that the purpose of the JR was NOT to claim damages?
 

olderskyblue

Well-Known Member
Didn't ACL mind them not paying rent then at the Ricoh?

Could have saved a lot of trouble and court cases if they'd just said that at the outset.

Lord, how did you arrive at that question from what he said?
 

olderskyblue

Well-Known Member
Wouldn't have thought it would have anything to do with YB really.

Though the fact that the Council QC said that YB were willing to loan money to ACL at the time rather damages the CCC case that they had to loan ACL the money to "protect their asset".

Wouldn't the council offering a loan that enabled ACL to reduce the rent, hence potentially getting their major tenant back, be "protecting their asset" ? Has their been any indication that the YB loan was at a rate that enabled the same savings?
 

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
Wouldn't the council offering a loan that enabled ACL to reduce the rent, hence potentially getting their major tenant back, be "protecting their asset" ? Has their been any indication that the YB loan was at a rate that enabled the same savings?

That's where the argument would lie in the JR ruling i would think, were they offered a loan at "commercial" rates?

If so, was the loan from CCC to ACL at "non-commercial" rates?

That would be the crux of any Stae-aid arguments I'd have thought.

Did say on aother thread that I think that bizarrely if no lender would have touched ACL with a bargepole then the CCC argument for lending to ACL would have been a lot stronger.
 

olderskyblue

Well-Known Member
If the club continued not to pay rent would ACL have let them stay?

They continued to play at the Ricoh after CCFC stopped paying rent didn't they?
 

olderskyblue

Well-Known Member
That's where the argument would lie in the JR ruling i would think, were they offered a loan at "commercial" rates?

If so, was the loan from CCC to ACL at "non-commercial" rates?

That would be the crux of any Stae-aid arguments I'd have thought.

Did say on aother thread that I think that bizarrely if no lender would have touched ACL with a bargepole then the CCC argument for lending to ACL would have been a lot stronger.

So, you agree then, it's not that the fact YB offered a loan that damages anything, it's only if the council loan wasn't at a "commercial" rate.

I agree with you on the rest.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
Can anyone shed light on the difference of £1.1M between what the CCC loaned and what YB would have loaned.
 

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
So, you agree then, it's not that the fact YB offered a loan that damages anything, it's only if the council loan wasn't at a "commercial" rate.

I agree with you on the rest.

Would have also thought that CCC would have had to shop around a few lenders for deals really, think at least three required when tendering for any work, don't know if same applies to loans, but would have thought so.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
Can anyone shed light on the difference of £1.1M between what the CCC loaned and what YB would have loaned.

Could the difference be the equivalent of a 7% deposit as In a Mortgage arrangement thus skewing the Interest rate .
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
If SISU have suffered financial loss because of the actions or inactions of another then they are entitled to make a claim through the courts for damages.

The last claim they made however (higgs case) was dismissed by the judge as having no basis in law

The repay by ACL if CCC lose the case with interest is not a request/demand by SISU it is included in the European state aid regulations if state is found to be illegal.

Questions

Who did force CCFC out of the Ricoh?
Could it have been CCC who are not the leaseholders there and therefore did not own the CCFC sub lease & Licence?
Was it ACL who owned the lease and had taken action since August 2012 to recover money owed? did CCFC/SISU actually ever challenge each stage of the debt recovery? if not why not? Is debt recovery a series of progressive steps where all parties know the next step? :thinking about:
Was it Mr Appleton when he refused to use the Ricoh during his administration as he would have been liable for the rent during that period? Once he moved CCFC Ltd out of the premises then there was no right to occupy for CCFC/CCFCH/SBS&L/Otium
Or was it the result of actions taken that were designed to break a lease? When was the mention of moving to another ground first made and by who - was the lease still valid at the time?

Wasn't the grounds of attempting to wrest control dropped from the JR case - the case is about illegal state aid and irrationality isn't it?

It is not usual for a judge to award damages in a JR case and certainly the figures likely to be claimed by SISU are surely going to need a proper and full court case of its own. What happens if the result is just to revisit the decision and to dot i's and cross t's but the decision is the same - do SISU have a claim then?

Think we should remember whose names are actually on this JR claim ........ it is not CCFC or even Otium Entertainment Group Ltd trading as CCFC............ in which case for example after such damages paid to ARVO would Otium still owe ARVO £13m + ?

I know the media and the club website like to portray this as CCFC vs CCC but it really isn't. It is ARVO & SBS&L vs CCC ..... that's what it says on the court papers. (CCFCH excluded as no longer exists).
 
Last edited:

sky blue john

Well-Known Member
Are we not likely have to deal with an appeal first from which ever side loses ?
And is that likely to hold up any side receiving payment for costs /damages ?
 

sky blue john

Well-Known Member
Osb so what your saying is if the decision goes Sisu's way, with compensation awarded. This would likely go straight into Arvo's coffers leaving the current debt in ccfc as is ?
If this also being the case that if Sisu lose Arvo are liable for CCC, Acl costs and compensation ?
 
Last edited:

spider_ricoh

New Member
For both sides egos have reigned supreme, neither side has given a damn about the fans.

But CCC are not there to care about the fans, that's not their role. SISU own CCFC, it's up to them to look after the fans' interests.

Clearly SISU strategy will be to get the court to define a big damages bill, then go to the council and say "rather than us forcing you to pay taxpayers' money on paying damages to a hedge fund and having to cut public services somewhere, we'll accept ownership of the Ricoh instead of cash" - then, BAG... City back at the Ricoh with Sisu as owners and receiving the revenue streams.
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
I'll translate for others:

If SISU fuck the Club over then that's bad. If CCC fuck the Club over, well, that's OK.

But CCC are not there to care about the fans, that's not their role. SISU own CCFC, it's up to them to look after the fans' interests.

Clearly SISU strategy will be to get the court to define a big damages bill, then go to the council and say "rather than us forcing you to pay taxpayers' money on paying damages to a hedge fund and having to cut public services somewhere, we'll accept ownership of the Ricoh instead of cash" - then, BAG... City back at the Ricoh with Sisu as owners and receiving the revenue streams.
 

Kingokings204

Well-Known Member
End of the day the club is still fucked for the upcoming season Ricoh or not.

This forum will achieve nothing and believe me the date picked was on purpose in line with JR.
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Osb so what your saying is if the decision goes Sisu's way, with compensation awarded. This would likely go straight into Arvo's coffers leaving the current debt in ccfc as is ?
If this also being the case that if Sisu lose Arvo are liable for CCC, Acl costs and compensation ?

you would have to think that

There is no legal entity CCFC it is just a trading name of Otium. Therefore any damages if awarded would go to the parties on the legal papers. These are ARVO and SBS&L (CCFCH were on it but are now dissolved so couldn't claim). The rights I suppose might be transferred from CCFCH to say Otium but not sure if that is legally possible.

How any damages might be split I do not know but any going to ARVO would only come back to Otium as a loan with interest I would guess. SBS&L could loan some of the proceeds to Otium but in last two years have started charging interest so that would only CCFC put costs up, and I would think the investors would like to lower their exposure in SBS&L so will look to extract funds.

As to the costs well those are a liability of the parties that brought the action that they would largely pass on to the CCC if SISU win the case.

I think despite the names on the paperwork it is safe to classify this as SISU vs CCC - I believe that the SISU QC referred to ARVO as a company in the SISU group, SBS&L is owned by Sconset (the SISU investors) that SISU are agents for. Happy to be corrected though
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top