Email from FL (11 Viewers)

[torchomatic]

so since the rent strike began ACL have refinanced and been able to make improved rent offer after improved rent offer, whereas sisu have moved the club to the wrong town and the rent vs income streams ratio has become a gazillion times worse than they ever were at the ricoh under any deal but you still think they have something in common?

it looks like to me one is still entrenched in a blind business plan that is killing the club while the other is getting on with things. remind me again, why do you spend so much time trying to proove whats wrong with ACL while ignoring the problems the club has which have been caused by an entrenched owner who's only interested in the succes of court cases and has no interest in the success of the club?

for a ccfc fan (if thats what you really are) your head and arse are screwed on the wrong way.

 

---

[Astute]

Ooh, look at Astute and John posting in tandem, etc etc etc. :facepalm:

Something we learned from Grendel and yourself.

 

[Chipfat]

Everyone has an agenda, everyone has an opinion and all like to say i told you so, it's what every forum, message board or social media outlets are about.. For anyone to think that what they say is correct, while others who may have a different post or view are saying it because of agenda, doesn't have a mirror or an open mind enough to see it..

I don't care what people think, write or state it's an opinion, i agree or don't, i pick to debate or not, i try not to ridicule or be disrespectful but understand what site i'm on instead of what side i'm on..

 

[torchomatic]

It was actually a joke. Nevermind.

Something we learned from Grendel and yourself.

 

[Astute]

It was actually a joke. Nevermind.

So you know I was serious?

 

[Kingokings204]

Which improved offers that? The one that reverted back to the original offer after 3 years?

That's not completely correct grendel. Sorry about that.

 

[Grendel]

That's not completely correct grendel. Sorry about that.

Why isn't it?

 

[Kingokings204]

Why isn't it?

Because it was 400k for 3 years and then could of actually come down not up. Well it was dependent on what league ccfc were in.

 

[chiefdave]

Which improved offers that? The one that reverted back to the original offer after 3 years?

I've lost track of the offers, which one are you referring to?

There was one mentioned in the JR which was proposed by Yorkshire Bank, is that the one which was £400K for 3 years? That seemed more a 3 year period to negotiate a new long term deal rather than 3 years discount and then back to what we were paying before.

From memory following that there was a serious of offers from ACL to SISU. Think those started at £400K then dropped to £150K on a rolling 10 years term (in line with FL regulations) with the final offer being made via the FL. I suspect the final offer was made via the FL so that should SISU seek compensation ACL can have a third party verify that a 'fair' offer was made and that, at least in ACLs opinion, we weren't forced out of the Ricoh. Could be a key point if we get to the stage of talking about compensation.

 

[Kingokings204]

I've lost track of the offers, which one are you referring to?

There was one mentioned in the JR which was proposed by Yorkshire Bank, is that the one which was £400K for 3 years? That seemed more a 3 year period to negotiate a new long term deal rather than 3 years discount and then back to what we were paying before.

From memory following that there was a serious of offers from ACL to SISU. Think those started at £400K then dropped to £150K on a rolling 10 years term (in line with FL regulations) with the final offer being made via the FL. I suspect the final offer was made via the FL so that should SISU seek compensation ACL can have a third party verify that a 'fair' offer was made and that, at least in ACLs opinion, we weren't forced out of the Ricoh. Could be a key point if we get to the stage of talking about compensation.

Yes I'm referring to the offered agreed in January 2013 and shook on by TF and ML personally. It was 3 years at 400k a year then discuss a longer term strategy that depended on ccfc league and finance. It would have never gone back up to 1.3 p/a.

JS then backed out of the deal that was shook on by sisu for whatever reason and on the eve on the liquidation/CVA ACL offered 150k for 10 years as you state. What a deal this was btw.

 

[turlykerd]

i would have been please to hear the FA state that there would be no CCFC in the league if Coventry move out of coventry, without any FIRM plans in place to move back.

 

[chiefdave]

Yes I'm referring to the offered agreed in January 2013 and shook on by TF and ML personally. It was 3 years at 400k a year then discuss a longer term strategy that depended on ccfc league and finance. It would have never gone back up to 1.3 p/a.

What was the offer put forward by YB that was mentioned in the JR. I recall it being stated they'd put something forward to both sides but did they state what the offer was?

 

[Grendel]

Because it was 400k for 3 years and then could of actually come down not up. Well it was dependent on what league ccfc were in.

What were the terms then?

 

[ccfcway]

Which improved offers that? The one that reverted back to the original offer after 3 years?

well that's not a problem, the new stadium will be finished by then !

 

[torchomatic]

I don't think that's correct. From what I recall (and I could obviously be wrong), the rent would revert to the original agreement after three years and would then have to be renegotiated from scratch. If no agreement could be reached then it would still be £1.3M pa.

It was 3 years at 400k a year then discuss a longer term strategy that depended on ccfc league and finance. It would have never gone back up to 1.3 p/a.

 

[Grendel]

I don't think that's correct. From what I recall (and I could obviously be wrong), the rent would revert to the original agreement after three years and would then have to be renegotiated from scratch. If no agreement could be reached then it would still be £1.3M pa.

Well that's what the court papers suggest

 

[Hobo]

I don't think that's correct. From what I recall (and I could obviously be wrong), the rent would revert to the original agreement after three years and would then have to be renegotiated from scratch. If no agreement could be reach then it would be £1.3M again.

Torch I'm no clearer on the actuals than you. But would it not have given them a three year negotiating platform. If you don't feel you can get anywhere over three years, what hope have we of these idiots (and I'm referring to both camps there) coming to a reasonable agreement beneficial to both sides.

My biggest worry is it has got too entrenched for either to negotiate. I don't think SISU will build a stadium
1 no suitable location
2 they wouldn't get the desired return on the investment
3 I don't think they have the funds (see point 1)

We are in a mess. The obvious solution is negotiation for all parties, it is the only route I see out of it.

 

[Kingokings204]

I couldn't agree more with hobo last sentence. There has to be an agreement between all for all to move forward else there is nothing other than disaster waiting.

The offer to confirm was for 3 years after the the YB deal happened on jan 15th. TF and ML shook on a 3 year deal in the 19th jan 2013 for 400k rent and then the rent was renegotiated again according to league status and club relations. The reason why people think it went back to 1.3m p/a is because after the 3 years it was stated and I quote" the rent amount after 3 years will be renegotiated but for point of clarity it shall go back to 1.3 p/a."

It would of never gone back to 1.3 it was just a point of reference for clarity. Even better was the offer of 150k offered for 10 years on August 2nd that was turned down. This would of been 1 years rent suddenly turned into 10 years rent which was deal of the century to be fair. Over 1 million reduced per annum for minimum of ten years and this would of been the get out card for sisu and/or could of renegotiated a better long term deal.

I don't also understand also why TF and ML shook on 400k on jan 19th and joy said no? Why? What was so different between the 3 people's view?

Also point 2 why did then they reject 150k another 250k knocked off out of desperation from ACL. I don't understand it. I can only assume joy was set on moving out regardless but I don't see the reason.

Any answers please?

 

[skybluetony176]

Which improved offers that? The one that reverted back to the original offer after 3 years?

Man, you have some gaps in your knowledge of what's happened. Perhaps you've been in a coma, that would certainly explain why you think sisu are our saviours.




Who's going to break the bad news to grendull that we now play in the third tier. Lol, he's never going to believe that Coventry now play in Northampton. Someone book him some counseling. He's going to need it.

 

[Grendel]

Man, you have some gaps in your knowledge of what's happened. Perhaps you've been in a coma, that would certainly explain why you think sisu are our saviours.




Who's going to break the bad news to grendull that we now play in the third tier. Lol, he's never going to believe that Coventry now play in Northampton. Someone book him some counseling. He's going to need it.

So it was the one that went back to £1.3 million. Thanks.

 

[skybluetony176]

So it was the one that went back to £1.3 million. Thanks.

Like I said. You have some gaps that need filling in.

If you don't mind taking about it. How did you come to be in a coma and aside from the memory loss do you have any other side effects?

 

[Nick]

Like I said. You have some gaps that need filling in.

If you don't mind taking about it. How did you come to be in a coma and aside from the memory loss do you have any other side effects?

Fill them then!

 

[Ian1779]

I don't also understand also why TF and ML shook on 400k on jan 19th and joy said no? Why? What was so different between the 3 people's view?

Also point 2 why did then they reject 150k another 250k knocked off out of desperation from ACL. I don't understand it. I can only assume joy was set on moving out regardless but I don't see the reason.

Any answers please?

The only obvious reason that springs to mind is that she wasn't happy with other aspects - namely revenue streams. Which is ultimately a far bigger issue than the price of the rent.

 

[skybluetony176]

Fill them then!

Sorry Nick, I forget. Which one of grendulls minions are you again? I can never remember if you're Kevin or Dave.

 

[Astute]

The only obvious reason that springs to mind is that she wasn't happy with other aspects - namely revenue streams. Which is ultimately a far bigger issue than the price of the rent.

More like the way to make money for her investors is get the freehold for the Ricoh. The more money she makes for them the more money she makes for herself. And pie money doesn't do this.

 

[stupot07]

More like the way to make money for her investors is get the freehold for the Ricoh. The more money she makes for them the more money she makes for herself. And pie money doesn't do this.

How would they get the freehold?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Astute]

How would they get the freehold?

Constant litigation, bullying, getting us supporters behind them and so. They have said that any new ground would be held separate to our club. I would expect the Ricoh if they got it to be the same. Thus owned by her investors.

 

[James Smith]

It's not widely known.
But I find it interesting that many say nothing new came out at the JR. This was definitely new.

Yep I'd never heard that before either.

 

[James Smith]

... and we are full circle. Astute said they HAD to sue, so they did. And they lost.

What Higgs achieved was nothing but legal fee's.
What sisu achieved was more valuable than the cost of legal representation. They gained access to a lot of emails, notes, reports and sworn witness statements that they could (and did) use at the JR.

Oh, and sisu immediately abstained from claiming costs from Higgs. Just a small forgotten detail.

Don't forget that the judge said that he was going to rule each side pay their own costs if they hadn't. Seems fair enough to me, although I'd like to see the legal bills on both sides and know that the Sisu one isn't being added to the club debt mountain.

 

[Kingokings204]

The only obvious reason that springs to mind is that she wasn't happy with other aspects - namely revenue streams. Which is ultimately a far bigger issue than the price of the rent.

Obviously TF and ML thought 400k was fair. They shook on it.

What's your response to that?

Food and beverage being the answer doesn't cut the mustard( excuse the pun) as TF and ML thought it was a good deal.

 

[Kingokings204]

Don't forget that the judge said that he was going to rule each side pay their own costs if they hadn't.

Just like I tried to tell Godiva but he seems to think sisu offered to pay the charities costs. It would of been ruled anyway.

 

[Godiva]

Don't forget that the judge said that he was going to rule each side pay their own costs if they hadn't.

Just like I tried to tell Godiva but he seems to think sisu offered to pay the charities costs. It would of been ruled anyway.

So what did actually happen when the trial ended and the question for cost came up:

MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: You take instructions and I will sit here unless anybody asks me otherwise. (Pause)

MR THOMPSON: My instructions are simple, given that there's obviously been a judgment in both directions, that there could be no order as to costs. That would be an order that we would be content with. I don't know whether Mr Brennan has some other suggestion.

MR BRENNAN: My Lord, I wish life was so simple, but the test isn't simplicity; the test is justice.
This was an ordinary County Court claim, which shouldn't have been brought on the basis that it was brought and could and should have been defended in the counterclaim on the narrow basis which has ultimately succeeded. In the event, SISU sought to defend the case inter alia on another basis, which was predicated on stinging criticisms of the trustees' conduct, which were unwarranted.
As a matter of principle I say that the appropriate order as to costs is that we should have to pay SISU the proper and reasonable costs that it would have incurred had it defended the case on a proper basis without making the unwarranted criticisms and, in those circumstances, I would invite the court to grant SISU their costs of the claim, less a deduction, which, as best you can, you think meets the justice of that case, and order SISU to pay the costs of the counterclaim.
Unfortunately, it's very difficult to unravel it and the matter will have to be put off to a costs officer, but the costs officer, will need some guidance --

MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: You might end up worse off than on Mr Thompson's proposal. I know that's not the test of what I should do, but ...

MR BRENNAN: My instructing solicitor is rather closer to the costs than I am, so perhaps I can take --

MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Yes. It's not obvious what the costs are of the counterclaim and claim except, up to the time there's a counterclaim, of course, there weren't any costs of that.

MR BRENNAN: Yes, I follow that.

MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Once there was a counterclaim...

MR BRENNAN: The claim rather took second place thereafter.

MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: They were both sort of entangled with each other to some extent. The claim has obviously persisted for another day at the other end as well.
You have two days at the other end.

MR BRENNAN: As I say, my instructing solicitor is closer to costs. (Pause)
My Lord, these are not insignificant sums. I know it's 4.40, but could I ask for five minutes?

MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Of course you may. Call me back in when you're ready.

(4.41 pm)
(A short break)
(4.47 pm)

MR BRENNAN: My Lord, I'm very grateful for the extra time. Mr Thompson's suggestion is a sensible one and we wish to agree it.

MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Well, I think it is the right conclusion. I would have come to it anyway. These days, the usual approach is not, as it once was, to treat the counterclaim and the claim independently; it's to look overall at who the winner is and it seems to me that this is a case which has effectively ended as a nil-all draw, if I'm allowed to use the comparison.

MR BRENNAN: I think minus one each probably more accurately sums it up.

MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Well, that may be the case. Thank you.

If you read the actual transcript carefully you will notice that sisu QC rather quickly suggest they will accept a ruling of 'no order as to cost'.
It then takes the ACL QC quite some time to accept that.
Then the judge says he would have come to the same conclusion.

 

[Kingokings204]

If you read the actual transcript carefully you will notice that sisu QC rather quickly suggest they will accept a ruling of 'no order as to cost'.
It then takes the ACL QC quite some time to accept that.
Then the judge says he would have come to the same conclusion.

Yes I don't understand what you're getting at?

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Marilyn Knatchbull-Hugessen states it well......

The Judge described it as a “nil-all draw”, which is why he said he would have made a court order that we each bear our own costs had we not already agreed to do so.

So perhaps Mark Labovitch of Otium and Sky Blue Sports and Leisure didn’t know this when he told the Coventry Telegraph: “I think it’s extremely magnanimous of Joy (Seppala, Sisu’s boss) not to pursue costs from the charity”.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/high-court-judge-formally-throws-6906797

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Godiva thinks the judge is saying he would have come to the same conclusion as ACL, rather than saying he would have made the same decision about the costs regardless of ACL's opinion.