Grendel
Well-Known Member
I back the club - what fools like you don't get us we are stuck. A business with no investment worth, no home, no revenue and no hope.
JR finished (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter dongonzalos
- Start date
I back the club - what fools like you don't get us we are stuck. A business with no investment worth, no home, no revenue and no hope.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
You must have gone to the same Sisu school of lies and constant bullshit !!
It seems 99% of CCFC fans understand the judges verdict which is pretty damning towards Sisu's actions !!
Why are you coming up with exactly the same bullshit as TF when its been proven as bullshit in a court of law if you don't support Sisu ?
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
How does any of what you have just said get the club back in Coventry?
No future with SISU
New Member
Joy has said she will bankrupt the club( they all ready have) if she cannot have her own way. Will she walk away in revenge or try and recover some of the money by selling now she cannot get her hands on the RICOH.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
This is like that octopus on the advert playing table tennis against about 6 different people at the same time 
Danceswithhorses
Well-Known Member
Supposition and not fact
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
For starters the club needs dialogue with the council. But under Sisu its impossible will never happen.
No future with SISU
New Member
When the rent deal was drawn up it was only about 5% of turnover and the Judge said at the end it was 10% of turnover and not the reason for the clubs problems. ACL/Council asked SISU to produce a plan for the club and they did not show the council anything. Their plan was to use the club and get hold of the RICOH for nothing.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
I think we should just except Grendel is in the minority that just doesn't get it !!
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Oh so we are back in Coventry then?
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Who's fault is that then Grenduffy? Judge Hickinbottam has made his judgement of total exoneration for CCC/ACL in this matter. Or are you akin to Fisher when he says that the Judge is wrong?
No future with SISU
New Member
If I had the money CCFC would be top of the list to buy. 2,000 paying supporters (15,000 waiting) low rent,(34,000 seat available to rent cheap) low value on the playing staff(more going all the time) about to go bust should be able to pick it up on the cheap, hero status on the return to coventry. Must buy a Lotto ticket today.
No future with SISU
New Member
There is hope SISU sell up.
Sky Blue Dal
Well-Known Member
Why you guys entertain him????
Every time I see his post. I just skip straight past it. Majority of the time his comments has no substance, non constructive and at time's rude so why bother reading it.
It all about attention seeking in my opinion, so move on to a post that is worthy of a reply.
Last edited:
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
I don't totally disagree with you. I don't think ACL run the Arena that well; being frank. However, what you can't do is to divorce the Arena from the football club. That's what SISU have tried to do and it's wrong.
The club and the stadium need to be allied, by SISU or another investor. SISU should have prioritised such - and paid a fair price to do so. Just imagine if they had. Any new investor would have to take the same view. ACL produces a decent set of accounts - even though (in my humble opinion) it doesn't seem that well run or dynamic. It also produces a non-football related 365-revenue that's attractive. That does set us apart from other clubs. There aren't that many other clubs who have the portfolio of incomes we have.
The council loan isn't the issue; as it's against the lease on the Arena and some known and projected incomes. It's the football club that's the issue. The sequence of events a number of judges have viewed as being of SISU's instigation has devalued the club and devalued the stadium. Oh, and disenfranchised the customer base. It's been a lose-lose situation of mammoth proportions
Grendel
Well-Known Member
You are right I am humbled, the likes of you and Sky Blue John bring so much more gravitas to the forum.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
You obviously have not read the judges full report ??
The Reverend Skyblue
Well-Known Member
The problem Don is that going forward and sorting this mess out we have Mr Tim Fisher ,who has the negotiating skills of Pol Pot
stupot07
Well-Known Member
He never said that. He said
"the £1.3m rent being only one of the many problems the Football Club faced and arguably not the worst."
Which is completely different to what you have said.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Moronic - how can he operate a keyboard?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Says the "man" who called OSB a worm.
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
He never said that. He said
"the £1.3m rent being only one of the many problems the Football Club faced and arguably not the worst."
Which is completely different to what you have said.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Ok, so that being said, what would you say were worse.
Bearing in mind you bring up the rent quite a lot............oh and Bakers wages.
Grendel. How do you think we can get the club back to Coventry? I am actually interested in your opinion.
Not true.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Why wouldn't I bring up the rent quite a lot, that's been central to the shit.
Not affording RENT
Not paying RENT
Being taking to court for non payment of RENT
Going into administration for none payment of RENT
The JR as a result of ACL refinancing because of none payment of RENT.
The KCIC RENTal offer
Etc.
I would imagine the biggest cost would be staffing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
just out of interest anyone clear to which particular principle of law SISU are planning to try to appeal or are we assume it is all of the JR case?
the appeals process appears to be this
Court of Appeal
In most cases permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal is required. The lower court may grant permission, but this is unusual as it is a way of saying that the judge accepts the decision may not be right. More often, permission is refused and one has to apply for permission from the Court of Appeal itself. It is vital to initiate this process quickly. One has to lodge an "Appellant's Notice" within 21 days of the decision to be appealed along with grounds of appeal. This is relatively easy to do, as the information required is not great. Nevertheless, full documentation and a skeleton argument in support have to be provided shortly after that.
In cases where permission for judicial review is refused by the High Court, the Appellant's Notice must be lodged within one week (7 days).
Refused permission
A decision is made on paper by a Lord/Lady Justice of Appeal. If the decision is to refuse permission, one can renew the application to an oral hearing within 7 days of the order refusing permission). That will usually be before one, but sometimes two, Lord/Lady Justices. The other party or parties are not normally invited, but in practice they will often turn up to the hearing. They may still not be allowed to make representations or claim costs - the point is that the prospective appellant must show that the proposed appeal stands a realistic prospect of success.
If permission to appeal is refused at that stage, that is the end of the matter. One cannot take it further to the Supreme Court because you will have been refused twice - in the High Court and Court of Appeal.
In this sense the Court of Appeal is, therefore, a court of last instance and as a matter of law must refer points of European law that are not acte clair to the Court of Justice of the European Union. In practice in such cases the Lord/Lady Justice(s) hearing the application for permission will usually adjourn the matter to a full three person court for further consideration.
Granted permission
If permission is granted, the appeal will be heard, usually before a three-person court. Usually, no new evidence is allowed as the facts have been available at the High Court stage, but sometimes it is possible to file fresh evidence. The appeal stage therefore tends to be quicker and cheaper than the High Court stage.
As in the High Court, judgment may be given on the spot, though usually it is handed down. Increasingly, the Court of Appeal will either give one judgment on behalf of the Lord/Lady Justices, or two will simply agree with one lead judgment. This unanimity is less interesting than previous practice where the judges had different perspectives. There is also again argument about costs and permission to appeal to the Supreme Court (which is almost invariably refused). This may be done in Court or, frequently, on paper.
Supreme Court of the United Kingdon ('Supreme Court')
A dissenting judgment in the Court of Appeal could be a good route to getting permission to appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal direct. We have successfully obtained such permission once (and went on to win - the Lappel Bank case).
Usually it is necessary to apply to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal. An "Appeals Committee" of three Supreme Court Justices will decide whether to grant permission to appeal or not. Permission is given extremely sparingly, usually in relation to cases involving important points of principle.
However, the Supreme Court is obliged to take a case where it involves a European Community law point that is not acte clair, so we often approach appeals to the Supreme Court with more hope than many prospective appellants because many of our cases involve such points.
The other parties may be asked to provide observations before the Appeals Committee makes up its mind. If still undecided, it can order a short oral hearing. If permission is granted, the procedure in the Supreme Court is elaborate and relatively expensive. But - if you are the appellant - you are lucky to be there.
taken from
http://www.richardbuxton.co.uk/v3.0/node/15
All I can add is that this seems to indicate plenty of court time yet to come and even more legal bills
the appeals process appears to be this
Court of Appeal
In most cases permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal is required. The lower court may grant permission, but this is unusual as it is a way of saying that the judge accepts the decision may not be right. More often, permission is refused and one has to apply for permission from the Court of Appeal itself. It is vital to initiate this process quickly. One has to lodge an "Appellant's Notice" within 21 days of the decision to be appealed along with grounds of appeal. This is relatively easy to do, as the information required is not great. Nevertheless, full documentation and a skeleton argument in support have to be provided shortly after that.
In cases where permission for judicial review is refused by the High Court, the Appellant's Notice must be lodged within one week (7 days).
Refused permission
A decision is made on paper by a Lord/Lady Justice of Appeal. If the decision is to refuse permission, one can renew the application to an oral hearing within 7 days of the order refusing permission). That will usually be before one, but sometimes two, Lord/Lady Justices. The other party or parties are not normally invited, but in practice they will often turn up to the hearing. They may still not be allowed to make representations or claim costs - the point is that the prospective appellant must show that the proposed appeal stands a realistic prospect of success.
If permission to appeal is refused at that stage, that is the end of the matter. One cannot take it further to the Supreme Court because you will have been refused twice - in the High Court and Court of Appeal.
In this sense the Court of Appeal is, therefore, a court of last instance and as a matter of law must refer points of European law that are not acte clair to the Court of Justice of the European Union. In practice in such cases the Lord/Lady Justice(s) hearing the application for permission will usually adjourn the matter to a full three person court for further consideration.
Granted permission
If permission is granted, the appeal will be heard, usually before a three-person court. Usually, no new evidence is allowed as the facts have been available at the High Court stage, but sometimes it is possible to file fresh evidence. The appeal stage therefore tends to be quicker and cheaper than the High Court stage.
As in the High Court, judgment may be given on the spot, though usually it is handed down. Increasingly, the Court of Appeal will either give one judgment on behalf of the Lord/Lady Justices, or two will simply agree with one lead judgment. This unanimity is less interesting than previous practice where the judges had different perspectives. There is also again argument about costs and permission to appeal to the Supreme Court (which is almost invariably refused). This may be done in Court or, frequently, on paper.
Supreme Court of the United Kingdon ('Supreme Court')
A dissenting judgment in the Court of Appeal could be a good route to getting permission to appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal direct. We have successfully obtained such permission once (and went on to win - the Lappel Bank case).
Usually it is necessary to apply to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal. An "Appeals Committee" of three Supreme Court Justices will decide whether to grant permission to appeal or not. Permission is given extremely sparingly, usually in relation to cases involving important points of principle.
However, the Supreme Court is obliged to take a case where it involves a European Community law point that is not acte clair, so we often approach appeals to the Supreme Court with more hope than many prospective appellants because many of our cases involve such points.
The other parties may be asked to provide observations before the Appeals Committee makes up its mind. If still undecided, it can order a short oral hearing. If permission is granted, the procedure in the Supreme Court is elaborate and relatively expensive. But - if you are the appellant - you are lucky to be there.
taken from
http://www.richardbuxton.co.uk/v3.0/node/15
All I can add is that this seems to indicate plenty of court time yet to come and even more legal bills
Last edited:
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
Why wouldn't I bring up the rent quite a lot, that's been central to the shit.
Not affording RENT
Not paying RENT
Being taking to court for non payment of RENT
Going into administration for none payment of RENT
The JR as a result of ACL refinancing because of none payment of RENT.
The KCIC RENTal offer
Etc.
I would imagine the biggest cost would be staffing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
How many other words can you get the word RENT into?
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
I thought it was just because they lost and this is starting to make they look quite clueless at this whole thing.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
ApparRENTly quite a few
http://www.scrabblefinder.com/contains/rent/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
James Smith
Well-Known Member
The rent was too high as all parties admitted a while ago and was mentioned in the JR. However Tim today in rejecting the KCIC offer said that it wasn't about the rent - it's the pie money.
I've forgotten exactly where the figure of £21m came from but I think it was from the overrun of build costs of the Ricoh. ACL paid this £21m to the council for the lease on the Ricoh. The Sisu QC in the JR (who I assume was speaking on behalf of Sisu) said that the £1.3m rent being charged was a direct result of the £21m bank loan and the interest due on it.
We wouldn't have been stuck with this business model if Sisu had bought the Higgs share from the charity.
I'd really love to know
i) what the details of the offer which included the pie money (or at least the ACL slice of it) were.
and
ii) Which bits Sisu objected to.
Last edited: