Ten key facts from the High Court judgment (3 Viewers)

Forums New posts
K

Kingokings204

Well-Known Member
Just read it. Thanks for that tea boy.

Amazing people still think sisu are the way forward. Blimey me.
 
Otis

Otis

Well-Known Member
I love number 7.

7) Sisu criticised a £14.4m loan to ACL, which they argued was a failing business. But the judge responded by pointing out Sisu had ploughed £50m into a “hopelessly loss-making football club” in the hope they could make profit by buying into the Arena. He also said Sisu and its investors had “written off” this money.

:claping hands:

Love to hear their answer to that one. ;)
 
T

The lost fan

Banned
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
QUOTE=Otis;726235]I love number 7.

7) Sisu criticised a £14.4m loan to ACL, which they argued was a failing business. But the judge responded by pointing out Sisu had ploughed £50m into a “hopelessly loss-making football club” in the hope they could make profit by buying into the Arena. He also said Sisu and its investors had “written off” this money.

:claping hands:

Love to hear their answer to that one. ;)[/QUOTE]

oh they have answered that before Otis ............. didn't you know we are debt free because that £50m isn't really a debt it is money owed to the owners and that doesn't count...... interestingly this debt that isn't really a debt accrues interest in part at over £1.5m pa (at what rate I don't know but some have said 10%) that is rolled up into the debt that doesn't really exist .......... also it is secured on all the assets of the business, let me see including Wilson that would be say assets £5m............ plus the business has no long term security of tenure and makes multi million £ losses but SISU have said they have every intention of covering it so that's ok honest ........ so we really do not need to worry ourselves cos it is all totally under control.,......

Unlike the ACL debt that is it seems secured on actual assets in a profit making business, decreasing, and at 5% interest........... a far worse position

:thinking about::facepalm:
 
Last edited:
TheRoyalScam

TheRoyalScam

Well-Known Member
Thanks for your updates and journalism Simon:)

I thought the judge played a blinder - rereading the judgement, it's clear he understands exactly what SISU's intentions were.

Because the conclusion states 'This claim fails in its entirety', I'm looking forward to Friday when costs will be decided - there must be a good chance that SISU will be paying at least some if not all of CCCouncil's costs.

'We batter people in court'...................;) Yeah, Tim, and the judge was 'wrong'.......
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Is it a comment on the intelligence of your average Coventrian or today's journalistic standards since the dawn of the Internet that every other article in the Telegraph is phrased as a "List of things we know"?
 
bigfatronssba

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Is it a comment on the intelligence of your average Coventrian or today's journalistic standards since the dawn of the Internet that every other article in the Telegraph is phrased as a "List of things we know"?
Click to expand...

I think its more that with something like this listing facts is the best way to avoid the bias tag.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
bigfatronssba said:
I think its more that with something like this listing facts is the best way to avoid the bias tag.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm being grumpy, but everything I see online these days is "5 Ways to do X" "10 reasons you should like Y". Just seems lazy to me, I want the newspaper not Cosmopolitan. Not just the Telegraph that are guilty mind.

Edit: Also, they shouldn't even be worrying about avoiding the bias tag TBF, only a couple of very bitter friends of a certain ex journo are throwing those accusations around.
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Another biased report from the Council Evening Telegraph. Why didn't you print any of the judges points that showed sisu in a good light? Oh wait............

Good work tea boy. What times your walk tonight? ;)
 
RegTheDonk

RegTheDonk

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the summary Simon.

So, just on Point 7, is the judge acknowledging that SISU actually HAVE put £50M into the club, which kind of backs up all the whining that Fisher et al have been saying?

That being the case, would it be reasonable for SISU to want somewhere near that figure to sell CCFC debt free to someone else? Sorry if it sounds this simplistic, I'm no finance expert and I know CCFC, the players, Ryton etc. isn't worth £50M, I assume the rest is all tied up in debt and loans.
 
italiahorse

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
skybluetony176 said:
Another biased report from the Council Evening Telegraph. Why didn't you print any of the judges points that showed sisu in a good light? Oh wait............

Good work tea boy. What times your walk tonight? ;)
Click to expand...

Why don't you summarise the points that showed Sisu in a good light?
To be honest I have read it and not spotted any. I don't mind being proven wrong.
 
S

SimonGilbert

Telegraph Tea Boy
shmmeee said:
Is it a comment on the intelligence of your average Coventrian or today's journalistic standards since the dawn of the Internet that every other article in the Telegraph is phrased as a "List of things we know"?
Click to expand...

It just seems to be a popular way of presenting the information in a concise way.

Not everyone wants to read a 1,000 word report on court proceedings. And I don't blame them!

We try to cater for all if possible. Having the choice of how to read the information is better than having it forced on you in a rigid format. In my opinion anyway.

But what do I know. I'm just a tea boy!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
italiahorse said:
Why don't you summarise the points that showed Sisu in a good light?
To be honest I have read it and not spotted any. I don't mind being proven wrong.
Click to expand...

here you go

point 1)
point 2)
point 3)
point 4)
point 5)
point 6)
point 7)
point 8)
point 9)
point 10)

there you go. all 10points unedited that the judge made in favour of sisu ;)
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
shmmeee said:
Is it a comment on the intelligence of your average Coventrian or today's journalistic standards since the dawn of the Internet that every other article in the Telegraph is phrased as a "List of things we know"?
Click to expand...

It's the fashion to bang on about 'accessibility'. 'Accessibility' likes bullet points as far as I can tell. Those with jobs dependent on banging on about accessibility demand accessible articles.

So we get '10 bathroom toys you wouldn't tell your girlfriend about'
 
Jim

Jim

Well-Known Member
RegTheDonk said:
Thanks for the summary Simon.

So, just on Point 7, is the judge acknowledging that SISU actually HAVE put £50M into the club, which kind of backs up all the whining that Fisher et al have been saying?

That being the case, would it be reasonable for SISU to want somewhere near that figure to sell CCFC debt free to someone else? Sorry if it sounds this simplistic, I'm no finance expert and I know CCFC, the players, Ryton etc. isn't worth £50M, I assume the rest is all tied up in debt and loans.
Click to expand...

SISU can't expect anywhere near that figure as the club has very few assets and the foreseeable future value of the clubs cash flows is very low.

They need to wake up and accept that they will make a loss, and accept a bid of around 10 million and walk away.

Any other action will be to increase their losses and destroy any credibility they have left (not that there's much anyway).
 
Skyblueweeman

Skyblueweeman

Well-Known Member
Kingokings204 said:
Just read it. Thanks for that tea boy.

Amazing people still think sisu are the way forward. Blimey me.
Click to expand...

FFS! NO ONE SEES THEM AS THE WAY FORWARD!!! PUT IN CAPITALS AS IT'S DRIVING ME F**KING MENTAL THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY THINK FELLOW CCFC FANS ACTUALLY WANT SISU TO REMAIN IN CHARGE OF OUR CLUB.

AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Right, that's better. No one wants SISU here, but no one is queuing up to buy us with a realistic offer?!

Respectfully,

WM
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Skyblueweeman said:
Right, that's better. No one wants SISU here, but no one is queuing up to buy us with a realistic offer?!
Click to expand...

Not the right statement in my eyes.

More...

They're here, we're queer, so let's get it on and make the best of it.
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Skyblueweeman said:
FFS! NO ONE SEES THEM AS THE WAY FORWARD!!! PUT IN CAPITALS AS IT'S DRIVING ME F**KING MENTAL THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY THINK FELLOW CCFC FANS ACTUALLY WANT SISU TO REMAIN IN CHARGE OF OUR CLUB.

AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Right, that's better. No one wants SISU here, but no one is queuing up to buy us with a realistic offer?!

Respectfully,

WM
Click to expand...

what, in your opinion, would be a realistic offer for the club?

because i'm of the opinion that if you offset the assets of the club against the debts its worth a grand total of sweet FA and FA doesn't stand for football association in this case.
 
Skyblueweeman

Skyblueweeman

Well-Known Member
skybluetony176 said:
what, in your opinion, would be a realistic offer for the club?

because i'm of the opinion that if you offset the assets of the club against the debts its worth a grand total of sweet FA and FA doesn't stand for football association in this case.
Click to expand...

Honestly Tony, I'm not sure....otherwise I'd be on the phone to some Arabs asking them about their future investment portfolios. It needs to be something that makes SISU sit up and take notice. I've said on another thread, I'm an admirer of MO and was well behind the petition in the early days but as good as the intentions were, the offer was never likely to succeed.

We've seen ACL pretty much hand the Arena over for a pittance and it's been rejected. It needs to have someone come in with something like £20m to pay SISU off, then negotiations over the Ricoh can begin with a new party.

Unfortunately, that's a long way off (in my eyes)....

WM
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Skyblueweeman said:
I don't see it that way NW but we all see things differently!

WM
Click to expand...

Like it or not, SISU are the club's owners.

That doesn't mean there aren't alternatives... there are *always* alternatives.

But they're not the type where setting in opposition works well. So... it's not rolling over to recognise that. Know your enemy and all that...
 
Skyblueweeman

Skyblueweeman

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
Like it or not, SISU are the club's owners.

That doesn't mean there aren't alternatives... there are *always* alternatives.

But they're not the type where setting in opposition works well. So... it's not rolling over to recognise that. Know your enemy and all that...
Click to expand...

*Always* alternatives....I get that, but let me redress my point then...no relevant/meaningful alternatives that will appeal to SISU and make them sit up and take notice. You and I are alternatives...we're not relevant.

KCIC isn't relevant as the figures didn't stack up to the offer.
GH/JE have history, too ingrained in the past and won't be dealt with by SISU, not relevant.
Haskell VIIIIIIIII whatever number he was, no substance, not relevant.
Byng...as many questions over his intentions and land development/purchase as SISU, not relevant.

It needs a new, unknown party, with no connection to the past history of CCFC to come in and play the 'knight in shining armour' role. I genuinely believe that's the only way we'll get our club back on the footing it should be with a united fanbase.

Unfortunately, I can't see any takers....

WM
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
1) A £14.4million loan from Coventry City Council to the Ricoh Arena operating firm ACL in January 2013 was not unlawful state aid.

2) The judge could not say a rational private investor would not have made a similar loan and the council acted “well within the ambit extended to public authorities”.

3) Sisu sought to blame the club’s financial woes on ACL, but the judge said the club sold their right to revenues at the Ricoh Arena “for good consideration”. He also pointed out that when Sisu bought the club they had “full knowledge” of the lack of revenue rights and the contractual commitment to pay ACL £1.3m-a-year in rent.

4) The club’s outgoings on rent were less than ten per cent of the club’s overall expenditure in 2012.

5) The judge said the crisis in ACL was triggered by Sisu refusing to pay rent. He also said £500,000 taken from an escrow and £10,000 costs paid per match was “expenses” and not rent.

6) The judge said the withdrawal of rent was a deliberate strategy by Sisu to “distress ACL’s financial position, with a view to driving down the value of ACL and thus the price of a share in it, which they coveted.”

7) Sisu criticised a £14.4m loan to ACL, which they argued was a failing business. But the judge responded by pointing out Sisu had ploughed £50m into a “hopelessly loss-making football club” in the hope they could make profit by buying into the Arena. He also said Sisu and its investors had “written off” this money.

8) The £14.4m loan made to ACL by the council was likely more than the value of the company - but this was acceptable as it was a long term investment which would see the council make a return.

9) The judge dismissed Sisu’s argument that the council had put policy above financial sense was “misconceived” - pointing out that the council was “entitled - if not bound” to consider politics in its decision-making process.

10) Criticisms of council officers which suggested they had misled councillors ahead of the decision to make the £14.4m loan to ACL were “unfounded”.
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
All the above are points that have been made over and over again on this forum.
At last they are confirmed and vindicated in a court of law by an impartial senior deliver of said Law.

Lets unite as fans and push for SISU to do two things

Buy ACL for a fair price not a price reduced by the actions of the purchaser

Or agree a long term rent at a sliding scale with 80% food and beverages.
 
Hobo

Hobo

Well-Known Member
Skyblueweeman said:
FFS! NO ONE SEES THEM AS THE WAY FORWARD!!! PUT IN CAPITALS AS IT'S DRIVING ME F**KING MENTAL THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY THINK FELLOW CCFC FANS ACTUALLY WANT SISU TO REMAIN IN CHARGE OF OUR CLUB.

AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Right, that's better. No one wants SISU here, but no one is queuing up to buy us with a realistic offer?!

Respectfully,

WM
Click to expand...

How do you know offers haven't been made in private? SISU have said the club isn't for sale on several occasions in recent months. You usually get offers when the for sale sign goes up.

When SISU bought the club there were other interested parties. When Otium bid for the club there were other interested parties. The trouble is SISU have driven the club into the ground and is practically worthless and people are not going to reimburse their running costs (paper debt).

So until SISU are prepared to sell at at realistic market value, there won't appear to be any interested parties.
 
TheRoyalScam

TheRoyalScam

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Maybe I'm being grumpy, but everything I see online these days is "5 Ways to do X" "10 reasons you should like Y". Just seems lazy to me, I want the newspaper not Cosmopolitan. Not just the Telegraph that are guilty mind.

Edit: Also, they shouldn't even be worrying about avoiding the bias tag TBF, only a couple of very bitter friends of a certain ex journo are throwing those accusations around.
Click to expand...

Not arguing shmmeee, but some of us have downloaded and read the judgement, yet for various reasons some of us are unable to do this.

I think Simon Gilbert's 10 key points are a succinct way to convey the verdict for those unable to read 46 pages of Hickinbottom J's judgement.

I would reiterate my original post:

'Thanks for your updates and journalism Simon:)

I thought the judge played a blinder - rereading the judgement, it's clear he understands exactly what SISU's intentions were.

Because the conclusion states 'This claim fails in its entirety', I'm looking forward to Friday when costs will be decided - there must be a good chance that SISU will be paying at least some if not all of CCCouncil's costs.

'We batter people in court'...................;) Yeah, Tim, and the judge was 'wrong'.......'

I stand by this - it shows what duplicitous owners we have the misfortune to have owning our once proud club.

I spoke to many friends who said they found it difficult to read 46 pages of text, so directed them to Simon's 10 key points so they could understand the battering Sisu endured.

Bring on Hickinbottom J's costs decision.

Bring on Sisu's leave to appeal this judgement (which will probably be denied) - if allowed they will lose yet again, hopefully hastening their departure.

As the judgement stated this was Sisu's last throw of the dice, their 'Plan A' - to distress ACL, gain control of the Ricoh on the cheap, and sell it quickly to retrieve their 'investment';)

Unfortunately for us CCFC fans there is no 'Plan B'.

Forget about Northampton, or a 'new 12-15k capacity stadium';). This is the endgame for Sisu. Expect a realization of assets before a much-hoped for bail out. This is when we need the FL to have some balls and grasp the nettle: take the 'Golden Share' away from Sisu and keep Coventry City Football Club's heritage alive before liquidation............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top