Appeal Decision? (2 Viewers)

Forums New posts
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Snozz_is_god said:
No you did not, you said......

"The reason why ACL have to cover their own costs is because they have sufficient funds from themselves/ccc to cover it."

That is not my understanding of the judgment, it's nothing to do with ACL having enough funds to cover it at all.

If you can read, read the bloody thing: http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/inc...rt%20Order.pdf
Click to expand...

AFAICT he's saying because ACL aren't the defendant, just the interested party they won't get costs as it's normal to not award more costs than the defendants.
 
mark82

mark82

Super Moderator
skybluetony176 said:
I'm quite happy to put pressure on all sides in this mess but in the right order.

1) We all come together to put pressure on the FL to make the decision they're are putting of sooner rather than latter.

Once they've done this

2) If ACl are still playing hard ball we all come together to put pressure on ACL/CCC and Higgs if required to drop the tough guy act and open the door for negotiations.

Once they've done this

3) We all come together to put pressure on SISU to stay true to there word and join ACL at the table and get the deal done.

Or is that too simple?
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable to me.
 
K

Kingokings204

Well-Known Member
Snozz_is_god said:
No you did not, you said......

"The reason why ACL have to cover their own costs is because they have sufficient funds from themselves/ccc to cover it."

That is not my understanding of the judgment, it's nothing to do with ACL having enough funds to cover it at all.

If you can read, read the bloody thing: http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/inc...rt%20Order.pdf
Click to expand...

I did put ccc as well?

When I said ACL themselves and ccc they are basically the same.

So yes you're right and I put what you said

I've read it lots of times: ccc will cover the bill which is essentially ACL.
 
spider_ricoh

spider_ricoh

New Member
skybluetony176 said:
what odds can we get on the first person to paint that as a sisu victory ;)
Click to expand...

It would have to be the same sort of person who thinks that Elvis is still alive, the earth is flat and that Tim Fisher is an appropriate custodian of a community football club.
 
S

Snozz_is_god

New Member
Kingokings204 said:
I did put ccc as well?

When I said ACL themselves and ccc they are basically the same.

So yes you're right and I put what you said.
Click to expand...

Sorry pall you didn't, you're talking about whether they CCC/ACL have funds to cover it, it's nothing to do with who has sufficient funds. read the pdf as see if it mentions anything to do with sufficient funds (IT DOESN't) fukg idiot
 
bigfatronssba

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
Basically it is saying the councils defence was also covering ACL. I.e. ACL's legal team wasn't needed at court.
 
K

Kingokings204

Well-Known Member
Snozz_is_god said:
Sorry pall you didn't, you're talking about whether they CCC/ACL have funds to cover it, it's nothing to do with who has sufficient funds. read the pdf as see if it mentions anything to do with sufficient funds (IT DOESN't) fukg idiot
Click to expand...

You are just twisting my words. That's what I meant. Sufficient funds or well able to protect the interested party is essentially the same thing.

Sorry to offend you tim.

Seriously I meant nothing by it. Honest.
 
Last edited:
K

Kingokings204

Well-Known Member
hill83 said:
The words didn't really need twisting to be fair.
Click to expand...

Let's move to topic. Anyway I will stand by the fact as it stands there is no appeal and most people deem that a payment albeit on an escrow account has been paid so why can't there be a deal to be done?
 
S

Snozz_is_god

New Member
Kingokings204 said:
You are just twisting my words. That's what I meant. Sufficient funds or well able to protect the interested party is essentially the same thing.

Sorry to offend you Tim. I know times are hard. You are forgiven.
Click to expand...

Still not the same thing at all, I give up, you're obviously thick
 
letsallsingtogether

letsallsingtogether

Well-Known Member
sorry Rob my mistake as some have said should read it 3 times saw met not meet :pointlaugh:

Rob S said:
Huh? Who do you think I am? The closest I've got to the FL is the first KCIC protest down there.


Based on what has been said publicly, the club are trying to get a deal sorted on two potential sites. This isn't a secret.
Click to expand...
 
R

RFC

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
I don't have a grudge. I entirely blame them for the total lack of support they gave the club.

They have never seen the benefits a successful football club can bring to the community and never embraced it. The whole business model was doomed to abject failure. To compete in the championship you had to spend 80% of turnover on wages. The "deal" killed the club.

The club has zero future anyway unless it has a stake in the stadium. As a business asset it's worthless. Irony is if we got that sisu would be off.
Click to expand...

Totally agree"Grendel"
 
James Smith

James Smith

Well-Known Member
wes_cov said:
Ouch, expected but can't help thinking it's just another top up of the debt in CCFC
Click to expand...

That's what is bothering me, who is paying for these court cases (and the other sides costs in this case)? If it's Sisu pissing their investors cash up the wall then that's one thing but if our Club debt mountain is now being supplemented by barristers fees etc then that's wrong to me.
 
Astute

Astute

Well-Known Member
RFC said:
Totally agree"Grendel"
Click to expand...

You would do. The two supposed CCFC supporters that seem to want what is best for SISU and not our football club or us. The two of you that seem to love making stupid comments but never use proper reasoning as for why.
 
R

RFC

Well-Known Member
No future with SISU said:
The club was going backwards at Highfield road, it is why they had £60m of debt then. The ground was falling apart and could only hold 24,000, which ment they could not compete in the prem. That is why they decided to build a new stadium, but their debt forced the council to bail them out to get the stadium built. Then Higgs had to bail them out as well and then the worse owners ever came in, downhill all the way since. There was no way back to highfield road as they had allready sold it and were paying £1.2m in rent on a 24,000 seat stadium.
Click to expand...

History,hindsight, wonderfully valuable but our problems go back much, much further than our current owners which makes me wonder why!

Why bother to save us in the first place?
 
N

No future with SISU

New Member
Grendel said:
I suspect you are as wide of the mark as is possible.

In 21 days they will lodge an appeal and failing that will go to the Supreme Court.

When that fails its an appeal to the European Commission.

Its pre-planned trench warfare and its going to be very long and drawn out.
Click to expand...

What happens when they lose all those appeals?
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Astute said:
You would do. The two supposed CCFC supporters that seem to want what is best for SISU and not our football club or us. The two of you that seem to love making stupid comments but never use proper reasoning as for why.
Click to expand...

Says the man who said Owen Oysten was a good owner of a football club.

I have made no stupid comments on this thread at all. I don't support sisu but I am outlining their strategy.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Snozz_is_god said:
Yea where is gredel, he hasn't posted any of his pro-sisu shit for at least10 mins.
Click to expand...

I assume you mean me. I've never once posted a pro sisu post on this forum.
 
Astute

Astute

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
Says the man who said Owen Oysten was a good owner of a football club.

I have made no stupid comments on this thread at all. I don't support sisu but I am outlining their strategy.
Click to expand...

Owen Oyston? I said their club was run better than ours. A club could be run very badly and still run better than ours. You will disagree with this though.

So what about your stupid comment earlier when I asked you again to do a proper reply....you know where others pointed out that you didn't reply but came out with your normal crap. Then you did your normal of going quiet for a bit until you see some stupid reason to attack the same poster with something not said in the context you make out and not on the subject nobody is talking about.

Have you given up defending the indefensible yet?
 
Astute

Astute

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
I assume you mean me. I've never once posted a pro sisu post on this forum.
Click to expand...

So nearly everything you post is anti ACL and anti CCC whilst attacking anyone you see as not thinking that ACL and CCC are as much at fault as SISU but none of this is pro SISU at all?
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Astute said:
Owen Oyston? I said their club was run better than ours. A club could be run very badly and still run better than ours. You will disagree with this though.

So what about your stupid comment earlier when I asked you again to do a proper reply....you know where others pointed out that you didn't reply but came out with your normal crap. Then you did your normal of going quiet for a bit until you see some stupid reason to attack the same poster with something not said in the context you make out and not on the subject nobody is talking about.

Have you given up defending the indefensible yet?
Click to expand...

What like when you said I'd abused PWKH and couldn't find one post to support your claim you mean?

I did reply. The history will make no difference. I would imagine amongst the actual individuals concerned there is less animosity than you'd think. It's a game and in the end it won't hinder a deal at all. It's very naive to think otherwise.

You did say their owners care about their club by the way. I'd suggest that shows you lack sound judgement.

Just my opinion of course.
 
Astute

Astute

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
What like when you said I'd abused PWKH and couldn't find one post to support your claim you mean?

I did reply. The history will make no difference. I would imagine amongst the actual individuals concerned there is less animosity than you'd think. It's a game and in the end it won't hinder a deal at all. It's very naive to think otherwise.

You did say their owners care about their club by the way. I'd suggest that shows you lack sound judgement.

Just my opinion of course.
Click to expand...

Run better more like.

Couldn't find one post? What I said was when you back up personal attacks and stupid comments I will back up what I say. Yet again as usual you have done the same today whilst bringing up something from months ago.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
skybluetony176 said:
I'm quite happy to put pressure on all sides in this mess but in the right order.

1) We all come together to put pressure on the FL to make the decision they're are putting of sooner rather than latter.

Once they've done this

2) If ACl are still playing hard ball we all come together to put pressure on ACL/CCC and Higgs if required to drop the tough guy act and open the door for negotiations.

Once they've done this

3) We all come together to put pressure on SISU to stay true to there word and join ACL at the table and get the deal done.

Or is that too simple?
Click to expand...

Bloody hell, now I'm nodding sagely at one of your posts.

wtf is going on in the world today?!?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top