Appeal Decision? (3 Viewers)

[Sky Blue Harry H]

At the risk of sounding like the spelling/grammar police can I just say one thing. It's been annoying me for a while. I won't mention it again after this.

Couldn't have
Shouldn't have
Wouldn't have

Not

Couldn't of
Wouldn't of
Shouldn't of

It's basic maths. FANX

I work at a nameless Coventry educational establishment, where the deputy uses effect (when it should be affect). Annoying bad grammar innit :facepalm:

P.S. Hasn't effected me, tho'

 

---

[James Smith]

I was wondering this. In theory, the case is over unless SISU launch ANOTHER appeal.

On another note, who's paying the legal costs? CCFC or SISU?

That's what I want to know, we've already got a debt pile that is possibly insurmountable and as someone once told me "There's no such thing as a cheap barrister".

 

[shmmeee]

I work at a nameless Coventry educational establishment, where the deputy uses effect (when it should be affect). Annoying bad grammar innit :facepalm:

P.S. Hasn't effected me, tho'

School I used to work at the English department used to mark the Heads emails and send them around (not to leadership). And don't start me on the PowerPoints!

 

[Grendel]

Far from it , I thought it was spot on and truthful, but the truth hurts

Don't be stupid. He and you are irrelevant - a microcosm compared to my thought processes.

I am referencing the fact I have agreed with the forum principals of politeness and courtesy. It's a shame the likes of you cannot.

 

[duffer]

Incidentally, I couldn't find the original story (with the judge's quotes) without Google's help - it's here:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/judge-refuses-sisu-appeal---7507922

The court documents are here:

(costs) http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/incoming/article7507902.ece/binary/High Court Order.pdf

and here...

(reasons) http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/in...Reasons for refusing permission to appeal.pdf

If I've read it right, SISU had to put £100k on account with their solicitors, against costs, when raising the case. The judge has ordered that paid over with seven days. They've got 14 days to hand over £250k (including the £100k), with the possiblity of more to follow. The council are claiming that their costs are in excess of £580k.

By the time you factor in SISU's costs, which must also be at least in the region of £250k but are probably far more, this looks like absolute madness.

I understand that SISU are in the business of taking big risks to get high returns, but at what point will they accept that they've lost this particular gamble?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

School I used to work at the English department used to mark the Heads emails and send them around (not to leadership). And don't start me on the PowerPoints!

How many Heads did you have?

 

[duffer]

At the risk of sounding like the spelling/grammar police can I just say one thing. It's been annoying me for a while. I won't mention it again after this.

Couldn't have
Shouldn't have
Wouldn't have

Not

Couldn't of
Wouldn't of
Shouldn't of

It's basic maths. FANX

Clearly you're not from round these parts.

Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda. Easy.

 

[Grendel]

Incidentally, I couldn't find the original story (with the judge's quotes) without Google's help - it's here:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/judge-refuses-sisu-appeal---7507922

The court documents are here:

(costs) http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/incoming/article7507902.ece/binary/High Court Order.pdf

and here...

(reasons) http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/in...Reasons for refusing permission to appeal.pdf

If I've read it right, SISU had to put £100k on account with their solicitors, against costs, when raising the case. The judge has ordered that paid over with seven days. They've got 14 days to hand over £250k (including the £100k), with the possiblity of more to follow. The council are claiming that their costs are in excess of £580k.

By the time you factor in SISU's costs, which must also be at least in the region of £250k but are probably far more, this looks like absolute madness.

I understand that SISU are in the business of taking big risks to get high returns, but at what point will they accept that they've lost this particular gamble?

Their investors are being paid interest. The risk yield really isn't huge. It seems they are extending this project to at least 15 years - it won't bother them at all if they believe their overall position is strengthened.

 

[duffer]

Their investors are being paid interest. The risk yield really isn't huge. It seems they are extending this project to at least 15 years - it won't bother them at all if they believe their overall position is strengthened.

Their overall position isn't being strengthened by losing this case and having to find upwards of £500k in combined costs. SISU clearly did not go to court with the intention of losing.

If their investors are being paid interest (and that's not entirely obvious from the books at the moment), then they are only getting it at the expense of their investment vehicle. Simply put, the more money they take out of the club in interest, the worse the situation at the club is likely to get.

There's really no proof that they're extending the life of this project. Despite what's been said, the audited accounts demonstrate no commitment to long-term funding, and indeed there seemed to be mention of the possibility of loans not being extended even beyond this financial year. As I understand it this is one of the concerns that some people would like to raise directly with the club.

 

[shmmeee]

How many Heads did you have?

I need one of these new fangled "sorry about the fat thumbs" signatures.

 

[Grendel]

Their overall position isn't being strengthened by losing this case and having to find upwards of £500k in combined costs. SISU clearly did not go to court with the intention of losing.

If their investors are being paid interest (and that's not entirely obvious from the books at the moment), then they are only getting it at the expense of their investment vehicle. Simply put, the more money they take out of the club in interest, the worse the situation at the club is likely to get.

There's really no proof that they're extending the life of this project. Despite what's been said, the audited accounts demonstrate no commitment to long-term funding, and indeed there seemed to be mention of the possibility of loans not being extended even beyond this financial year. As I understand it this is one of the concerns that some people would like to raise directly with the club.

Oddly om this OSB and myself seem to be in agreement. I guess you understand hedge fund behaviour better than the pair of us.

 

[AFCCOVENTRY]

Pretty sure Fisher said that they will go to the court of appeal if the judge rejected their appeal.

Don't think this over for a long while.

 

[will am i]

Their investors are being paid interest. The risk yield really isn't huge. It seems they are extending this project to at least 15 years - it won't bother them at all if they believe their overall position is strengthened.

Do they need to rely on people to keep turning up at Sixfields and having a Calum WIlson to sell each year for this to continue for 15 years? A genuine question i have no idea about hedge fund finances

 

[Sky Blue Harry H]

Do they need to rely on people to keep turning up at Sixfields and having a Calum WIlson to sell each year for this to continue for 15 years? A genuine question i have no idea about hedge fund finances

Don't worry about it - neither does Tim ............cheap shot

 

[will am i]

Don't worry about it - neither does Tim ............cheap shot

Im just sceptical about the idea that they can just carry this on for 15 years - surely you actually need a football club to do that. Im not convinced anyone would be turning up at Sixfields in 15 years time, but I'm prepared to listen to Grendel and how he arrives the the conclusion SISU could continue this for 15 years. Sounds like bullshit, but I dont really know

 

[ccfc92]

It seems an odd strategy. 15 years of minimal income/ fan base to POTENTIALLY gain a share in the Ricoh.

By that time CCFC will more than likely not exist.

 

[Sky Blue Harry H]

Im just sceptical about the idea that they can just carry this on for 15 years - surely you actually need a football club to do that. Im not convinced anyone would be turning up at Sixfields in 15 years time, but I'm prepared to listen to Grendel and how he arrives the the conclusion SISU could continue this for 15 years. Sounds like bullshit, but I dont really know

IF they intend to build a stadium, they will move to Ricoh first (better off, so why not) ...If they don't intend to build a stadium, they'll move to Ricoh (better off, so why not). JR just focussing their collective mind IMHO

 

[will am i]

IF they intend to build a stadium, they will move to Ricoh first (better off, so why not) ...If they don't intend to build a stadium, they'll move to Ricoh (better off, so why not). JR just focussing their collective mind IMHO

I doubt a new stadium, but I really am interested in how SISU could sit this out for 15 years and it would be beneficial to them. Anyone out their agreeing with Grendel's conclusion who can explain it?

New stadium - no chance - not ever. Need retail partners and too much retail space already - have you seen Warwickshire Shopping Park the place is deserted

 

[TheRoyalScam]

Don't be stupid. He and you are irrelevant - a microcosm compared to my thought processes.

I am referencing the fact I have agreed with the forum principals of politeness and courtesy. It's a shame the likes of you cannot.

As arrogant as always.

 

[lifelongcityfan]

I am a qualified accountant; not sure what grenadal is, but he doesnt understand finance.

 

[ccfcway]

If I've read it right, SISU had to put £100k on account with their solicitors, against costs, when raising the case. The judge has ordered that paid over with seven days. They've got 14 days to hand over £250k (including the £100k), with the possiblity of more to follow. The council are claiming that their costs are in excess of £580k.

By the time you factor in SISU's costs, which must also be at least in the region of £250k but are probably far more, this looks like absolute madness.

CCC had 2 barristers and SISU had 9. If CCC costs are £580k, its safe to assume that SISUs are a hell of a lot more than that

 

[TheRoyalScam]

I am a qualified accountant; not sure what grenadal is, but he doesnt understand finance.

We all know what grendull is

 

[ccfc92]

I am a qualified accountant; not sure what grenadal is, but he doesnt understand finance.

He will ask for proof now

 

[lifelongcityfan]

I have no problems proving i am an accountant; grendal will need a pyschiatrist to prove who he is

 

[SimonGilbert]

The article hasn't been changed since this afternoon when we added in details of costs and the quotes from the judgment - unless I've missed something!

There was a story earlier in the morning which just talked about leave to appeal being rejected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[letsallsingtogether]

I have been told that it has cost sisu 1.5 million for them alone so far?

CCC had 2 barristers and SISU had 9. If CCC costs are £580k, its safe to assume that SISUs are a hell of a lot more than that

 

[Como]

CCC had 2 barristers and SISU had 9. If CCC costs are £580k, its safe to assume that SISUs are a hell of a lot more than that

I would expect the same. The Council will have their costs 'taxed' so are unlikely to get everything back they have spent.

How about a Million plus for SISU.

To answer the previous comments presumably the 15 years is from the start not now.

It is one thing having a go if the win is a big pay day, but I am by no means clear what a win for them means in this.

With all the damming information already out in the public domain what could a possible 'favourable' judgement give them?

I am going to assume they have the resources to keep the Club ticking over and pay legal fees indefinitely, but there will be a cost and the big question is why?

 

[Kingokings204]

What are Sisu's costs in the region of Simon? Do we know?

We know ccc was around 580k but interested to know Sisu's if pos?

 

[RFC]

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.

I doubt a new stadium, but I really am interested in how SISU could sit this out for 15 years and it would be beneficial to them. Anyone out their agreeing with Grendel's conclusion who can explain it?

New stadium - no chance - not ever. Need retail partners and too much retail space already - have you seen Warwickshire Shopping Park the place is deserted

If I were you I'd look back on what the owners have said in the past.

Think you might find they've actually done exactly what they've said they'd do!

Asked for a rent reduction, refused by CCC / ACL (same thing anyway).

If you don't we'll withhold the rent. Still no CCC response so we'll move out!

They moved out and if they can't agree beneficial terms for a return WILL BUILD A NEW STADIUM.

You like many others under-estimate these owners at your peril, personally none of the parties in this debacle can come out of this with any credit (not just the owners) but also CCC, ACL & COMPASS.

A balanced rather than biased view might go a long way to the reality rather than the fantasy.

 

[Grendel]

I am a qualified accountant; not sure what grenadal is, but he doesnt understand finance.

Please articulate further with detail.

 

[ccfc92]

Please articulate further with detail.

I might turn off the comedy channel to focus on this thread for the next hour or so.

 

[Kingokings204]

If I were you I'd look back on what the owners have said in the past.

Think you might find they've actually done exactly what they've said they'd do!

Asked for a rent reduction, refused by CCC / ACL (same thing anyway).

If you don't we'll withhold the rent. Still no CCC response so we'll move out!

They moved out and if they can't agree beneficial terms for a return WILL BUILD A NEW STADIUM.

You like many others under-estimate these owners at your peril, personally none of the parties in this debacle can come out of this with any credit (not just the owners) but also CCC, ACL & COMPASS.

A balanced rather than biased view might go a long way to the reality rather than the fantasy.

They also said they wouldn't sell leon Clarke and CW.

They also said they would invest in the team.

They also said they would liquidate the club in 2012.

They also stated they would be open and transparent with the fans.

They also said they would hold a forum on the accounts and delayed it and meant to be end of July last I heard?

They also said plans were 3 weeks away only over a year ago.

They also said, well see my point. There are many more.

Any I'm missing?

 

[lifelongcityfan]

Their investors are being paid interest. The risk yield really isn't huge. It seems they are extending this project to at least 15 years - it won't bother them at all if they believe their overall position is strengthened.

Grendal..as an accountant i have to correct you...intest is being levied, but there is no cash in the club to pay it!!! so how can they sustain that. Also accounting principles dictate the interest being levied would have to be provided against and written off as a bed debt.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Also said, Callum was not for sale at any price?

We will win JR hands down?

People will go to prison for what they have done?

Will let you know in three weeks?

Will put on free travel to Shitfields?

There's a few for you that haven't come true would you like me to go on I have loads more?

If I were you I'd look back on what the owners have said in the past.

Think you might find they've actually done exactly what they've said they'd do!

Asked for a rent reduction, refused by CCC / ACL (same thing anyway).

If you don't we'll withhold the rent. Still no CCC response so we'll move out!

They moved out and if they can't agree beneficial terms for a return WILL BUILD A NEW STADIUM.

You like many others under-estimate these owners at your peril, personally none of the parties in this debacle can come out of this with any credit (not just the owners) but also CCC, ACL & COMPASS.

A balanced rather than biased view might go a long way to the reality rather than the fantasy.

 

[Tonylinc]

If I were you I'd look back on what the owners have said in the past.

Think you might find they've actually done exactly what they've said they'd do!

Asked for a rent reduction, refused by CCC / ACL (same thing anyway).

If you don't we'll withhold the rent. Still no CCC response so we'll move out!

They moved out and if they can't agree beneficial terms for a return WILL BUILD A NEW STADIUM.

You like many others under-estimate these owners at your peril, personally none of the parties in this debacle can come out of this with any credit (not just the owners) but also CCC, ACL & COMPASS.

A balanced rather than biased view might go a long way to the reality rather than the fantasy.

When axactly did they ask for a rent reduction? Post link.

What are their plans for a new stadium? If they are serious about this then surely some plans/site acquisition and permission is in place?