dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
BREAKING: Sky Blues owners Sisu have applied directly to the Court of Appeal over judicial review judgment - coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-…
Not good News (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter dongonzalos
- Start date
AFCCOVENTRY
Well-Known Member
Bunch of fucking pricks
Oggies bent nose
New Member
Nobody saw that coming!
lifelongcityfan
Well-Known Member
RFC would have done!!! o
Bill Glazier
Active Member
I suppose they've got to keep all those attack-dog lawyers busy, but really, just what is the point?
Senior Vick from Alicante
Well-Known Member
Our owners should be in the Guinness Book of Records for banging your head against a brick wall. The next question is for Simon Gilbert, how long will this appeal process potentially go on for? And if your reading Nick the thread about the Sun story and our return to the Ricoh needs to be shut. Muppets the lot of them.
Bill Glazier
Active Member
The law - the only profession where you need one professional to protect you from one of their own kind.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
I knew Tim & Joy wouldn't let me down.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Yup, the best way to avoid a court date is to negotiate an out of court settlement.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
You miss the point, there will be no negotiations now.
ohitsaidwalker king power
Well-Known Member
as a reminder of a reminder.. 10 key facts- source:
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...isu-vs-7353831
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”.
I keep looking between the lines... nope..its not there...
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...isu-vs-7353831
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”.
I keep looking between the lines... nope..its not there...
Last edited:
Oggies bent nose
New Member
I know lawyers act on behalf of their clients wishes and try to put forward an argument in support but surely as professionals they must get fed up losing in court, although the buckets of cash they're taking from the club must be of some comfort to them!
doesn't this guarantee though that a deal has not been signed (not that I thought for a second it had been) to play at the Ricoh from the 6th of September.
how much leverage does this really give them too? they lost so hard that there can't be many nerves at ACL.
sky_blue_up_north
Well-Known Member
It was always going to happen, I had no doubt they would appeal...
ohitsaidwalker king power
Well-Known Member
Shock horror 'The Sun' prints a hopeful punt...
runner
Active Member
Whilst it was, since we are talking SISU here and their clueless antics and wasteful monetary expenditure, inevitable ... even I didn't honestly think that have the vociferous way that the judge dismissed their chances of success, that they would be stupid enough ... particularly when you consider they wish, in theory, to return, albeit temporarily, back to the Ricoh ... to appeal ... but ... yep they did !
No return, no club, no spectators and NOPM is fine with me now ... truly ridiculous decision on their part here ... unbelievable.
No return, no club, no spectators and NOPM is fine with me now ... truly ridiculous decision on their part here ... unbelievable.
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
as long as sisu want. They know they will lose it's about distressing ACL. Pricks
Johnnythespider
Well-Known Member
I think if that was going to happen it would have been before the JR, not after they got there arses kicked.
spider_ricoh
New Member
Agree - they don't want to lose a lever that they can use on ACL during negotiations
Johnnythespider
Well-Known Member
What negotiations?
robbiethemole
Well-Known Member
How long before Pressley gets pissed off and decides enough is enough??? Surely this can't have been the master plan of Joy's discussions with him?
Tim Fischer and co the biggest load of CUNTS to ever run a football club. Rot in hell when this is over ACL will never negotiate with you load of Wankers ROT in HELL at the Pig Pen on your 1300 Gates. Thats how far you've sank you weasels you've taken our club to thebrink of abyss
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
More money that could be spent on the team
Monkeyface
Well-Known Member
As long as people keep giving them hope and going to Sixfields!
1966skyblue
Well-Known Member
Went last year, not going this year.