Are People really Bleating? (6 Viewers)

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
CCC did go behind Sisu's back to negotiate about the loan with YB whilst they were still supposed to be carrying out a two-pronged approach.

There is no evidence that Sisu were doing the same.

All in the JR, though maybe you can only read certain bits of it?

From the JR, you'll love this. It kind of disagrees with your view the Council were going behind SISU's back in some kind of immoral way.

the Council was fully entitled to engage in discussions with the Bank,
unilaterally and without informing SISU: in English law, there is no general duty to
conduct commercial negotiations in good faith, or to refrain from conducting
negotiations with more than one counterparty at the same time without disclosure.
The Heads of Terms did not impose any specific duty, e.g. as to exclusivity. They
made clear that there was no intention to create legal obligations. The Council was
here engaged in the commercial field, and (subject to its public duties) it was entitled
to act in the way that it considered was best in protecting its own commercial
interests, namely its share in ACL. If it considered that its commercial interests
would best be served by having discussions with the Bank without SISU being aware
of those discussions, or their content, the Council was fully entitled to have such
discussions. It owed no duty to SISU. Criticism of the Council’s actions is simply
misplaced; particularly given that its commercial interests had been placed in
jeopardy by SISU and its subsidiary, CCFC, failing to comply with its contractual
obligations towards ACL.

Not sure how this line of argument from you shows how you think SISU's offer for Higgs share was better than Wasps, I guess you've given up on that.
 

Nick

Administrator
What on earth do you mean, have they or haven't they?

Talk sense man!
I asked why it was worth less now than it was when sisu tried. The two reasons you gave didn't really explain why it has suddenly dropped in value did they?

When it was sisu then anything less than what the charity means they were getting ripped off and sisu were ripping off a children's charity.
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
Wait, the charity is getting less than it paid which you have just acknowledged. When ccfc offered it, there was outrage about the kids and a charity being ripped off.

Didn't somebody post saying that the rfu will force them to keep all the training and academy stuff down south?

Now it is a great deal ;)

Not as clear as that I suspect. I would say that if you buy Higgs share you also take on half the debt/loan.
 

Travs

Well-Known Member
I asked why it was worth less now than it was when sisu tried. The two reasons you gave didn't really explain why it has suddenly dropped in value did they?

When it was sisu then anything less than what the charity means they were getting ripped off and sisu were ripping off a children's charity.

funny how comments along these lines always get conveniently ignored....
 

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
From the JR, you'll love this. It kind of disagrees with your view the Council were going behind SISU's back in some kind of immoral way.

the Council was fully entitled to engage in discussions with the Bank,
unilaterally and without informing SISU: in English law, there is no general duty to
conduct commercial negotiations in good faith, or to refrain from conducting
negotiations with more than one counterparty at the same time without disclosure.
The Heads of Terms did not impose any specific duty, e.g. as to exclusivity. They
made clear that there was no intention to create legal obligations. The Council was
here engaged in the commercial field, and (subject to its public duties) it was entitled
to act in the way that it considered was best in protecting its own commercial
interests, namely its share in ACL. If it considered that its commercial interests
would best be served by having discussions with the Bank without SISU being aware
of those discussions, or their content, the Council was fully entitled to have such
discussions. It owed no duty to SISU. Criticism of the Council’s actions is simply
misplaced; particularly given that its commercial interests had been placed in
jeopardy by SISU and its subsidiary, CCFC, failing to comply with its contractual
obligations towards ACL.

Not sure how this line of argument from you shows how you think SISU's offer for Higgs share was better than Wasps, I guess you've given up on that.

It fully agrees with what I was saying.

They went to the bank without Sisu's knowledge, and Ni evidence that Sisu did the same, which is different from what you said that the Council didn't go behind Sisu's back and that Sisu went behind the Councils back to the bank.

As the judge said, nothing wrong with the Council doing do in law,nothing said about morals.

Leave the rather "flexible" arguments on morality to others.
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
I asked why it was worth less now than it was when sisu tried. The two reasons you gave didn't really explain why it has suddenly dropped in value did they?

When it was sisu then anything less than what the charity means they were getting ripped off and sisu were ripping off a children's charity.

SISU stated in court it was worthless and they offered 2 million for it, purely because Higgs are a charity.
Now they are getting 2.77 million for it.
 

Nick

Administrator
SISU stated in court it was worthless and they offered 2 million for it, purely because Higgs are a charity.
Now they are getting 2.77 million for it.
And that two million was disgusting wasn't it? Ripping off the kids.

At the time the only thing acceptable was to get what they paid.
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
And that two million was disgusting wasn't it? Ripping off the kids.

At the time the only thing acceptable was to get what they paid.

I think they should get every penny back yes. However I don't run the charity. It's seems they deem 3/4 of a million more than what SISU offered as acceptable.
That's the most important thing that they get what they think is right.
 

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
It fully agrees with what I was saying.

They went to the bank without Sisu's knowledge, and Ni evidence that Sisu did the same, which is different from what you said that the Council didn't go behind Sisu's back and that Sisu went behind the Councils back to the bank.

As the judge said, nothing wrong with the Council doing do in law,nothing said about morals.

Leave the rather "flexible" arguments on morality to others.

So when you used the phrase going behind their back you weren't implying wrong doing, fair enough. Most uses of the phrase imply that something improper is going on, but I accept you simply meant they didn't inform anyone, and that everything is ok with that.

I haven't raised any morality issues. My query is that you said the SISU offer to Higgs was better than Wasps, I wondered what that was based on, but your answers are all about Council loans and Council leases.
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
I asked why it was worth less now than it was when sisu tried. The two reasons you gave didn't really explain why it has suddenly dropped in value did they?

When it was sisu then anything less than what the charity means they were getting ripped off and sisu were ripping off a children's charity.

I already told you I don't bloody know, what part of "ask the trustees" don't you understand?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Astute

Well-Known Member
It fully agrees with what I was saying.

They went to the bank without Sisu's knowledge, and Ni evidence that Sisu did the same, which is different from what you said that the Council didn't go behind Sisu's back and that Sisu went behind the Councils back to the bank.

As the judge said, nothing wrong with the Council doing do in law,nothing said about morals.

Leave the rather "flexible" arguments on morality to others.

It fully agrees with what I and others were saying. CCC never went behind the backs of SISU. They were fully within their rights. But SISU did go behind the backs of CCC. And there is a chance that CCC found out when YB informed them so.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
It fully agrees with what I and others were saying. CCC never went behind the backs of SISU. They were fully within their rights. But SISU did go behind the backs of CCC. And there is a chance that CCC found out when YB informed them so.

You can be within your rights, and still go behind the backs of somebody or something...
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
You can be pissed off with what CCC have done, but also understand that SISU have been pushing them into a corner....

You can dislike peaches without it autopmatically meaning you can't get enough prunes.
 

letsallsingtogether

Well-Known Member
To be fair I have enough of the whole situation don't give a fuck anymore.

The main concern must now be are we going to survive in this league, or are we going to drop down another league loose another 3000 fans.
Our team is weak we have to strengthen it before it is too late, we always do worse after Xmas......:mad:
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
To be fair I have enough of the whole situation don't give a fuck anymore.

The main concern must now be are we going to survive in this league, or are we going to drop down another league loose another 3000 fans.
Our team is weak we have to strengthen it before it is too late, we always do worse after Xmas......:mad:

We should do better at the start of next year. I am sure that it is when Allsop's loan is due to end.
 

rupert_bear

Well-Known Member
To be fair I have enough of the whole situation don't give a fuck anymore.

The main concern must now be are we going to survive in this league, or are we going to drop down another league loose another 3000 fans.
Our team is weak we have to strengthen it before it is too late, we always do worse after Xmas......:mad:
Couldn't agree more shame there isn't a 52 page thread on how sisu, Fisher and Waggott have ran our club into the ground.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top