covmark
Well-Known Member
Couldn't care less. Just I don't see you jumping to the defence of Sisu rent boys.
Astute
Well-Known Member
covmark
Well-Known Member
Prefer the term sympathiser personallyYou are capable of defending yourself
Actually if the other 50% has any value the Receiver / Liquidator can sell the shares to whom he wants
Assuming there are no options in place of course
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Still seems to be nothing .. one day left?
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
A statement released by Coventry City Football Club following the hearing said: "The judgement by Hickinbottom J, that the council's decision to provide a £14.4m loan to private stadium management company Arena Coventry Limited (ACL) was not an unlawful subsidy, is unfortunate.
"The football club and its owners believe that the loan, which exceeded the value of the stadium by almost 200 per cent, was neither lawful nor in the interests of the supporters, taxpayers, stadium operators or the club.
"ACL will now remain burdened with debt for the next 43 years, removing any prospect of a long term return to the stadium by the club. With this level of debt there is no realistic prospect of any sports franchise or ACL being able to generate sufficient revenue to be commercially viable.
"The football club and its owners believe that the loan, which exceeded the value of the stadium by almost 200 per cent, was neither lawful nor in the interests of the supporters, taxpayers, stadium operators or the club.
"ACL will now remain burdened with debt for the next 43 years, removing any prospect of a long term return to the stadium by the club. With this level of debt there is no realistic prospect of any sports franchise or ACL being able to generate sufficient revenue to be commercially viable.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
As a general aside, what are the consequences (if any) if they manage to overturn the last ruling?
Moff
Well-Known Member
Tim can take his dunce hat off, and put a party hat on, to celebrate something that will mean absolutely fekk all to the club, and has been a complete waste of time and money.
Aside from that bugger all else?**
** (I could be wrong though)
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
The last paragraph is interesting. A sports franchise has so does that not disprove a large chunk of the argument straight away?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Wasps haven't proven it to be commercially viable yet.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I would say the fact they looked and it like SISU did and came up with opposite conclusion
Massively weakens the argument
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Plus the lease is indeed now somewhat more than 43 years.
Anyway, all irrelevant isn't it? They can't use information after the event, only what happened, can't they?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Surely this is redundant now? What can SISU possibly gain without gambling mucho ££££££££££££££ ?
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
What they have been after for a while,they would use the JR judgement in a civil case for damages,while there is a millionth of a per cent chance, they will carry on with it.
Plus ACL would have to repay the loan. Could potentially cause some problems for Mr Richardson.
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Why ? JR has fuck all to do with him. I would also think a man with his dosh is well equipt to handle Joy and co if needs be and would have explored all possibilities.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I think you're getting ahead of yourself there. They've got to win the right to appeal before they win the appeal. With the speed this thing is moving along ACL will probably have paid the loan back years before SISU win if they ever do.
Cheshire Sky Blue
New Member
They don't have to. It is clear to see that a credible business has undertaken due diligence and have a very different view from that of Fisher and his boss. The fact is that Richardson felt it was commercially viable. He put his substantial money where his mouth is. Where as SISU have put their substantial mouth where there insignificant money might have been better used.
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Apparently its in the taxpayers interest to have the taxpayer subjected to large legal costs and potentially a fine.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
It is opinion against opinion. Until we see how things are 5/10+ years down the line nobody can say that this was a commercially viable move. I know seeing SISU proven wrong would bring you joy even if it leads to the further detriment of the club but it may not turn out that way. SISU wanted the Ricoh as much as Richardson did.
Cheshire Sky Blue
New Member
Sorry BSB you are simply wrong. Richardson evaluated the business opportunity and decided that the risk associated with ACL gave them a market value, that is what he offered. That is not opinion it is fact. Time will tell if his judgement is good. But that is the nature of business, understanding the risk and investing accordingly.
Your assertion that me seeing SISU gone would bring me Joy, yep, correct there fella. But it has not always been that way. I was a 'supporter' as I believed that they had the same desire for my club as I have. They corrected me on that belief so resoundingly that I will now party for days when they have gone.
You have no idea how much I feel for my club, my club, the club that has been systematically destroyed by SISU. and you make cheap petty jibes. That's all very well for the small minded, so I will leave that one with you.
I am going to agree with you on one point. SISU did really want the RICOH. Possibly more than Richardson did, The problem was they couldn't afford it or just wanted to pay nothing for it. The fact that Richardson now owns it, says more about SISU dire economic state or their weak business skills. You can judge, I don't care, I just want them gone.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Woop! Woop! that's the sound of the illegal state aid police.