Sisu refused permission to appeal... (4 Viewers)

[tisza]

You wouldn't see anything behind it. Wasps deal has nothing to do with it.

i thought the basis of the 2nd case was whether the loan deal (now with Wasps) amounted to "further state aid."
This would require the council to justify the loan and so the deal for ACL would have to be brought into the open. Whilst the case is still against CCC and not ACL th details of the deal would have to be explained in order to justify the loan.

 

---

[Hobo]

So what is shmmee referring to then? If he's not talking about the JR what else has been proven?



SISU's original argument? That was the rent was too high and ACL were totally reliant on us being there paying rent. We've always known the first one to be true, in the last few days we've learnt the second is true.

there was me thinking you were intelligent enough to realise the original argument/basis of their court case was actually about a loan being illegal state aid. The original rent dispute/ contract s not what they went to court on.

 

[bigfatronssba]

i thought the basis of the 2nd case was whether the loan deal (now with Wasps) amounted to "further state aid."
This would require the council to justify the loan and so the deal for ACL would have to be brought into the open. Whilst the case is still against CCC and not ACL th details of the deal would have to be explained in order to justify the loan.

That would have to be a new JR. The basis on which the loan was made can only be judged on what was known at the time. I.e. ACL was owned by Higgs and CCC, CCFC were locked into a 40 year deal paying £1.3m in rent.

 

[chiefdave]

That's the thing, some of the stuff SISU were coming out I ignored as bollocks. Seems some of it as actually true so it makes you wonder doesn't it? (I am not saying everything they say is true by that, either)

What are we to believe now when we're looking back at statements from Fisher and even Labovich and they seem to have at least some truth in them! Hard now to know which statements from either side we can take as true. Of course some people don't want to see it and still want to think SISU = bad & lies, council = good & truth, for me both sides have always had a share of the blame but the evidence is starting to suggest that the balance of where that blame lies is shifting towards the council.

If you think about it how many people have pointed the finger at CCC, even before SISU were here: Robinson, Fletcher, Ranson, Deliu, Robbins, Fisher, Labovich, Sepalla. Even if you think back to the time of the takeover the Manhatten Group were keen until they had a meeting with the council and promptly got on a plane out of here. The rumour at the time was that they felt the council would be impossible to work with. PK4 was all some would talk about for weeks, he had a meeting with the council and was never heard from again!

Now of course a lot of people on that list are people you wouldn't particularly trust or believe but when you look back now you have to wonder. Have the council had a much larger role in this mess than previously thought?

 

[bigfatronssba]

there was me thinking you were intelligent enough to realise the original argument/basis of their court case was actually about a loan being illegal state aid. The original rent dispute/ contract s not what they went to court on.

Exactly. Nothing to do with rent levels, or Wasps, or whether Ann Lucas has told a porky. None of those things matter in the eyes of the law.

 

[bigfatronssba]

What are we to believe now when we're looking back at statements from Fisher and even Labovich and they seem to have at least some truth in them! Hard now to know which statements from either side we can take as true. Of course some people don't want to see it and still want to think SISU = bad & lies, council = good & truth, for me both sides have always had a share of the blame but the evidence is starting to suggest that the balance of where that blame lies is shifting towards the council.

If you think about it how many people have pointed the finger at CCC, even before SISU were here: Robinson, Fletcher, Ranson, Deliu, Robbins, Fisher, Labovich, Sepalla. Even if you think back to the time of the takeover the Manhatten Group were keen until they had a meeting with the council and promptly got on a plane out of here. The rumour at the time was that they felt the council would be impossible to work with. PK4 was all some would talk about for weeks, he had a meeting with the council and was never heard from again!

Now of course a lot of people on that list are people you wouldn't particularly trust or believe but when you look back now you have to wonder. Have the council had a much larger role in this mess than previously thought?

Can you give just one example of how CCC saying ACL is profitable when it wasn't has damaged CCFC?

 

[tisza]

That would have to be a new JR. The basis on which the loan was made can only be judged on what was known at the time. I.e. ACL was owned by Higgs and CCC, CCFC were locked into a 40 year deal paying £1.3m in rent.

That's the point. There were/are 2 ongoing cases. One of which was ruled on today and the 2nd which was recently filed about the loan basically now belonging to a private company in which the Council has no stake- hence the "further state aid".

 

[Covcraig@bury]

We're all doomed !!! Ccfc ccc RIP

 

[bigfatronssba]

That's the point. There were/are 2 ongoing cases. One of which was ruled on today and the 2nd which was recently filed about the loan basically now belonging to a private company in which the Council has no stake- hence the "further state aid".

That's not further state aid though. The loan was made to ACL. The loan is still with ACL. Nothing has changed. The council still has a stake in ACL in the form of its loan.

 

[Hobo]

Exactly. Nothing to do with rent levels, or Wasps, or whether Ann Lucas has told a porky. None of those things matter in the eyes of the law.

I am not saying they don't matter. But you still have to look at what was at stake at court and judge it on those values. If you are trying to prove a murder and lost, it is no point saying after wards well he was a bad egg. It doesn't prove the murder.

Anyway re rent, you forget a Judge found it reasonable at the time to their position and income etc., There were other areas of poor finance/expenditure that could be blamed on our demise.

 

[tisza]

That's not further state aid though. The loan was made to ACL. The loan is still with ACL. Nothing has changed. The council still has a stake in ACL in the form of its loan.

That's what SISU want to contest. As the council no longer has a shareholding in the ACL is it now acting as a private bank to a company that it no longer part-owns. The original JR said the loan was okay as the council were protecting their investment. Whatever the merits of the new case if it got to court the details of the Wasps/ACL/CCC deal would be part of the new case. That's the bit I think people would like to see rather than have everyone hiding behind commercial confidentiality.

 

[Hobo]

That's what SISU want to contest. As the council no longer has a shareholding in the ACL is it now acting as a private bank to a company that it no longer part-owns. The original JR said the loan was okay as the council were protecting their investment. Whatever the merits of the new case if it got to court the details of the Wasps/ACL/CCC deal would be part of the new case. That's the bit I think people would like to see rather than have everyone hiding behind commercial confidentiality.

The court case was about the loan being illegal state aid. They lost, as the court decided the council had a right to protect an investment due to SISU trying to illegally distress it. All CCC have said is Coventry City were key to the original viability. Now Wasps are in house and contributing to paying off the loan, Coventry City are less important (that is said in a business plan perspective rather than from the heart). So the councils business plan has moved on. SISU are just going backwards.

 

[fernandopartridge]

One of the strands of the CCC defence was that they loan was less risky due to their continued shareholding in ACL. Of course, that was a load of bollocks.

 

[bigfatronssba]

One of the strands of the CCC defence was that they loan was less risky due to their continued shareholding in ACL. Of course, that was a load of bollocks.

Of course, that is irrelevant. Only information known in January 2013 can be used as evidence.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Of course, that is irrelevant. Only information known in January 2013 can be used as evidence.

According to AL the Ricoh was always intended as a franchise stadium.

 

[bigfatronssba]

According to AL the Ricoh was always intended as a franchise stadium.

And?

As at January 2013 there were no firm plans for CCC to sell their shares. The law is about the situation at a particular time, not what might happen in the future.

 

[Hobo]

According to AL the Ricoh was always intended as a franchise stadium.

Surely that suggests the will to trade in an open market rather that state aid?

 

[fernandopartridge]

And?

As at January 2013 there were no firm plans for CCC to sell their shares. The law is about the situation at a particular time, not what might happen in the future.

No plans or no firm plans? Are you suggesting that defence wasn't absolute? Tut tut

 

[Grendel]

No plans or no firm plans? Are you suggesting that defence wasn't absolute? Tut tut

Lol

 

[bigfatronssba]

No plans or no firm plans? Are you suggesting that defence wasn't absolute? Tut tut

Your the one questioning the decision of the court.

Fact is CCC were cleared of anything unlawful in the JR, and that drives council haters like you mad to the point of being unable to accept a legitimate verdict.

 

[cloughie]

It is all a bit to hard for some to work out or what , ACL as an ongoing business was in profit until / except for legal fees concerned with constant court cases being thrown at them by those who were trying to distress ACL business.

Is that simple enough ?

But no worries sisu can continue battering people in court

 

[fernandopartridge]

Your the one questioning the decision of the court.

Fact is CCC were cleared of anything unlawful in the JR, and that drives council haters like you mad to the point of being unable to accept a legitimate verdict.

I accept the verdict. It just makes me laugh how desperate you are to exonerate the council of any wrong doing.

 

[lordsummerisle]

That's not further state aid though. The loan was made to ACL. The loan is still with ACL. Nothing has changed. The council still has a stake in ACL in the form of its loan.

Of course it's state aid if loan is to a private company now rather than to a Council one.

It's only state aid if the money is going to a completely separate private company.

The council handing the Ricoh over to sisu for free would be state aid.

What the council will argue is that they have protected their investment in one of their projects.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Of course it's state aid if loan is to a private company now rather than to a Council one.

In the eyes of the law ACL was always a private company.

 

[bigfatronssba]

I accept the verdict. It just makes me laugh how desperate you are to exonerate the council of any wrong doing.

But with regards to the JR they haven't done anything wrong. You've not really got an argument against that.

 

[skybluetony176]

Of course it's state aid if loan is to a private company now rather than to a Council one.

You mean like Northampton Councils loan to Northampton Town FC for their ground extension?

 

[lordsummerisle]

In the eyes of the law ACL was always a private company.

In the eyes of bigfatronssba that means it was state aid then.

 

[lordsummerisle]

You mean like Northampton Councils loan to Northampton Town FC for their ground extension?

Don't give a fuck about Northampton to be honest, besides it's in the past, so doesn't matter.

 

[bigfatronssba]

In the eyes of bigfatronssba that means it was state aid then.

So are you saying then that a public body, lending money to a private company, is state aid?

 

[lordsummerisle]

So are you saying then that a public body, lending money to a private company, is state aid?

No, you did, did you not recognise your own quote above?

It's only state aid if the money is going to a completely separate private company.

 

[bigfatronssba]

No, you did, did you not recognise your own quote above?

Did I say on every occasion?

Your not stupid so I don't know why your playing dumb on this, but I will humour you and make it clear.

Public funds going to a public body - Cannot be considered state aid

Public funds going to a private body - Under some circumstances (rare) can be considered state aid.

 

[Nick]

 

[chiefdave]

Can you give just one example of how CCC saying ACL is profitable when it wasn't has damaged CCFC?

Well that would be for SISU and their lawyers to come up with, not sure I want to give them ideas!

Off the top of my head lets say back at the end of 2011 when Fisher came in and started banging on about the rent being too high and CCFC propping up he had planned to make a bid for ACL with the value based on how poorly he perceived them to be performing. CCC publicly, to paraphrase, called him an idiot and talked about how CCFC was a tiny percentage of ACLs business etc. Now if he contends that was the root of the whole dispute then any money lost as a result of the dispute, for example by moving to Sixfields, or even the cost of now needing a new stadium could be argued to be a consequence.

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure what you can and can't claim compensation for but I would have thought a public body such as a council would be held to a high standard. Certainly if we were talking about 2 stock exchange listed companies all hell would be breaking loose now and the people at the top would be getting worried about jail time.

Would be interesting to get the councils representatives with ACL up on the stand seeing as Lucas has thrown them under the bus, what if they turn round and say Lucas and the rest of the council were fully briefed and had all the, correct, facts. I couldn't see any real reason for a JR before, I can certainly see one now. To be honest I'm not sure what is the best outcome. I'm absolutely furious about the council's role in all this, especially as I have spent many hours on here defending them, and would like to see them held to account for any wrongdoing. At the same time as a supporter I'm fed up of being in court all the time. Of course were the club to win big it could be a way out of the mess, maybe the only possible way out.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Did I say on every occasion?

Your not stupid so I don't know why your playing dumb on this, but I will humour you and make it clear.

Public funds going to a public body - Cannot be considered state aid

Public funds going to a private body - Under some circumstances (rare) can be considered state aid.

You said it in relation to the CCC loan to ACL, ACL is now a totally seperate private body, who should repay the loan to the local taxpayers, either through their own funds(if they have them), or through their own borrowing(if they can get it).

Local taxpayers should not have their funds put at risk for the benefit of a private enterprise.

Of course Wasps should have no problems raising the finance with such a good business.

 

[skybluetony176]

Don't give a fuck about Northampton to be honest, besides it's in the past, so doesn't matter.

Neither do I but you're conveniently ignoring the point that local authorities lend money to private business all the time and within state aid laws.

PS the new stand is far from finished so its not in the past.