Local Government Officers and elected officials guilty of misconduct that cost the local authority money could formerly be surcharged (financially charged) personally.
Back to Court on Wednesday 8th July 2015 (32 Viewers)
- Thread starter BrisbaneBronco
- Start date
Local Government Officers and elected officials guilty of misconduct that cost the local authority money could formerly be surcharged (financially charged) personally.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Thanks James. Just read Simons article, seems the judges were quite critical of their JR and Appeal colleagues.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
No, Sisu rolled out the plan and CCC rubber stamped it last October.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Didn't Lucas go on record saying that the deal was only agreed as our long term future was assured?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Can't say I've seen any evidence.
Surely if it was true Sisu would need to be constructive as their part of the deal?
Otherwise Sisu could do anything they like knowing they have nothing to loose.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
RE taxpayers missing out:
One of the reasons Sisu has been given permission to appeal is that the council's valuation of ACL was possibly way off.
Sisu's argument is that the loan wasn't commercially viable because it was so much more than the value of ACL.
That would mean the taxpayer didn't lose out in the Wasps deal. It also means Sisu's offer of £2m in 2012 would have been pretty close to the true value.
Arguing that the taxpayer lost out in the Wasps deal would actually be arguing against Sisu's cause.
Of course the argument over value will no doubt be a key point of contention in the appeal hearing.
One of the reasons Sisu has been given permission to appeal is that the council's valuation of ACL was possibly way off.
Sisu's argument is that the loan wasn't commercially viable because it was so much more than the value of ACL.
That would mean the taxpayer didn't lose out in the Wasps deal. It also means Sisu's offer of £2m in 2012 would have been pretty close to the true value.
Arguing that the taxpayer lost out in the Wasps deal would actually be arguing against Sisu's cause.
Of course the argument over value will no doubt be a key point of contention in the appeal hearing.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
At least with CCFC out of the way you won't have to worry about the guilt... out of sight and all that.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I think the argument is around potential compensation claims.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Haven't you got a car park to get ready for October "Iggy"
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Your such a knob.
Someone has told you my school nickname and now you are playing the 'I know you but you don't know me' post.
You don't know me, they know me, so stop your school boy antics and pick on someone who gives a fuck.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
That's your name on the Wasps website where you are on the travelling section asking fans from London to use your car park.
The two judges decided that there was merit in Sisu’s claim that Justice Hickinbottom, who handed down that judgment, had made a mistake in his interpretation of the law
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The funniest thing about this conversation is the amount of times you've accused me of stalking you when you really are a stalker. You're proper scary.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
As expected.
Just a shame we have to go through all this over again for the same outcome.
If by some freak chance they said no today SISU may have seen sense. Then got something sorted for us to stay at the Ricoh long term.
Just a shame we have to go through all this over again for the same outcome.
If by some freak chance they said no today SISU may have seen sense. Then got something sorted for us to stay at the Ricoh long term.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
.... and you are on the Friends Required website "Gimpy" but I wouldn't bring it up on someone else's thread !!
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Did the two judges actually say that?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Your the one spouting dross about wasps not letting us play in the ground built for us.
I assume if they ever did that you would stop supporting them?
It will be set for a 2 day hearing
Today it was set for 2 hours but they took less than 20 minutes to decide the last judge was wrong in law and THEN went on to spell out the potential claims that could be made. They did not listen in full to SISU's lawyers - minds were made up already
Expect more of the same
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Yes they pretty much dismissed the original judgement as "unsafe" - I wouldn't be quoting him amymore if I were you.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Yes sorry. Just reread your post. I thought you were saying that the judges said judge Higginbottom had got it wrong. My bad.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
They didn't dismiss anything. That could only happen at the appeal.
If he had have given them right to appeal in the first place would he have been dismissing his own judgement as unsafe?
Will I still be allowed to quote him if SISU lose again?
You seem to have all your eggs in one basket here.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I don't have any eggs in any basket.
The way this was easily granted, however, I am sure will at least give Lucas and her cronies some uncomfortable nights sleep.
That I admit makes me smile.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Is that one of the perks if you buy a corporate season ticket?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
If I were the council I'd be less worried about the fact that the appeal is being allowed, there was always a chance of that, and more concerned with comments made by the judge today. They seemed fairly dismissive of the original decision.
Should the council be eventually found to be in the wrong what would the consequences be for the likes of Lucas, Reeves and West? Assume they would all lose their jobs but could they be in serious trouble?
Should the council be eventually found to be in the wrong what would the consequences be for the likes of Lucas, Reeves and West? Assume they would all lose their jobs but could they be in serious trouble?
If that was the case I'd have bought 6!
Seriously wake me up when it's about the football.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Apparently it's Waggott who delivers the reward.
Any port in a storm
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The judges today appear to have completely dismantled the defence of 'protecting a public asset'. The appeal will be interesting.
Not sure why the NOPM brigade are jumping on it s their latest excuse.
Not sure why the NOPM brigade are jumping on it s their latest excuse.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
.......... in 20 minutes :facepalm: