Back to Court on Wednesday 8th July 2015 (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
James Smith

James Smith

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
Would Wasps moving in take the value up 40 odd million in a couple of weeks though? Surely that would need looking at before touting the Wasps stuff in the paper?

Didn't the council / ACL say it was doing well when it was empty though?
Click to expand...

It might have been at the moment they said it but business then tailed off shortly afterwards. Awhile back we had the best start to a week we've ever had and the MD phoned as we were cashing up at the end of Wednesday to say well done. Sales tanked after that and we were marginally down on our normal weekly takings. It's now referred to as the call of death.
Bloody tube strike has been a pain today both in getting to and from work and the number of customers.
 
Last edited:
S

Specs WT-R75

Well-Known Member
Raggs said:
It's been ruled appropriate once already. It doesn't have to be considered a typical commercial loan, due to the councils stake.

The argument the appeal for the appeal was that the council would have been better off letting ACL go bankrupt. Leaving them with 100% ownership of the freehold and the ability to create a new management company. However, it then has to be proven that the disruption of losing the ACL, and cost of creating a new management company, would lead to greater benefit than giving a loan that has been successfully repaid. Any new management company would be entirely owned by CCC, meaning if the Ricoh is losing money, they'd have been accountable for 100% of that, as opposed to merely 50% as with ACL. The new management company may have been in no more of a hurry to work with SISU than the ACL appeared to be.

And of course, had ACL been allowed to go under, Higgs would have lost absolutely everything from their investment. Won't someone think of the children etc etc.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately sometimes in business your head has to rule your heart... Higgs ended up getting [less] screwed either way...
 
R

Raggs

New Member
Specs WT-R75 said:
Unfortunately sometimes in business your head has to rule your heart... Higgs ended up getting [less] screwed either way...
Click to expand...

£2.77M, plus a stand named after the charity, plus 50p of every ticket sold in that stand, minimum £40k donation a season, sounds a lot less screwed than sod all.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Raggs said:
It's been ruled appropriate once already. It doesn't have to be considered a typical commercial loan, due to the councils stake.

The argument the appeal for the appeal was that the council would have been better off letting ACL go bankrupt. Leaving them with 100% ownership of the freehold and the ability to create a new management company. However, it then has to be proven that the disruption of losing the ACL, and cost of creating a new management company, would lead to greater benefit than giving a loan that has been successfully repaid. Any new management company would be entirely owned by CCC, meaning if the Ricoh is losing money, they'd have been accountable for 100% of that, as opposed to merely 50% as with ACL. The new management company may have been in no more of a hurry to work with SISU than the ACL appeared to be.

And of course, had ACL been allowed to go under, Higgs would have lost absolutely everything from their investment. Won't someone think of the children etc etc.
Click to expand...

The charity angle is a very cheap shot. Ultimately your lot sensed a killing and devoured the carcass

If Richardson could have got the Higgs share for 10 pence please do not tell me he wouldn't. Anyone who is prepared to desert his natural fan base and whore the club to another town clearly has profit high on the agenda and morality not even registering as an agenda.

State aid has zero to do with rescuing charities as I suspect you know.

I suspect you are slight worried.

Good. I hope so. We as a city need you out of here.
 
James Smith

James Smith

Well-Known Member
torchomatic said:
Didn't one of the Judges say he was "troubled" by Hickinbottoms original view and judgement?
Click to expand...

But was he basing that on the new skeleton arguments or the full facts of the original case?
 
R

Raggs

New Member
Grendel said:
The charity angle is a very cheap shot. Ultimately your lot sensed a killing and devoured the carcass

If Richardson could have got the Higgs share for 10 pence please do not tell me he wouldn't. Anyone who is prepared to desert his natural fan base and whore the club to another town clearly has profit high on the agenda and morality not even registering as an agenda.

State aid has zero to do with rescuing charities as I suspect you know.

I suspect you are slight worried.

Good. I hope so. We as a city need you out of here.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he'd have purchased it at that price as well, if he could have. But I've noted the Higgs line trotted out multiple times here (in reference to SISU and Wasps), and didn't want the potential impact of CCC letting ACL go bust to be missed, it's another consideration that CCC may have taken into consideration before giving the loan.

I genuinely cannot see a scenario in which Wasps will be required to do anything more than pay a little bit more on the loans interest, interest rates were at historic lows, how much is a commercial loan rate going to have been? Not enough to finish Wasps off.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Raggs said:
£2.77M, plus a stand named after the charity, plus 50p of every ticket sold in that stand, minimum £40k donation a season, sounds a lot less screwed than sod all.
Click to expand...

I repeat - that's what the pariah Richardson had to pay - he'd pay nothing if he could. He is a guttersnipe and you are vermin.

Crawl back in the sewer where you belong.
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
SimonGilbert said:
The van we took to the HQs of all the major protagonists prior to Wasps' arrival?

We've been here and had this conversation before. We will always speak out for what's in the best interests of Coventry.

We spoke out against CCFC being removed from the city because there is clear evidence that the move was detrimental to the city of Coventry and its people. There was also obvious widespread opposition.

There is no such clear evidence that Wasps moving to Coventry is bad for the city or its people. There was also nothing like the level of opposition we saw to CCFC being moved. If evidence emerges that the move is bad for Coventry, we will no doubt change our position.

The Wasps deal might be bad for the football club, but the city is bigger than the Sky Blues. That's not to say the club is not an important part of its fabric.

There are undoubtedly moral questions about whether a rugby team should be moved from its homeland, and whether the move facilitated by our local authority. But, again, there's hardly been widespread anger to the move in the rugby community from what I can tell.
Click to expand...

To be fair Nick has stated he does really care much about Coventry as a City. Just the football club.

I know where you are coming from Simon and the Telegraph does represent the views of the majority of Coventry folk. Who are passionate about both their city and their football club
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
dongonzalos said:
To be Nick has stated he does really care much about Coventry as s City. Just the football club.

I know where you are coming from Simon and the Trlegraph does represent the views of the majority of Coventry folk. Who are passionate about both their city and their football club,
Click to expand...

Any evidence to support that tripe?
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Nick

Nick

Administrator
dongonzalos said:
I know where you are coming from Simon and the Telegraph does represent the views of the majority of Coventry folk. Who are passionate about both their city and their football club
Click to expand...
And court cases? Seems the majority are passionate about the football club when it suits.

In terms of not caring about the city, I'm not on otis level. I wouldn't get all sentimental and defensive if somebody said they saw a homeless person in coventry. Some bits are shit, some are nice.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Seems Raggs has left the building. Good I hope its permanent and he goes back to his crappy wasps forum relaying what true ccfc fans think of him and his type.
 
S

SimonGilbert

Telegraph Tea Boy
James Smith said:
Newspapers can* actually express bias think of the red tops that come out in favour of a particular party before and on the day of a general election. Now your TV and radio media can't do that in this country and stations have been had up for bias relating to this before.
*although I am not suggesting that the Telegraph have shown any bias before you decide to get all legal on me Simon.
Click to expand...

It kind of proves my point.

If we are being biased, why wouldn't we just say we are? We don't have to be neutral.
 
M

martcov

Well-Known Member
Raggs said:
It's been ruled appropriate once already. It doesn't have to be considered a typical commercial loan, due to the councils stake.

The argument the appeal for the appeal was that the council would have been better off letting ACL go bankrupt. Leaving them with 100% ownership of the freehold and the ability to create a new management company. However, it then has to be proven that the disruption of losing the ACL, and cost of creating a new management company, would lead to greater benefit than giving a loan that has been successfully repaid. Any new management company would be entirely owned by CCC, meaning if the Ricoh is losing money, they'd have been accountable for 100% of that, as opposed to merely 50% as with ACL. The new management company may have been in no more of a hurry to work with SISU than the ACL appeared to be.

And of course, had ACL been allowed to go under, Higgs would have lost absolutely everything from their investment. Won't someone think of the children etc etc.
Click to expand...

wouldn't letting a half council owned company go under have an effect on the CCC credit rating and possibly mean higher interest rates on their borrowing in the future? Genuine question.
 
R

Raggs

New Member
martcov said:
wouldn't letting a half council owned company go under have an effect on the CCC credit rating and possibly mean higher interest rates on their borrowing in the future? Genuine question.
Click to expand...

No idea whatsoever. Could argue that ACL is separately run company (albeit 50% owned) so therefore it shouldn't effect the councils credit rating, as it's not the council making the financial decisions for the ACL. Guess it depends on the management structure of the ACL?
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
martcov said:
wouldn't letting a half council owned company go under have an effect on the CCC credit rating and possibly mean higher interest rates on their borrowing in the future? Genuine question.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with state aid and distorting s natural market - actually is a case against if anything.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
SimonGilbert said:
If we are being biased, why wouldn't we just say we are? We don't have to be neutral.
Click to expand...

Because everyone believes themselves to be neutral and objective, whereas we are all biased and subjective.

It's the way of the world/human nature/our habitus, call it what you will.

All I know is that I'm neutral and objective, where nobody else is ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
Because everyone believes themselves to be neutral and objective, whereas we are all biased and subjective.

It's the way of the world/human nature/our habitus, call it what you will.

All I know is that I'm neutral and objective, where nobody else is ;)
Click to expand...

And sometimes verbose.
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
I'm still Intrigued as to the fact It was only heard by two Judges rather than the stipulated three.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
wingy said:
I'm still Intrigued as to the fact It was only heard by two Judges rather than the stipulated three.
Click to expand...

[video=youtube;k5hWWe-ts2s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5hWWe-ts2s[/video]
 
James Smith

James Smith

Well-Known Member
wingy said:
I'm still Intrigued as to the fact It was only heard by two Judges rather than the stipulated three.
Click to expand...

Maybe the hypocritical council will hire Mr Loophole to get them out of it.
 
A

armybike

Well-Known Member
skyblueindorset said:
How the hell can a company wash it's face? What is that nonsense supposed to mean?
Click to expand...

It means to balance the book and guess it means to keep the company presentable. Nothing fancy but also not dowdy. However, it's a bloody stupid expression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top