Skybluefaz
Well-Known Member
*definitely
Appeal granted (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter CJ_covblaze
- Start date
skybluedan
Well-Known Member
who the fuck actually granted these cunts appeal again? There cunts as well
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Everyone has the chance to spell properly. Not thinking it’s worth doing is fair game.
And the right to express opinions extends to those whose opinion is that spelling and grammar matters.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Everyone has the chance to spell properly. Not thinking it’s worth doing is fair game.
And the right to express opinions extends to those whose opinion is that spelling and grammar matters.
I think that should be extended to those who initiated pulling others up on grammer then. Don't you?
As Astute pointed out, what happens in the case of, lets say dyslexics. Do you take the piss out of those people too? or are they "Fair game"
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
it's all in this thread with detailed explanations of all the possible outcomes.
You should read the whole thread, it's very informative.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
skybluedan
Well-Known Member
Hahahahaha kid ,Dont try bringing me into you and your mates weird little teacher sex cult use have got going on
Bunch of perverts
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
skybluedan
Well-Known Member
I know mate
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
SISU want to win, you are stating that they don't because you have been made to look silly again.
They know they have little chance of winning because of the kicking they got in JR1. However whilst they have 1% chance of winning they will try as they don't have anything else left. So they have to gamble. If by some freak chance they won then they are trying to sue for 30 million. It's like having a go on the lottery if you don't buy a ticket you can't win.
However they also think that by having the legal action it puts pressure on Wasps and the Council.
In reality it will achieve nothing but damage CCFC. The club currently needs Wasps and the council.
However SISU's first priority is SISU. So the damage to the club is collateral.
Most who were misguided and supported this legal action have now either changed their minds or gone quite.
Most who preach that whatever is best for CCFC is more important than anything else now realise that means stopping this legal action.
You however can never admit you are wrong.
So you will pretend SISU want to lose.
Just to let you know you are not convincing anyone, even on this occasion yourself I suspect.
Astute
Well-Known Member
If for some reason they won JR2 and then won damages of 30m maybe they would appeal and say that isn't the right conclusion as they don't want the money :smuggrin:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Made the exact same point last time he made the "lost on purpose" statement. He'll probably go on to deny it again anyway.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
To be fair...I think the judiciary have clear, extremely objective minds...they spend much time cutting through crap & superfluous statements & comments to get down to the real point at issue. Then that is the specific that they focus upon...& rulings can be made against their better personal judgement - to follow the law as it actually & literally stands whenever possible, or likely follow a precedent previously set as a next best alternative.
They are close-knit but I don't believe they have anything but high regard for each other's reasoning & rulings...that's why SISU will keep going back if their legal team still believe they may have a worthwhile angle...the judiciary will usually give them the right to do so in an effort to be fair & balanced.
This could well be SISU's last throw because legal costs to date must be reaching a point where they make insufficient gain in a win situation to cover their costs. By that I mean that even they accept it would be impracticable to unravel the Ricoh situation for them to own...so they will look to recoup as much in damages as possible, to cover money put into this venture from the day they took it on.
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Astute
Well-Known Member
They have to follow procedure. It has nothing to do with how much they like each other. SISU have said that they have new evidence from 'experts'. So that is enough to get the appeal to try and get JR2 on the road. If they look closely at what the 'experts' say it could end there. But if there is any doubt then JR2 will begin. Nothing to do with the judges and their personal thoughts.
But to win JR2 SISU will have to come up with evidence that is against everything known. Higgs, CCC, SISU and Wasps all valued it at about what Wasps paid. The legal teams that worked on the sale would have double checked everything.
Yes it might be valued much higher now. But now is not the question. It is when it was unused. And the football club it was built for were never going back to it. Now there are two sporting clubs using it. Nothing to do with the regard the judges have with each other.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I do not think it is about new evidence at the moment.
The appeal is about challenging the judges assessment not to proceed to a full JR2, to not allow an appeal, to not to allow the new evidence to be included and to not agree that compensation would be available. It is a challenge on points of law or case law specific to the judgements handed down on the JR application not the JR2 evidence. To get to the appeal then they have put forward an argument that has cast doubt on some or part of Justice Rupinder Singhs judgement that he handed down, the biggest of which could be the right to appeal rejection. The appeal court will decide whether to go to a full JR2. It doesn't mean as yet that the JR2 will even be heard.
The evidence will be heard at the JR2 if JR2 gets allowed by the appeal court. The new evidence will be heard at the JR2 if it gets allowed by the JR2 judge appointed. Where we are now is an appeal against rejection of an application to have a JR
Any evidence permitted will be only that which was or should have been available at the time and SISU would have to prove proper process was not followed by CCC at the time based on the evidence they had. JR's are essentially a test of process based on the evidence that was available at the time
The value that Wasps now place on the lease is not relevant to the value of the lease held under the ownership of CCC & AEHC up to the sale of their interest. For a start off up to the point of sale there was no long term sporting team based at the Ricoh to give CCC & AEHC increased value. The only entity capable of owning an extended lease for the next 35 years is ACL because ACL still owns the head lease so an open market value to the extension is irrelevant. In fact the open market value to a third party would be £nil because ACL are still in place, unless you own ACL it is worthless. In any case the disposal was a disposal of shares not land. CCC & AEHC had to sell the shares on the basis of what they owned not what it might become with increased usage & turnover under someone else's ownership & investment.
The lease extension might have been agreed in principle by CCC & Wasps but it was also dependent on Wasps doing a separate deal with AEHC for their shares. CCC took advice from accountants with an international reputation and staff qualified in commercial valuations then achieved value at the higher end of estimates. Both CCC & AEHC took separate independent specialist legal advice. Included in the value of the shares or value of ACL was a head lease valuation of 18m. The shares of course reflect a value of all assets less all liabilities of a company - a company SISU had repeatedly publically and in previous court cases insisted was worthless, i believe they were willing to produce expert witnesses to prove that also. CCC paid 1.76m for their shares in ACL they received 2.77m when they sold them. Benefits for Local Authorities do not have to be measured in hard cash in any case. Accounts Balance sheet value of ACL at around time of sale approx. £6m including head lease £18m. These are just some of the obstacles that SISU will need to overcome in their JR2 evidence if it gets that far
Even if they win this appeal, a successful outcome for SISU in my opinion still looks as remote as ever
The appeal is about challenging the judges assessment not to proceed to a full JR2, to not allow an appeal, to not to allow the new evidence to be included and to not agree that compensation would be available. It is a challenge on points of law or case law specific to the judgements handed down on the JR application not the JR2 evidence. To get to the appeal then they have put forward an argument that has cast doubt on some or part of Justice Rupinder Singhs judgement that he handed down, the biggest of which could be the right to appeal rejection. The appeal court will decide whether to go to a full JR2. It doesn't mean as yet that the JR2 will even be heard.
The evidence will be heard at the JR2 if JR2 gets allowed by the appeal court. The new evidence will be heard at the JR2 if it gets allowed by the JR2 judge appointed. Where we are now is an appeal against rejection of an application to have a JR
Any evidence permitted will be only that which was or should have been available at the time and SISU would have to prove proper process was not followed by CCC at the time based on the evidence they had. JR's are essentially a test of process based on the evidence that was available at the time
The value that Wasps now place on the lease is not relevant to the value of the lease held under the ownership of CCC & AEHC up to the sale of their interest. For a start off up to the point of sale there was no long term sporting team based at the Ricoh to give CCC & AEHC increased value. The only entity capable of owning an extended lease for the next 35 years is ACL because ACL still owns the head lease so an open market value to the extension is irrelevant. In fact the open market value to a third party would be £nil because ACL are still in place, unless you own ACL it is worthless. In any case the disposal was a disposal of shares not land. CCC & AEHC had to sell the shares on the basis of what they owned not what it might become with increased usage & turnover under someone else's ownership & investment.
The lease extension might have been agreed in principle by CCC & Wasps but it was also dependent on Wasps doing a separate deal with AEHC for their shares. CCC took advice from accountants with an international reputation and staff qualified in commercial valuations then achieved value at the higher end of estimates. Both CCC & AEHC took separate independent specialist legal advice. Included in the value of the shares or value of ACL was a head lease valuation of 18m. The shares of course reflect a value of all assets less all liabilities of a company - a company SISU had repeatedly publically and in previous court cases insisted was worthless, i believe they were willing to produce expert witnesses to prove that also. CCC paid 1.76m for their shares in ACL they received 2.77m when they sold them. Benefits for Local Authorities do not have to be measured in hard cash in any case. Accounts Balance sheet value of ACL at around time of sale approx. £6m including head lease £18m. These are just some of the obstacles that SISU will need to overcome in their JR2 evidence if it gets that far
Even if they win this appeal, a successful outcome for SISU in my opinion still looks as remote as ever
Last edited:
Warwickhunt
Well-Known Member
Then CCC & WASPS would the appeal and so and so forth
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I suspect we will still be discussing court cases this time next year who ever wins the next one
And breathe.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It's nothing to do with new evidence - it's an appeal on the right to appeal
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The problem is they wouldn't win anything like £30 million would they. What's better for them - where they are now or a victory years ago on a minimum payout?
Then again they would mind they either as they could have appealed it.
In the game - that's the objective - stay in the game.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
When's the appeal on the appeal on the right to appeal slated for?
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
I suspect we will still be discussing court cases this time next year who ever wins the next one
Another year when ccfc can not move fwd as the owners are in court with all the major players they need support from.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
In 2019 too in my opinion.I suspect we will still be discussing court cases this time next year who ever wins the next one
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Neither. They've gained exactly zilch through this whole process. Unless job creation for the legal industry was always the aim.
You're only kidding yourself on this one. The only way that they can gain is with a win and compensation.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
and if they have a "no win no fee" they may never have to pay any costs
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Getting the money back would be an unbelievable win for SISU but failing that there is some merit in the idea of just dragging it out as long as possible. If you believe Wasps, and ACL before them, aren't doing as well financially as some would have you believe then the longer you can cause instability the better.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The cost has been far greater to SISU and specifically CCFC than it was at any stage for ACL and that looks unlikely to be any different for Wasps. I think just like Grendull you're only fooling yourself on this one.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
And with the threads you tend to frequent you're fooling nobody.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Actually a victory years ago Every time. A minimal payout is better than nothing. Any victory is better than absolute defeat, Wasps arriving, moving out and losing half your fan base. Your reputation for battering people in court in tatters.
Paying the other sides expenses and pretty much having every possible door closed in your face.
SISU would take absolutely any victory at all in any guise that they could attach a compensation claim to, without any doubt.
To suggest otherwise is a desperate man who has been found out to be wrong yet again and is desperately trying to cling onto something that nobody else believes.
Just for once in your life man up and say yes I got it wrong again......
The Ricoh wasn't a white Elephant that nobody else would move to.
Tim Fisher wasnt bluffing when he said we were going to move out.
We should have done a deal right back at the beginning to buy ACL and not tried to put them out of business.
There was no smoking gun.
Abd now SISU are not taking legal action hoping to lose it.
You sir are a joke the only person you may be convincing is yourself and I am not entirely sure about that (for Grendel)
Last edited:
Astute
Well-Known Member
That is fine as long as you don't mind the instability caused at our football club while they continue with it.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
wish people would stop posting on this thread, every time I see that title - Appeal granted my heart sinks. Really thought the end game was approaching.
Shit now I've done it!!
Shit now I've done it!!
