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

[eastwoodsdustman]

Whether its political bias or not, which in my opinion it is, the papers reporting of the whole case is clearly biased against the club and in favour of the council.
Strange what happens when people stop towing the party line though.

 

---

[Shakeitup]

Bias due to link with the Mirror probably is nonsense. Your blatant bias against the football club isn't and your sometimes embarrassing endorsement of Wasps isn't either.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

I would have to disagree. I believe Simon sees the bigger picture, isn't small minded and takes sky blue tinted glasses off from time to time, unlike a lot of blinkered folk on here.

 

[skybluejelly]

Would you say the Wasps deal was good for the tax payer of Coventry then judging how they paid 5-6 million and it is now worth silly money with millions of pounds being thrown at them here there and every where with food renewals and stadium rights renewals? Surely that's worth saying hold on a minute, how has that happened?

Can the media make a difference with what the general public think?

I thought wasps paid £20 million ,£5.5million cash plus the loan of 14.5 million ,all the figures quoted in the press are just spin and projections, if you remember acl constantly said they were profitable without ccfc (that didn't last long) I seriously doubt that with the amount of debt and repayment of the bond issue that wasps will survive long without the football club there as well

 

[Big_Ben]

Apologies in advance if this has already been covered - there's an awful lot to read back through to check - but as a matter of interest, will it be the same judges who have granted the appeal who will actually sit to hear the appeal after October 1st?
Surely it won't go back to Hickinbottom after he has has such criticism.

 

[torchomatic]

To be honest, it'll be a relief not to see Astute, Tony and a few others quote him constantly as a bastion of truth. Now, if we can only stop them from putting "smoking gun" in every other sentence....

Surely it won't go back to Hickinbottom after he has has such criticism.

 

[Nick]

Read this article:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-taxpayers-could-lose-millions-9616342

I also believe the financial projections used by the council to determine the value of ACL might not have been suitable.

The judge seemed to criticise a lot judging from his quotes of the Council and the past judge.

Now, if a judge was saying something about SISU doing something wrong. How many cases of "rubbished claims" or "criticised" would there be in the article? Maybe a couple of "damning" in there too.

I am by no means saying the SISU are going to win billions of pounds or even the case, but imagine how that article would have been if the judge had been as "damning" at SISU and not the council in those quotes?

 

[Specs WT-R75]

I thought wasps paid £20 million ,£5.5million cash plus the loan of 14.5 million ,all the figures quoted in the press are just spin and projections, if you remember acl constantly said they were profitable without ccfc (that didn't last long) I seriously doubt that with the amount of debt and repayment of the bond issue that wasps will survive long without the football club there as well

The bond issue had a valuation of 48m I believe. With this sort of thing you cannot use spin and projections... although I agree that there has been a bit of that in the CET for eg the 195m catering turnover debacle...

 

[Nick]

The bond issue had a valuation of 48m I believe.

So if it is REALLY worth 48 million, why sell for what they did? That's the question?

 

[SimonGilbert]

Read this article:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-taxpayers-could-lose-millions-9616342



The judge seemed to criticise a lot judging from his quotes of the Council and the past judge.

Now, if a judge was saying something about SISU doing something wrong. How many cases of "rubbished claims" or "criticised" would there be in the article? Maybe a couple of "damning" in there too.

I am by no means saying the SISU are going to win billions of pounds or even the case, but imagine how that article would have been if the judge had been as "damning" at SISU and not the council in those quotes?

They haven't been rubbished yet. We haven't had the appeal.

All that's been proved is that Sisu's argument "has merit".

If Sisu win the appeal, that will be a different matter.

It's a story written with balance. The type of balance I aspire to achieve in everything I write.

 

[skybluetony176]

To be honest, it'll be a relief not to see Astute, Tony and a few others quote him constantly as a bastion of truth. Now, if we can only stop them from putting "smoking gun" in every other sentence....

If SISU lose are we alowed to quote him again as a bastion of truth? Out of interest what do you think lied about?

 

[Nick]

If SISU lose are we alowed to quote him again as a bastion of truth? Out of interest what do you think lied about?

The other judge seemed to disagree with him didn't he?

Either could well be wrong.

 

[skybluetony176]

The other judge seemed to disagree with him didn't he?

Either could well be wrong.

In what sense? They think that SISU have a case for appeal. They havent ruled on that appeal. The appeal might give exactly the same result.

 

[torchomatic]

If SISU lose are we alowed to quote him again as a bastion of truth? Out of interest what do you think lied about?

Not saying he did "lie". Im saying two judges yestersay seem to think he was incorrect in his judgement. Maybe i am doing you a disservice and you will be quoting what they said too.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[Specs WT-R75]

So if it is REALLY worth 48 million, why sell for what they did? That's the question?

In my eyes no it is not worth 48m which is why I believe those investing in the bonds are taking a bit of a risk... but that's my own opinion. I think the value is added by Wasps (and CCFC), but if Wasps fail then clearly the underlying value is only the ~19/20m they paid...

 

[Nick]

In what sense? They think that SISU have a case for appeal. They havent ruled on that appeal. The appeal might give exactly the same result.

ask the other judges who obviously have a bit of doubt about the judgement?

 

[skybluetony176]

Not saying he did "lie". Im saying two judges yestersay seem to think he was incorrect in his judgement. Maybe i am doing you a disservice and you will be quoting what they said too.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

No. They said SISU did have grounds for appeal. He could have given them that right himself in the JR but chose not to. If he did does that mean he was disagreeing with himself?

No one has said he got it wrong have they, just SISU have the oppurtunity to prove he did. If he did.

 

[torchomatic]

Didn't one of the Judges say he was "troubled" by Hickinbottoms original view and judgement?

No one has said he got it wrong have they, just SISU have the oppurtunity to prove he did. If he did.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

That's because there's no clear right or wrong party here.

Careful now.

 

[skybluetony176]

Didn't one of the Judges say he was "troubled" by Hickinbottoms original view and judgement?

I honestly don't know. I haven't read everything on it yet. But equally it doesn't mean he got it wrong. It could be that this judge has got it wrong. I would think that if there was the doubt you're trying to portray the original JR would have been called a mis-trial and the JR would have been run again. That didn't happen. All yesterdays ruling tells you is that these two judges don't believe it's as black and white as the JR judge said it was and SISU have the right to appeal.

 

[James Smith]

Nice Telegraph Comment titled

I still don't get if (and it is a huge if) SISU win then why it isn't the council that are baddies for doing something wrong?

Surely it should be "Council messed up and cost the tax payers hundreds of millions"?

I object to the idea that they're peddling about us getting a new stadium built. Even the Telegraph must know that's a figment of imagination.

 

[Nick]

I honestly don't know. I haven't read everything on it yet. But equally it doesn't mean he got it wrong. It could be that this judge has got it wrong. I would think that if there was the doubt you're trying to portray the original JR would have been called a mis-trial and the JR would have been run again. That didn't happen. All yesterdays ruling tells you is that these two judges don't believe it's as black and white as the JR judge said it was and SISU have the right to appeal.

And that another judge was troubled by it.

I'm not saying SISU are going to win, far from it. I am not saying he got it wrong, it is worrying that another judge said they were troubled by it. If he got it wrong then it is worrying, if he got it right it worries me the other judge was troubled by the truth.

 

[Monners]

It is not about right or wrong (black or white if you like). It is about making a judgement based on the evidence presented.

At the moment the most recent judgement states that Sisu may have the right to appeal, and no more than that.

Edit: I am very pleased with the new signing too (please see post 373 below)

 

[LB87ccfc]

Everytime their is a court case, I sit here in utter amazement.

We sign one of the best DCM's in the division yesterday and it gets a measly 7-10 page thread - Football related, new signing, exciting, paid a fee for the first time in like forever.

Then SISU go to court over something that they think they are owed and it is discussed to death all over again with 38 pages and counting.

Amazing.

 

[Nick]

Everytime their is a court case, I sit here in utter amazement.

We sign one of the best DCM's in the division yesterday and it gets a measly 7-10 page thread - Football related, new signing, exciting, paid a fee for the first time in like forever.

Then SISU go to court over something that they think they are owed and it is discussed to death all over again with 38 pages and counting.

Amazing.

See how quiet it goes when theres a football match on...

 

[Nick]

It is not about right or wrong (black or white if you like). It is about making a judgement based on the evidence presented.

At the moment the most recent judgement states that Sisu may have the right to appeal, and no more than that.

But aren't SISU trying to say CCC did something wrong?

 

[skybluetony176]

And that another judge was troubled by it.

The first judge said no JR, That was appealed and a judge said JR, The JR happened and a judge spent 3days being presented evidence, hearing arguments and counter arguments then after a long period of time presented his judgement in favour of the council and ruled no right to appeal. Another judge then upheld that ruling, now two judges have ruled an appeal can take place and now a seventh judge (if I'm keeping count correctly) will hear the appeal. That shows you how complicated this is and of all those judges I would think that only one has heard ALL the evidence and heard ALL the arguments and counter arguments. Did CCC even have representation yesterday? Did they present any counter arguments or are the two judges only presented with a skeletal argument from one side?

 

[Monners]

But aren't SISU trying to say CCC did something wrong?

Of course, which is it has ended up in court - for a legal judgement. My point was that it is not about a judege being right or wrong.

Anyway, I am still looking forward to the new season (need to remind myself that I am footie fan as well as an amateur legal beagle)

 

[Nick]

The first judge said no JR, That was appealed and a judge said JR, The JR happened and a judge spent 3days being presented evidence, hearing arguments and counter arguments then after a long period of time presented his judgement in favour of the council and ruled no right to appeal. Another judge then upheld that ruling, now two judges have ruled an appeal can take place and now a seventh judge (if I'm keeping count correctly) will hear the appeal. That shows you how complicated this is and of all those judges I would think that only one has heard ALL the evidence and heard ALL the arguments and counter arguments. Did CCC even have representation yesterday? Did they present any counter arguments or are the two judges only presented with a skeletal argument from one side?

Of course it is down to an opinion to an extent and everybody will be different, however if somebody in my profession said they were troubled by my work it is a bit different to saying "Ah I do that a bit differently" or something. To do it publicly too?

I have no idea if SISU will win, past history edges me to the side where I don't think they will.

My point being is that some people on here like to use that judge as proof of everything and anything. "Wasps have moved" - "Yeah but just look at JR".

 

[Grendel]

The first judge said no JR, That was appealed and a judge said JR, The JR happened and a judge spent 3days being presented evidence, hearing arguments and counter arguments then after a long period of time presented his judgement in favour of the council and ruled no right to appeal. Another judge then upheld that ruling, now two judges have ruled an appeal can take place and now a seventh judge (if I'm keeping count correctly) will hear the appeal. That shows you how complicated this is and of all those judges I would think that only one has heard ALL the evidence and heard ALL the arguments and counter arguments. Did CCC even have representation yesterday? Did they present any counter arguments or are the two judges only presented with a skeletal argument from one side?

This is an appeal on a point of law and that is the judgement they made - counter arguments against the original ruling would not be very helpful.

 

[skybluetony176]

This is an appeal on a point of law and that is the judgement they made - counter arguments against the original ruling would not be very helpful.

Isn't the appeal a counter argument against the original ruling?

 

[Grendel]

Isn't the appeal a counter argument against the original ruling?

No it's based on the original ruling that the loan purchase was an appropriate use of state aid.

Frankly the original judgement regarding this appeared bizarre. There is little doubt it was not appropriate, especially given the sale of the asset now to another organisation.

By doing it the council created an unfair competitive envoronment. Acl should have funded via another commercial lending source or gone into administration.

It's not that surprising that the appeal is granted.

In a normal envoronment it's likely sisu will win the case. The stumbling block though is the rent strike as that created the financial issues for Acl. Why they didn't just go into admin declaring they can't afford rent I don't know.

They may win but I can't see much hope of a payout of any significance.

 

[skybluetony176]

No it's based on the original ruling that the loan purchase was an appropriate use of state aid.

Frankly the original judgement regarding this appeared bizarre. There is little doubt it was not appropriate, especially given the sale of the asset now to another organisation.

By doing it the council created an unfair competitive envoronment. Acl should have funded via another commercial lending source or gone into administration.

It's not that surprising that the appeal is granted.

In a normal envoronment it's likely sisu will win the case. The stumbling block though is the rent strike as that created the financial issues for Acl. Why they didn't just go into admin declaring they can't afford rent I don't know.

They may win but I can't see much hope of a payout of any significance.

Sounds like you're edging your bets there. You're saying on one hand SISU should win but on the other hand that they wont win. I guess in your head that means you're right regardless of what happens at the appeal. No wonder you think you're always right.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Sounds like you're edging your bets there. You're saying on one hand SISU should win but on the other hand that they wont win. I guess in your head that means you're right regardless of what happens at the appeal. No wonder you think you're always right.

Tony, it's 'hedging' your bets.

 

[Raggs]

No it's based on the original ruling that the loan purchase was an appropriate use of state aid.

Frankly the original judgement regarding this appeared bizarre. There is little doubt it was not appropriate, especially given the sale of the asset now to another organisation.

By doing it the council created an unfair competitive envoronment. Acl should have funded via another commercial lending source or gone into administration.

It's not that surprising that the appeal is granted.

In a normal envoronment it's likely sisu will win the case. The stumbling block though is the rent strike as that created the financial issues for Acl. Why they didn't just go into admin declaring they can't afford rent I don't know.

They may win but I can't see much hope of a payout of any significance.

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.

 

[James Smith]

Can the media make a difference with what the general public think?

Of course they can Nick. The media and an institution like the telegraph have a real duty to report stories based on facts and not based on political bias of their owners.
This is what disappoints me most about the paper's handling of the whole saga. Its clearly taken the side of the labour council which when you see that its owned by the mirror group is no real surprise really.

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.