Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Was in Coventry
Council and Sky Blues in court tomorrow (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter SimonGilbert
- Start date
SimonGilbert
Telegraph Tea Boy
Updated: Full story from yesterday's court hearing between the Sky Blues and Coventry City Council - http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sky-blues-owners-city-council-7122731
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In other words: Huge amounts of lawyers fees, time and resources squandered in the pursuit of a JR decision. A judge repeating that, as in the Higgs case, a lot of irrelevant Information being offered or demanded. With hindsight would it have been easier to continue with the purchase of the Higgs share and for CCFC to stay at the Ricoh whilst continuing negotiations as a 50 per cent shareholder in ACL?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Interesting that Justice Hickinbottom will also be presiding over the JR. Was yesterdays case a good indicater of how the JR will go?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the updates yesterday. Keep up the good work.
Wish you would use the term unlawful and not illegal though as I am sure that is what the allegation is.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
And SISU also spent money engaging Duff and Phelps, (a specialist firm of valuation and corporate finance advisors) to procude a report which it turns out is non admissible as the JR decision can only be based on advice that was available at the time of the council decision.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Yes and no.
No as it don't say anything about the unlawful lending allegation.
Yes as we can see that the judge seems to be a strong one and won't take any crap. He won't be bullied by a room full of QC's. We also know he has a good feel of the situation.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I think all the way along the timeline of this dispute you need to look at who is using the legal process and who is following the legal process - there is a difference. I would suggest a starting point way before March 2012
The one thing the Judge has done yesterday is to ensure the case June 10th will focus only on the issue of whether the CCC were correct in their decision 15/01/13 based on what was known then and whether they used proper process. He is not going to be interested in he said she said, this intention or that, what happened in 1995 etc. expert opinion with the benefit of hindsight, or the financial needs of anyone involved.
interesting that SISU have a valuation report of ACL from Duff & Phelps though. So despite ML's assertions contrary they can arrive at a figure for ACL and could have made an offer based on it. But I suppose it isn't that sort of valuation and couldn't be up to date - but it is a starting point isn't it? To assess the loan deal then surely you have in part to assess affordability which means present and future earnings doesn't it? Even if they didn't want ACL it must give an indication of worth otherwise surely? But still no offer
The one thing the Judge has done yesterday is to ensure the case June 10th will focus only on the issue of whether the CCC were correct in their decision 15/01/13 based on what was known then and whether they used proper process. He is not going to be interested in he said she said, this intention or that, what happened in 1995 etc. expert opinion with the benefit of hindsight, or the financial needs of anyone involved.
interesting that SISU have a valuation report of ACL from Duff & Phelps though. So despite ML's assertions contrary they can arrive at a figure for ACL and could have made an offer based on it. But I suppose it isn't that sort of valuation and couldn't be up to date - but it is a starting point isn't it? To assess the loan deal then surely you have in part to assess affordability which means present and future earnings doesn't it? Even if they didn't want ACL it must give an indication of worth otherwise surely? But still no offer
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
well they own the rights to the report ......... it is not entered in to court as part of the JR process. They could release it but then if it damages ACL's reputation or finances it could get costly
James Smith
Well-Known Member
So long as it isn't added to the club debt (Otium E.G. and/or SBS&L) then who cares what they spend money on.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Surely they are not interested in the Arena as they're building chez SISU, or are they?
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
SIS ARE LYING SCUM!........................but i will pretend i am shocked every time i hear they want to own the ricoh still.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Someone that joined this month and doing their 4th post asked for it to happen. Not suspicious at all
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
So, some folk on here were suggesting that "all will be revealed" in the JR, but after yesterdays court case, is that still the view? I was always a bit confused as to why we expected to learn so much from the JR when it Is all about whether the council had acted improperly in the ACL loan process.
Astute
Well-Known Member
I thought it would be as SISU would have used everything they could, even if it wasn't anything to do with the case. But after yesterday they won't be able to. The judge has told them so. So if they do try it now he will stop them. They could find themselves in trouble if they go against his ruling.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
The judge who sat in court yesterday is the one that will sit on 10th June. He made clear yesterday that the JR will stick closely to the matter in hand. That matter is the decision and approval & process regarding the CCC loan to ACL. I think the Judge will seek to limit either side from going off track. He will stick to what is fact and not be interested in opinion expert or otherwise etc
I think we have seen, from the Higgs case, the detail already regarding many of the discussions in 2012. There will no doubt be "revelations" but in my opinion anything new is not going to go to the heart of the matter - but I might be wrong in that. We as fans tend to get taken up in the emotive he said she said side of things. The judge has a responsibility to see through that and only deal with what actually happened, the facts and how the law is applied to only that.
I think we have seen, from the Higgs case, the detail already regarding many of the discussions in 2012. There will no doubt be "revelations" but in my opinion anything new is not going to go to the heart of the matter - but I might be wrong in that. We as fans tend to get taken up in the emotive he said she said side of things. The judge has a responsibility to see through that and only deal with what actually happened, the facts and how the law is applied to only that.
Last edited:
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
I'm sure they'll submit it & then get told it is inadmissible.. again.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Well explained OSB :claping hands:
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
I am trying to understand all the extra irrelevant documents essays Sisu tried to admit yesterday.
Lets say Sisu won the JR would all these extra documents admitted assist them claiming damages in future cases ?
Lets say Sisu won the JR would all these extra documents admitted assist them claiming damages in future cases ?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Submit?
So what can they claim damages for? Not paying rent? Moving our club? Losing money in court cases?
What would it bring? I think it is more important to move forward. The JR is running into a dead end and there are no negotiations going on. An enquiry would further hamper any chance of negotiations starting. Someone has to break the impasse. Everyone thought it would be the JR, but looking at the latest case and the Higgs case, there doesn't seem to be a smoking gun around.
People say 'watch this space', 'there's more to come' 'I've seen documents' etc.. Up until now, the judge seems to see these as mere distractions from the question of CCC's lohn being lawful or not. Joy had reems of papers and illustrations ready, but they were classed as not relevant. It looks as if Joy is an aggrieved wife at a divorce case who wants to get her own back on her errant husband.
I thought she was a hard-nosed business womam with 'balls of steel'. I am very dissapointed with her performance to date. My hope was that with her taking a hands-on role, we would move forward. Now it seems like pure bitterness on her part, and not the pursuit of "commercial advantage'" that is the driving force.