Council and Sky Blues in court tomorrow (3 Viewers)

torchomatic · May 13, 2014

LOL x 2. There aren't any World Cup matches at the Ricoh.

Shouldn't believe everything you read.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/rugby-world-cup-2015-coventry-3317689

sky blue john said:
Lol
Wow and now you've highlighted another good earner Rugby 2015 World cup matches at the Ricoh !!!

Sky Blue Kid · May 13, 2014

Spionkop said:
So, the Higgs case costs and now this one. Conservative estimate on all the costs to Sisu? £150,000/£200,000? Bang goes that new striker for next season. The playing side of the club (never mind us fans) must despair at Sisu. A good club being wrecked. Pressley must be looking at other jobs. Brighton maybe?

There was never any chance of any money being made ready to buy players. We have got to lose 3 half decent players to get 2 shite players in...Has been like that for the last 5-6 years mate

sky blue john · May 13, 2014

torchomatic said:
LOL x 2. There aren't any World Cup matches at the Ricoh.

Bloody hell I like a bit of rugby. So that Observer bloke really fucked up his whole article then !!

covspain · May 13, 2014

sky blue john said:
Lol
Wow and now you've highlighted another good earner Rugby 2015 World cup matches at the Ricoh !!!

Wrong there SBJ unfortunately Coventry missed out on that. Midlands stadiums to be used are Villa Park and Leicester City.

Sky Blue Dal · May 13, 2014

torchomatic said:
LOL x 2. There aren't any World Cup matches at the Ricoh.

Shouldn't believe everything you read.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/rugby-world-cup-2015-coventry-3317689

Sadly the facts are we are always going to be second fiddle to the Brummies and Leicester. We always will be no matter what we do to promote the city.

Then again, Coventry FC playing away from home does not help either.

oldskyblue58 · May 13, 2014

This bit of the state aid guide is interesting (page 6 of the guide for state aid practitioners)

Use of public funds in accordance with the private investor principle also known as Market Economy Investor Principle (MEIP)
If the State is acting in a way that a private investor would in a market economy, for example in providing loans or capital on similar terms to that of a private investor, it is not providing State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1). This can apply when the State is the main shareholder in an undertaking (e.g. Royal Mail). The onus is on the Member State to be able to demonstrate if challenged that the funding is on genuinely commercial terms. You are strongly recommended to commission an independent report from a reputable source to confirm that the actions you have taken are in accordance with the MEIP. The Commission would certainly expect nothing less in the event of challenge.
When it is a State-controlled company, the key question is whether a private investor - who would not take into account regional development or employment concerns, but who would expect to make an eventual return - would invest in this way.
The Commission does not expect you to act like an investor who is only out to make a quick return, but one who has a long-term commitment - for example the owner of a private factory. It will also not penalise you if you make a decision which later turns out to be wrong if at the time you had reasonable grounds to believe that the investment would come good.
However, the Commission is likely to make a distinction between scenarios where a public authority already owns or has a stake in a business, and may therefore need to protect existing investments or be able to benefit from longer term ownership rewards, and scenarios where the State is making a new investment (e.g. investing in a company for the first time or investing in a new venture) – see article on the Market Economy Investor Principle in the June 2002 edition of DG Competition’s Competition Policy Newsletter4 (please note that this article set out the principles on which the MEIP can be applied but if you think you are in MEIP territory please discuss with SAB). This article argues that the most robust way of demonstrating that a State investment is on commercial terms is by ensuring that there is a matching investment by an actual commercial entity, provided that the risks and rewards are genuinely the same.

John_Silletts_Nose · May 13, 2014

Thanks OSB, that makes interesting reading and I am sure that SISU/CCFC H/ARVO will have read this information.

There must be a point (or points) of law in which the case rests which SISU believe they will force the JR in their favour, SISU/CCFC H/ARVO will have had a large team constructing their case and must believe it has merit. It will be interesting to hear what these points could be.

I would expect the lawyers already know what is contained in the documents, they are being requested so that they may present them in the JR case to support their arguments.

oldskyblue58 · May 13, 2014

I think it is an area of law full of twists turns and interpretations. Certainly just skimming through the guides it is not at all clear cut on everything. I would assume that proper notification to the EU Commission has taken place because it is about the only thing that is clear cut. If state aid and not notified within the rules then that is an illegal act. You would assume however that because of the sensitivity of all this then everything was referred to the legal beagles and state aid specialists before signing off wouldn't you ?

From the above section it would seem that lending money to protect an investment can constitute state aid but contrary to as portrayed by some it is within the rules if done properly.

btw the UK has a good record on state aid as far as the EU Commission goes only 1 negative case (gone against us) in the years between 2000 and 2010

John_Silletts_Nose · May 13, 2014

The outcome of this case could be a concern to other state/council owned football grounds, such as Sixfields!

bigfatronssba · May 13, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
No. The case is about state aid. End of.

I thought it was about a nasty man putting a balloon on sweet little Timmys car?

fernandopartridge · May 13, 2014

bigfatronssba said:
I thought it was about a nasty man putting a balloon on sweet little Timmys car?

Of course it isn't you cretin

bigfatronssba · May 13, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
Of course it isn't you cretin

So it won't be mentioned then?

Also calling people names is very bad form. Why do you do it?

oldskyblue58 · May 13, 2014

I think that concern stretches to more things than football grounds to be honest. Will be interesting to see which way it all falls but from what I have read so far it is very far from clear cut....... certainly not as clear as SISU have made out. (CCC haven't commented so its hard to tell their confidence)

Jack Griffin · May 13, 2014

John_Silletts_Nose said:
The outcome of this case could be a concern to other state/council owned football grounds, such as Sixfields!

I read they had some deal with Cardoza to do with relying on profits from an associated housing development to pay them back.

Sky Blue Dal · May 13, 2014

All I can see so far from looking at this is that the CCC seem to have done everything as what is expected from the guidelines unless SISU have discovered that proper notification protocols were not carried or they see different interoperations of the guidelines from what the CCC and the initial judges are thought to have translated when he threw out SISU's initial argument, before the appeal.

I must say the Guidelines are way over my head to understand. Is it me or is there many contradictions within the guidelines.

shmmeee · May 13, 2014

Best guess on this is Sisu spoke to Sinclaire, who said State Aid (she did say she was advising on EU law). I'm not sure I'd trust Sinclaire's judgement on the finer points of EU law as an anti-EU MEP, and I'm not sure that Sisu only take cases they will win. The bringing of a case is an ends in itself, it will cost, gag on side in the PR war, etc.

From my reading of the State Aid laws, I can't see how they have a case. The argument seems to have to be that unfair competition was created by the aid (as well as the caveats OSB has posted) and I'm not sure you could seriously argue that Sisu are in competition with ACL, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

On topic: This request seems to me to be another mudslinging attempt. Go through the meeting minutes, pick out anything that can be attached to a councillor and smear them. That's been their modus operandi so far any way. I'm not sure democracy is best served by those means TBH, at some point people have to be able to speak freely in meetings and what matters is the overall decision taken, not the arguments along the way. But as I said, it will be interesting to see what plays out, I'm still not convinced Sisu are the silent assassins they are made out to be, more deranged mugger with a shotgun.

TheRoyalScam · May 13, 2014

Let's imagine SISU 'win' the Judicial Review.

How does it benefit CCFC? How does it benefit SISU?

The only 'winners' in my opinion are the myriad lawyers arguing for both sides and their astronomical fees.

skybluetony176 · May 13, 2014

John_Silletts_Nose said:
The outcome of this case could be a concern to other state/council owned football grounds, such as Sixfields!

Has there been a conclusion yet to the European commission investigation into Swansea's ground? IIRC the ground was built with public funds and the club rented it with no issues from the EU but at a later date the council have basically gifted it to the club (as some expect CCC to do) and now the EU is investigating the change of ownership as illegal state aid to the football club, something like that.

Spionkop · May 13, 2014

Bigfatron, Fernando abuses people online because he wouldn't dare do it in the real world.
He can sneakily get away with it here.
Ignore him, he does it all the while.

Samo · May 13, 2014

shmmeee said:
Best guess on this is Sisu spoke to Sinclaire, who said State Aid (she did say she was advising on EU law). I'm not sure I'd trust Sinclaire's judgement on the finer points of EU law as an anti-EU MEP, and I'm not sure that Sisu only take cases they will win. The bringing of a case is an ends in itself, it will cost, gag on side in the PR war, etc.

From my reading of the State Aid laws, I can't see how they have a case. The argument seems to have to be that unfair competition was created by the aid (as well as the caveats OSB has posted) and I'm not sure you could seriously argue that Sisu are in competition with ACL, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

On topic: This request seems to me to be another mudslinging attempt. Go through the meeting minutes, pick out anything that can be attached to a councillor and smear them. That's been their modus operandi so far any way. I'm not sure democracy is best served by those means TBH, at some point people have to be able to speak freely in meetings and what matters is the overall decision taken, not the arguments along the way. But as I said, it will be interesting to see what plays out, I'm still not convinced Sisu are the silent assassins they are made out to be, more deranged mugger with a shotgun.

Yes people need to be able to speak freely in meetings... as long as they are not conspiring to break the law.

torchomatic · May 13, 2014

Spionkop said:
Bigfatron, Fernando abuses people online because he wouldn't dare do it in the real world.
He can sneakily get away with it here.
Ignore him, he does it all the while.

I just spat my coffee out reading that. You may want to take a look at some of your own posts having a go at fellow fans.

The hypocrisy on here can be breathtaking at times.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

skybluetony176 · May 13, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
Has there been a conclusion yet to the European commission investigation into Swansea's ground? IIRC the ground was built with public funds and the club rented it with no issues from the EU but at a later date the council have basically gifted it to the club (as some expect CCC to do) and now the EU is investigating the change of ownership as illegal state aid to the football club, something like that.

OK, I didn't exactly remember correctly. Here's the subject matter http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-25733929

Having read the article again though, if SISU really are concerned about the state aid rules being broken why the expensive JR route when it seems making a complaint to the head of the European Commission for England would have done the same thing and not cost them a penny? Its almost as if there is an ulterior motive.

RegTheDonk · May 13, 2014

shmmeee said:
Best guess on this is Sisu spoke to Sinclaire, who said State Aid (she did say she was advising on EU law). I'm not sure I'd trust Sinclaire's judgement on the finer points of EU law as an anti-EU MEP, and I'm not sure that Sisu only take cases they will win. The bringing of a case is an ends in itself, it will cost, gag on side in the PR war, etc.
...

Well if Sinclaire is giving them advice, she'll have plenty of time on her hands in a fortnight.

play_in_skyblue_stripes · May 13, 2014

torchomatic said:
I just spat my coffee out reading that. You may want to take a look at some of your own posts having a go at fellow fans.

The hypocrisy on here can be breathtaking at times.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Coventry City is right mess thats obvious.
No home ground, crap team but also divided fans.

It really is a bad situation, not sure even with the eventual return to Ricoh how the wounds will be healed. It will take some time I think hopefully a return to Prem will help!

If we dont return to Ricoh, the wounds will never be healed.

ccfcway · May 13, 2014

any early team news ?

Will Fisher be likely to appear for a pre JR run out ?

Moussa still injured ?

Has Deering been dropped by SISU ?

MichaelCCFC · May 13, 2014

James Smith said:
I've been keen on an independent enquiry into this for ages and would be very happy if one was arranged.

No offence, but if for every post on here someone had instead spent their energy on getting a friend/family member/work mate/neighbour etc to sign the ePetition you would already be well on the way to the first step of achieving an Independent Inquiry.

torchomatic · May 13, 2014

MichaelCCFC said:
No offence, but if for every post on here someone had instead spent their energy on getting a friend/family member/work mate/neighbour etc to sign the ePetition you would already be well on the way to the first step of achieving an Independent Inquiry.

Or not even friends and family. Just those who went to the trouble of going to the JPT semi.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

ccfcway · May 13, 2014

James Smith said:
Just so long as the costs of all these court appearances aren't added to the debt of Otium or SBS&L or cost the club anything then I don't mind how often they go to court.

why wouldnt they be ?

ccfcway · May 13, 2014

torchomatic said:
Or not even friends and family. Just those who went to the trouble of going to the JPT semi.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

agree with that, where on earth are those people !

MichaelCCFC · May 13, 2014

torchomatic said:
Or not even friends and family. Just those who went to the trouble of going to the JPT semi.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Yes. But huge numbers have turned their back on CCFC and word of mouth and nagging are critical. Those of us still interested in CCFC are becoming rarer by the day!

Lord_Nampil · May 13, 2014

So tomorrow,

I am guessing the Council are fighting for some papers to not be released and also i'm guessing they also don't want certain people to be called onto the stand, say Reeves and West.....

Judge says otherwise tomorrow could make it interesting come June!

MichaelCCFC · May 13, 2014

Lord_Nampil said:
So tomorrow,

I am guessing the Council are fighting for some papers to not be released and also i'm guessing they also don't want certain people to be called onto the stand, say Reeves and West.....

Judge says otherwise tomorrow could make it interesting come June!

While I'm in an argumentative mood - and this is not aimed at you Lord N - I would suggest this is of interest to a small number of people but just turns off huge numbers of City fans who are interested in football not law, finance or council employees

Grendel · May 13, 2014

MichaelCCFC said:
Yes. But huge numbers have turned their back on CCFC and word of mouth and nagging are critical. Those of us still interested in CCFC are becoming rarer by the day!

Actually Michael they turned their back on them when the final whistle went that night. Promise a trip to Wembley they'll sign then.

Nick · May 13, 2014

Lord_Nampil said:
So tomorrow,

I am guessing the Council are fighting for some papers to not be released and also i'm guessing they also don't want certain people to be called onto the stand, say Reeves and West.....

Judge says otherwise tomorrow could make it interesting come June!

If they did nothing wrong why are they bothered?

Lord_Nampil · May 13, 2014

Nick said:
If they did nothing wrong why are they bothered?

Will find out tomorrow! But ur right, it's interesting!

Council and Sky Blues in court tomorrow (3 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency