Court case - round 2 (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
Captain Dart

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
The Court of Appeal has indicated there will be a preliminary hearing in London on November 28.

A further two-day hearing is scheduled to take place at some point between April 10 and May 15, 2018.

Date of next Coventry City Ricoh Arena court battle revealed
 
Colin Steins Smile

Colin Steins Smile

Well-Known Member
Kingokings204 said:
Never ends does it. When did the first ever court action get announced maybe 5 years ago approx and here we are 5 years down the line with no further answers. Legal system allows this carry on. I wonder why?

It's wrong.
Click to expand...
It's SISU's attempt at a job creation scheme for barristers! We've got to keep them earning fees to support their Bentleys, etc.
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Kingokings204 said:
When did the first ever court action get announced maybe 5 years ago approx and here we are 5 years down the line with no further answers.
Click to expand...
August 2012 ACL took the club to court over unpaid rent.

March 2013 ACL applied to have the club placed into administration, SISU then filed for the same.

July 2013 ACL attempted to start legal action against Northampton that was eventually dropped.

August 2013 SISU launch JR1.

January 2014 Higgs put in a claim for SISU to pay costs they had incurred during stadium talks, SISU put in a counter claim. Both claims dismissed.

December 2016 JR1 finally ends in defeat for SISU.

February 2017 SISU launch JR2.

Based on last time JR2 could run to 2020.
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Kingokings204 said:
Never ends does it. When did the first ever court action get announced maybe 5 years ago approx and here we are 5 years down the line with no further answers. Legal system allows this carry on. I wonder why?

It's wrong.
Click to expand...

It isn't wrong at all, the legal system needs to have some mechanism for holding public bodies to account. Yes, the SISU case may have no merit, but it is right that the judicial review process exists, particularly considering the way politicians and senior officials behave.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
It isn't wrong at all, the legal system needs to have some mechanism for holding public bodies to account. Yes, the SISU case may have no merit, but it is right that the judicial review process exists, particularly considering the way politicians and senior officials behave.
Click to expand...

There is a mechanism. It was used. No misdemeanours were found. At some point it’s just a waste of everyone’s time and money.

Your approach is like not punishing people who pull fire alarms for a laugh because we need fire alarms.
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
There is a mechanism. It was used. No misdemeanours were found. At some point it’s just a waste of everyone’s time and money.

Your approach is like not punishing people who pull fire alarms for a laugh because we need fire alarms.
Click to expand...
JR2 is about another unscrutinised council decision so not it hasn't been tested in any way.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Kingokings204 said:
Never ends does it. When did the first ever court action get announced maybe 5 years ago approx and here we are 5 years down the line with no further answers. Legal system allows this carry on. I wonder why?

It's wrong.
Click to expand...

Wasn’t it about 5 years ago that the council officials claimed that Joy Sepalla said she would tie them up in legal battles for years now when she found out about the council taking over the loan?

I think in terms of what has happened as a result of her decision.

The club and the fans have been hurt the most by a long long way.
SISU hurt the next most hurt due to their inability to do anything whilst the legal action is ongoing. They get further and further away from recouping 20-30 million
Then the charity.
Then the council due to the time they have to put in
Then Wasps due to the threat hanging over them.

Crazy decision
 
Last edited:
Captain Dart

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
dongonzalos said:
Wasn’t it about 5 years ago that the council officials claime that Joy Sepalla said she would tie them up in legal battles for years now when she found out about the council taking over the loan?

I think in terms of what has happened as a result of her decision.

The club and the fans have been hurt the most by a long long way.
SISU hurt the next most hurt due to their inability to do anything whilst the legal action is ongoing. They get further and further away from recouping 20-30 million
Then the charity.
Then the council due to the time they have to put in
Then Wasps due to the threat hanging over them.

Carry decision
Click to expand...

Yup, that apears to be her strategy, hope it fails it is sick.
 
Astute

Astute

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
JR2 is about another unscrutinised council decision so not it hasn't been tested in any way.
Click to expand...
That the sale was undervalued by 30m?

So a stadium not used for a year, losing money, sold for the top value given, the team it was built for constantly made statements saying that they would never move back and were in the process of building their own stadium, nobody else would ever want it and even SISU valued it at less than it was sold for. They wanted an independent valuation to prove their point.

It doesn't matter what it was valued once the stadium had two teams playing at the stadium. The value is at the time of the sale. That is what a JR is all about. What happened at the time and not what happens in the future.

So what have CCC got to answer to?
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Astute said:
That the sale was undervalued by 30m?

So a stadium not used for a year, losing money, sold for the top value given, the team it was built for constantly made statements saying that they would never move back and were in the process of building their own stadium, nobody else would ever want it and even SISU valued it at less than it was sold for. They wanted an independent valuation to prove their point.

It doesn't matter what it was valued once the stadium had two teams playing at the stadium. The value is at the time of the sale. That is what a JR is all about. What happened at the time and not what happens in the future.

So what have CCC got to answer to?
Click to expand...
Isn't more to do with the shares were sold with c40 year lease, with the premise that the lease would be extended to 250 years after sale. Had the lease been extended prior to sale the shares would have been valued significantly higher. (And why only £1m for the extension when acl paid £21m for 50 years?)

Given ACL wasn't really put up for sale or advertised (ala NEC was) it stands to reason that the market was never truly tested and hence why they cannot say for certain they got the best deal for the tax payer.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
M

martcov

Well-Known Member
stupot07 said:
Isn't more to do with the shares were sold with c40 year lease, with the premise that the lease would be extended to 250 years after sale. Had the lease been extended prior to sale the shares would have been valued significantly higher. (And why only £1m for the extension when acl paid £21m for 50 years?)

Given ACL wasn't really put up for sale or advertised (ala NEC was) it stands to reason that the market was never truly tested and hence why they cannot say for certain they got the best deal for the tax payer.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Wasn’t the £1 million the ground rent on the lease paid in advance?
 
Astute

Astute

Well-Known Member
stupot07 said:
Isn't more to do with the shares were sold with c40 year lease, with the premise that the lease would be extended to 250 years after sale. Had the lease been extended prior to sale the shares would have been valued significantly higher. (And why only £1m for the extension when acl paid £21m for 50 years?)

Given ACL wasn't really put up for sale or advertised (ala NEC was) it stands to reason that the market was never truly tested and hence why they cannot say for certain they got the best deal for the tax payer.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
No. It was about the sale being for less than the value. That is why JR2 got turned down at first. Then SISU said they had new independent evidence. That got them their day in court. They did the same with JR1. Then they had no new evidence.

As the leaseholder they had the legal right then to extend the lease. JR2 has nothing to do with extending the lease. That would never have made court for any reason. But it wouldn't surprise me if the lease extension was the new independent evidence.
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Astute said:
No. It was about the sale being for less than the value. That is why JR2 got turned down at first. Then SISU said they had new independent evidence. That got them their day in court. They did the same with JR1. Then they had no new evidence.

As the leaseholder they had the legal right then to extend the lease. JR2 has nothing to do with extending the lease. That would never have made court for any reason. But it wouldn't surprise me if the lease extension was the new independent evidence.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the judge who granted thr right to appeal said thay it was not unreasonable for the sale and the extension to be considered together. Funnily enought, on looking back for the quote it looks as though the CT have deleted half all of the live feed from the day.

They are clearly linked. You have to remember this isnt a private landlord doing what they want, its a public body who has to get best deal for the tax payer.

I really can't be arsed with all this shit anymore, so will let you get on with it.

Edit. Found it in the OP's link. Its in the picture

Date of next Coventry City Ricoh Arena court battle revealed

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Astute

Astute

Well-Known Member
stupot07 said:
I'm pretty sure the judge who granted thr right to appeal said thaybitbwad not unreasonable for the sale and the extension to be considered together. Funnily enought, on looking back for the quote it looks as though the CT have deleted half all of the live feed from the day.

They are clearly linked.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Eh?

What is a thaybitbwad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top