Court hearing (1 Viewer)

The Reverend Skyblue · May 12, 2017

whether they have a case or not I don't know but god its bloody demoralising being a Cov fan sometimes.
We now have years more of this, appeal after appeal, Fisher spouting more bollocks as he is a fully qualified legal expert, and then it ends up in some European court if we get there before Brexit.
As I say if SISU think they have a case they have every right to go for it ,but by god its relentless shite for us fans. Meanwhile our marquee summer signing is a 36 year old clogger.

Earlsdon_Skyblue1 · May 12, 2017

I hope Wasps lose.

shmmeee · May 12, 2017

skybluetony176 said:
Don't think they could award damages. If the council are found to be in the wrong I think SISU would have to take out a separate case to persue compensation.

Yeah sorry that's what I meant.

It won't impact Wasps though will it? Or will it? Or do anything to get us somewhere to play.

Skyblueweeman · May 12, 2017

So...can I just check my understanding...this isn't JR2 itself right, this is just the pre-amble of SISU presenting it's case as to why there should be a JR2?

If so, can the court say, 'nope, nothing to see here' and then there's no JR and SISU have no other avenue left to exhaust (other than to appeal)?

WM

skybluetony176 · May 12, 2017

Skyblueweeman said:
So...can I just check my understanding...this isn't JR2 itself right, this is just the pre-amble of SISU presenting it's case as to why there should be a JR2?

If so, can the court say, 'nope, nothing to see here' and then there's no JR and SISU have no other avenue left to exhaust (other than to appeal)?

WM

They can appeal. IIRC JR1 only got heard as SISU won an appeal to have it heard.

skybluetony176 · May 12, 2017

shmmeee said:
Yeah sorry that's what I meant.

It won't impact Wasps though will it? Or will it? Or do anything to get us somewhere to play.

Don't know TBH.

Colin Steins Smile · May 12, 2017

SISU are big investors in..................................law firms!

Skyblueweeman · May 12, 2017

skybluetony176 said:
They can appeal. IIRC JR1 only got heard as SISU won an appeal to have it heard.

But is what I'm saying right Big Tone? This isn't the actual JR2, this is just SISU putting their case forward for a judge to say either 'yes, we can go to JR2' or 'no, piss off you imbeciles'?

skybluetony176 · May 12, 2017

Skyblueweeman said:
But is what I'm saying right Big Tone? This isn't the actual JR2, this is just SISU putting their case forward for a judge to say either 'yes, we can go to JR2' or 'no, piss off you imbeciles'?

I think so WM. That's my understanding on it anyway. But just like Tim, I'm not a lawyer.

Kingokings204 · May 12, 2017

skybluetony176 said:
I think so WM. That's my understanding on it anyway. But just like Tim, I'm not a lawyer.

I believe that statement to be wrong in both law and in fact.

kmj5000 · May 12, 2017

Kingokings204 said:
I believe that statement to be wrong in both law and in fact.

Ha Ha! Love it!

better days · May 12, 2017

oldskyblue58 said:
here we go again.............. :banghead:

Date revealed for CCFC Ricoh Arena court battle over Wasps sale

I wonder if this is why Laura Hunter departed?
She tweeted a message about being fed up with one-upmanship

sw88 · May 12, 2017

Ranjit Bhurpa said:
And just as we were getting enthused about early signings such as Doyle and possible non-league strikers, this rears it's head again.
1 small step forward then 3 backwards.

I don't know; the Doyle signing still annoys me more than us returning to court does

skyblueexile · May 12, 2017

I'm sorry but as it has been explained to me SISU do have a case
I'm not a legal beagle but know quite a few
Some are surprised they haven't won already

COVKIDSNEVERQUIT · May 12, 2017

SkyBlueSid said:
Indeed it is. This is just One Step Beyond.
I wish Sisu would just Shut Up.
The Ricoh is never going to be Our House.

This place is coming like a ghost town , all the club’s are being closed down . :wacky:

thekidfromstrettoncamp · May 12, 2017

skyblueexile said:
I'm sorry but as it has been explained to me SISU do have a case
I'm not a legal beagle but know quite a few
Some are surprised they haven't won already

I maybe wrong but so far ever time JR1 went before the Judges be it case being put or appeals every one has been turned down perhaps your legal guys know something they don't.

Adge · May 12, 2017

Astute said:
One step beyond

Circus freaks

Tomorrow's dream

Promises promises

No money

And finally....Shut up

Sorry not good enough-think I'm going to throw you on the night boat to Cairo.

Astute · May 12, 2017

skyblueexile said:
I'm sorry but as it has been explained to me SISU do have a case
I'm not a legal beagle but know quite a few
Some are surprised they haven't won already

Would you like to explain to us all then?

And I don't want to know anything from those who thought they should have won the first one as they have one major problem. They don't understand the laws of which it went under.

Adge · May 12, 2017

sw88 said:
I don't know; the Doyle signing still annoys me more than us returning to court does

Right then-lets get this sorted out once and for all! Who do you not like the most-Lameiras, Mcsheffrey or Doyle? :emoji_smile:

sw88 · May 12, 2017

Adge said:
Right then-lets get this sorted out once and for all! Who do you not like the most-Lameiras, Mcsheffrey or Doyle? :emoji_smile:

I've never had a problem with Ruben. Think you mistake me for someone else

As for the other two, they are on par with one another! Too Tough to call it!

hutch1972 · May 12, 2017

5. Local authorities are given powers under the 1972 Act to dispose of land in any manner
they wish, including sale of their freehold interest, granting a lease or assigning any
unexpired term on a lease, and the granting of easements. The only constraint is that a
disposal must be for the best consideration reasonably obtainable (except in the case of
short tenancies, see footnote 3, paragraph 1 of the Consent), unless the Secretary of State
consents to the disposal.
6. It is Government policy that local authorities and other public bodies should dispose of
surplus land wherever possible. Generally it is expected that land should be sold for the
best consideration reasonably obtainable. However, it is recognised that there may be
circumstances where an authority considers it appropriate to dispose of land at an
undervalue. Authorities should clearly not divest themselves of valuable public assets
unless they are satisfied that the circumstances warrant such action. The Consent has
been issued to give local authorities autonomy to carry out their statutory duties and
functions, and to fulfil such other objectives as they consider to be necessary or desirable.
However, when disposing of land at an undervalue, authorities must remain aware of the
need to fulfil their fiduciary duty in a way which is accountable to local people.
The Consent
7. Section 128(1) of the 1972 Act confers on the Secretary of State power to give a general
consent for the purposes of land disposals by local authorities carried out under their
powers in Part 7 of the 1972 Act. The Secretary of State's sole statutory function in respect
of the exercise by local authorities of these disposal powers is to give or withhold consent
to a proposed disposal in cases where his consent is required.
8. The terms of the Consent mean that specific consent is not required for the disposal of
any interest in land which the authority considers will help it to secure the promotion or
improvement of the economic, social or environmental well-being of its area. Where
applicable, authorities should also have regard to their community strategy. Although these
criteria derive from the Local Government Act 2000, their use in the Consent is not
confined to authorities with duties and powers under that Act. Therefore, authorities not
covered by the 2000 Act can also rely upon the well-being criteria when considering
disposals at less than best consideration. It will be for the authority to decide whether these
decisions taken comply with any other relevant governing legislation. In all cases, disposal
at less than best consideration is subject to the condition that the undervalue does not
exceed £2,000,000 (two million pounds).
9. In determining whether or not to dispose of land for less than the best consideration
reasonably obtainable, and whether or not any specific proposal to take such action falls
within the terms of the Consent, the authority should ensure that it complies with normal
and prudent commercial practices, including obtaining the view of a professionally qualified
valuer as to the likely amount of the undervalue.
Can anyone say that they have actually broken any laws ? Also is the sale of a public asset such as a building the same as selling land.

martcov · May 13, 2017

hutch1972 said:
5. Local authorities are given powers under the 1972 Act to dispose of land in any manner
they wish, including sale of their freehold interest, granting a lease or assigning any
unexpired term on a lease, and the granting of easements. The only constraint is that a
disposal must be for the best consideration reasonably obtainable (except in the case of
short tenancies, see footnote 3, paragraph 1 of the Consent), unless the Secretary of State
consents to the disposal.
6. It is Government policy that local authorities and other public bodies should dispose of
surplus land wherever possible. Generally it is expected that land should be sold for the
best consideration reasonably obtainable. However, it is recognised that there may be
circumstances where an authority considers it appropriate to dispose of land at an
undervalue. Authorities should clearly not divest themselves of valuable public assets
unless they are satisfied that the circumstances warrant such action. The Consent has
been issued to give local authorities autonomy to carry out their statutory duties and
functions, and to fulfil such other objectives as they consider to be necessary or desirable.
However, when disposing of land at an undervalue, authorities must remain aware of the
need to fulfil their fiduciary duty in a way which is accountable to local people.
The Consent
7. Section 128(1) of the 1972 Act confers on the Secretary of State power to give a general
consent for the purposes of land disposals by local authorities carried out under their
powers in Part 7 of the 1972 Act. The Secretary of State's sole statutory function in respect
of the exercise by local authorities of these disposal powers is to give or withhold consent
to a proposed disposal in cases where his consent is required.
8. The terms of the Consent mean that specific consent is not required for the disposal of
any interest in land which the authority considers will help it to secure the promotion or
improvement of the economic, social or environmental well-being of its area. Where
applicable, authorities should also have regard to their community strategy. Although these
criteria derive from the Local Government Act 2000, their use in the Consent is not
confined to authorities with duties and powers under that Act. Therefore, authorities not
covered by the 2000 Act can also rely upon the well-being criteria when considering
disposals at less than best consideration. It will be for the authority to decide whether these
decisions taken comply with any other relevant governing legislation. In all cases, disposal
at less than best consideration is subject to the condition that the undervalue does not
exceed £2,000,000 (two million pounds).
9. In determining whether or not to dispose of land for less than the best consideration
reasonably obtainable, and whether or not any specific proposal to take such action falls
within the terms of the Consent, the authority should ensure that it complies with normal
and prudent commercial practices, including obtaining the view of a professionally qualified
valuer as to the likely amount of the undervalue.
Can anyone say that they have actually broken any laws ? Also is the sale of a public asset such as a building the same as selling land.

They still own the freehold. Does selling a lease count? The land has a stadium on it, which means it can't be used for, say, housing. It's value depends on the stadium which was empty at the time and costing money to maintain. It was also 14,4 m in debt. The debt needed servicing. TF has said that he wouldn't have taken the deal that Wasps accepted because of the loan. Yet he is involved with the people arguing that the deal was preferential to Wasps.

Seems debatable whether they have a case or not, especially as according to JR1 they were trying to distress ACL by decreasing the value of the stadium management company. By moving to Northampton, they showed the vulnerability of the project thus allowing Wasps to move in.

SISU can hardly complain.

Astute · May 13, 2017

It isn't as simple as saying nothing unlawful has been done. SISU will look for one line out of all of the rules and regulations to try and make a point. And I expect them to contradict themselves from JR1.

CCC will have had their own legal team check everything along the way. Morally wrong isn't legally wrong.

I misread what SISU once said. I thought it was they batter people in court. They just batter people with court. Most can't afford to fight them all the way. But they have taken on someone much bigger than themselves and with more financial backing.

If it was down to who has acted morally wrong they would all get a long stretch.

skybluetony176 · May 13, 2017

Did anyone listen to Jeremy Vine in the week on radio two. They had a section about a woman whose parked car had it's window smashed by a stone that was thrown up by a council lawnmower. The council worker knocked on her door, admitted what had happened and gave her contract details to make a claim. Anyway, the claim was denied so she took them to small claims court, on the day it was heard the council sent a barrister with a 150 page dossier to defend a claim for a couple of hundred pounds and won. This then turned out to be a common theme all around the country with dozens of listeners around the country with a very similar story, a very similar experience and a very similar outcome.

Point being is that SISU are used to tying people up in litigation who don't have the means, funds or desire to fight it. They don't batter people in court, they use the court to batter people. Not nearly the same thing. Now, as is obvious from the common theme in the story above is that councils (i.e. not just CCC) are well practiced at defending themselves and are willing to spend huge resources to use a sledgehammer to knock in a nail when they know that they will win a case. I suspect that if CCC's very experienced and very successful legal team had any thought of losing this a few things would have happened already to stop this possibility. Anything from not selling to Wasps in the first place (I can't believe for one moment that nobody at CCC didn't anticipate JR2 as a possibility in the event of selling to Wasps) to bending over backwards for the club/SISU in an attempt to avoid going to court.

The fact that CCC seem to have willingly got to this point indicates to me that SISU have about as much chance this time as they did last. Getting it to a full hearing and a huge legal bill will be about as much as it will achieve.

Nick · May 13, 2017

skyblueexile said:
I'm sorry but as it has been explained to me SISU do have a case
I'm not a legal beagle but know quite a few
Some are surprised they haven't won already

Who has said that and why?

colin101 · May 13, 2017

Nick said:
Who has said that and why?

The SISU Lawyers, backed by Tim

Astute · May 13, 2017

skybluetony176 said:
Did anyone listen to Jeremy Vine in the week on radio two. They had a section about a woman whose parked car had it's window smashed by a stone that was thrown up by a council lawnmower. The council worker knocked on her door, admitted what had happened and gave her contract details to make a claim. Anyway, the claim was denied so she took them to small claims court, on the day it was heard the council sent a barrister with a 150 page dossier to defend a claim for a couple of hundred pounds and won. This then turned out to be a common theme all around the country with dozens of listeners around the country with a very similar story, a very similar experience and a very similar outcome.

Point being is that SISU are used to tying people up in litigation who don't have the means, funds or desire to fight it. They don't batter people in court, they use the court to batter people. Not nearly the same thing. Now, as is obvious from the common theme in the story above is that councils (i.e. not just CCC) are well practiced at defending themselves and are willing to spend huge resources to use a sledgehammer to knock in a nail when they know that they will win a case. I suspect that if CCC's very experienced and very successful legal team had any thought of losing this a few things would have happened already to stop this possibility. Anything from not selling to Wasps in the first place (I can't believe for one moment that nobody at CCC didn't anticipate JR2 as a possibility in the event of selling to Wasps) to bending over backwards for the club/SISU in an attempt to avoid going to court.

The fact that CCC seem to have willingly got to this point indicates to me that SISU have about as much chance this time as they did last. Getting it to a full hearing and a huge legal bill will be about as much as it will achieve.

I had similar many years ago. A bin wagon took a mirror off my car. The driver gave me his details. The local council tried to say that I shouldn't park outside my house on bin day. I had a drive but it was already full. So I asked them where I should park as everyone in the area would have to park elsewhere. I contacted their imsurers. They were told not to pay. So I gave them the choice. Get it fixed or go to court. They agreed that they had to sort it out. They knew that I would win.

skybluetony176 · May 13, 2017

colin101 said:
The SISU Lawyers, backed by Tim

It's wrong in law as well as fact. But I'm not a legal beagle. Fact.

Deleted member 5849 · May 13, 2017

One step closer to a resolution, this... so surely a good thing?

skybluetony176 · May 13, 2017

Astute said:
I had similar many years ago. A bin wagon took a mirror off my car. The driver gave me his details. The local council tried to say that I shouldn't park outside my house on bin day. I had a drive but it was already full. So I asked them where I should park as everyone in the area would have to park elsewhere. I contacted their imsurers. They were told not to pay. So I gave them the choice. Get it fixed or go to court. They agreed that they had to sort it out. They knew that I would win.

Exactly. If they'd have said that we'll see you in court, having listened to article on the Jeremy Vine show if I ever found myself in that situation I think I'd just drop it. I suppose if a local authority is just settling any spurious claim they're setting a precedent for people to put in any spurious claim. If they know that they have a case regardless of how small that claim is they defend it and defend is rigorously. A barrister and a 150 page dossier for a £200 claim for a rear window on a car is going the extra mile.

Ashdown · May 13, 2017

I don't know why there was any surprise over any of this ? I thought this was all on going and coming soon anyway. This is all the hedge fund are interested in so naturally it was all going to proceed. The sooner the better for me but of course as mentioned it will drag and drag and drag as the club toils to survive..............Cunts !!

Captain Dart · May 13, 2017

Deleted member 5849 said:
One step closer to a resolution, this... so surely a good thing?

Took 3 years to get through JR1. See ya in 2020.

Deleted member 5849 · May 13, 2017

Captain Dart said:
Took 3 years to get through JR1. See ya in 2020.

Better it starts now then in two years' time then.

Ranjit Bhurpa · May 13, 2017

letsallsingtogether said:
Gives us something to debate over the close season

Yes, a Mrs Merton style heated debate, just what we need

Ranjit Bhurpa · May 13, 2017

sw88 said:
I don't know; the Doyle signing still annoys me more than us returning to court does

Would never have guessed SW....maybe in your match reports you can slip in a typo and refer to him as Boateng? We'll know who you mean

Court hearing (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Chief Commentator!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Chief Commentator!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency