Ding ding - round 2 (1 Viewer)

Colin Steins Smile · Nov 28, 2017

CCFC QC states "Wasps should be told to comply with the court’s “duty of candour” as an “interested third party”.

If that is a president, then can the supporters trust raise some money and take SISU to court and ask them to disclose the details of all the transfer activity for the past 10 year......As we are interested parties?

Captain Dart · Nov 28, 2017

This looks like SISU are trying to attack Wasps indirectly via civil claim for damages at some later stage.

Nick · Nov 28, 2017

Wasps lawyer says a visit to the Ricoh Arena by financial experts Strutt and Parker in September 2014 had nothing to do with the transaction which followed.

She argues the document recording this meeting should not be handed over as evidence as it values something different.

But Judge Irwin suggests what it values is closely linked and therefore should possibly be considered as evidence.

Judge Faux says “it’s all part and parcel of the evidence showing the value of what this asset was worth at the time”.

Judge Faux indicates he believes it could be relevant if there are differences in value shown as the period between that valuation and a subsequent valuation in January 2015 is just four months.

You would think a paid for valuation by experts would have detail of what it is valuing? Easy enough to rule it out.

Ashdown · Nov 28, 2017

Captain Dart said:
This looks like SISU are trying to attack Wasps indirectly via civil claim for damages at some later stage.

So at what point do we start preparing for games at The War Memorial Park ?!

chiefdave · Nov 28, 2017

Nick said:
You would think a paid for valuation by experts would have detail of what it is valuing? Easy enough to rule it out.

You'd have expected so, although I remember reading the valuation for the bond security and it said something along the lines that they hadn't assessed it themselves (the valuators) and were reliant on information supplied by ACL / Wasps.

If its all above board why don't the council and Wasps just give the judge all the paperwork and have him tell SISU to do one?

Warwickhunt · Nov 28, 2017

SkyBlue79 said:
If SISU win, what happens? Wasps are forced to pay the council £29 million. If they can't (as they probably can't) then what... Wasps walk away and ACL is left to be dissolved or purchased with a £29m debt associated with it (which is unlikely). The lease could go back to the council, however it could never ever be sold for less than £50 million.

I'm not sure what happens with regards any value that Wasps would claim they have added to the business and building.

Or perhaps, is it possible that the lease time frame is reduced? Is this legal? If so the bond security is blown out of the water potentially.

Not that I expect SISU to win, but just wondering what the outcomes could realistically be.

I think you got it in one! Bond security gone the next stage is to call in the debt

Nick · Nov 28, 2017

Council QC is now on his feet.

He says judicial reviews are about decisions. He says the first stage is to identify what decisions are being challenged.

He’s referring to articles written in the Coventry Telegraph which detail the sale of the Ricoh Arena to Wasps and the amounts paid - published on the day the deal was agreed.

He’s saying this indicates that the club’s owners did know details of the transaction they claim not to have been aware of ahead of this appeal process.

He says: “They have always known about the share sale and they have always known about the price.”

He says Joy Seppala has acknowledged she was aware of the reports.

Council QC says: “The claimants cannot have their cake and eat it.

“They cannot say ‘we are not challenging the share sale’, but then base their case on challenging the share sale and seeking to overturn, not only the lease extension, but the overall transaction and the council’s decision to sell its shares in ACL.”

CCFC QC stands to clarify that the relief being sought is in relation to the lease extension - not the share sales. They do not want that decision reversed.

Bit of confusion about the beef.

Sky Blue Kid · Nov 28, 2017

How on Gods green earth can SISU claim Ricoh as being worthless(Offered Higgs a couple of Million coz they're a charity) then claim Ricoh to be worth at least £50m?...Jealousy?...............................Much!

Deleted member 5849 · Nov 28, 2017

Ashdown said:
So at what point do we start preparing for games at The War Memorial Park ?!

Wish my Granddad hadn't sold his flat, could have watched them just as if watching Leyton Orient...

Anyway, would that mean that any future bomb squad would be forced to train at the Ricoh...?

chiefdave · Nov 28, 2017

CCC said:
“It seeks to create confusion in terms of what relief and claims might be sought further down the line.”

How is that relevant. The actions of the council either stand up to scrutiny or they don't. Surely they can't say don't even look in to it in case SISU come after us down the line.

chiefdave · Nov 28, 2017

Reads like the council are looking for technicalities to get the whole thing thrown out rather than arguing their side.

ccfcway · Nov 28, 2017

Nick said:
Live: Coventry City v council Ricoh Arena court battle resumes

Interesting. Damages not being pursued.

you appear to have missed out on that next sentence

"He says the club may seek damages through a civil claim instead."

The one which suggests that it doesn't matter what happens at this JR (which could go well into 2019) they may then begin a civil court claim

Nick · Nov 28, 2017

ccfcway said:
you appear to have missed out on that next sentence

"He says the club may seek damages through a civil claim instead."

The one which suggests that it doesn't matter what happens at this JR (which could go well into 2019) they may then begin a civil court claim

I should have really put "in this case" or something!!! Couldn't copy and paste text at the time

ccfcway · Nov 28, 2017

Nick said:
I should have really put "in this case" or something!!! Couldn't copy and paste text at the time

not annoyed at you, just the fact that I reckon that the statement hints at what is to come after jr2. Years more of this mess almost seems a certainty

Captain Dart · Nov 28, 2017

chiefdave said:
Reads like the council are looking for technicalities to get the whole thing thrown out rather than arguing their side.

Looks like SISU are arguing technicalities to build a case.

clint van damme · Nov 28, 2017

sky blue john said:
Lol
I'd be cagey if Sisu asked me what the day of the week was!

they'd probably ask someone they thought might actually know.

dongonzalos · Nov 28, 2017

ccfcway said:
you appear to have missed out on that next sentence

"He says the club may seek damages through a civil claim instead."

The one which suggests that it doesn't matter what happens at this JR (which could go well into 2019) they may then begin a civil court claim

Yes they will still be seeking the damages just not via this route.

Sky Blue Kid · Nov 28, 2017

clint van damme said:
they'd probably ask someone they thought might actually know.

Like their "Ricoh Valuation team"?

Ashdown · Nov 28, 2017

And in the meantime at very best CCFC meander around League 1 and 2 if we are very lucky and probably with nothing better to hope for than a ground share with Nuneaton fucking Town !

ccfcway · Nov 28, 2017

Ashdown said:
And in the meantime at very best CCFC meander around League 1 and 2 if we are very lucky

I would suggest that's optimistic.

Nick · Nov 28, 2017

Judge Irwin suggests that if the amendments are rejected, the claim would remain in its original form.

He says the share sale will not be affected by any future proceddings.

He said: “There is no way in which the permission should be used to impune the share transaction.

“We can sort out the language to reassure you that won’t creep back in.

“Subject to that, are you saying, given all that has happened, it is preferable to proceed to a trial of judicial review on the lease extension without an amendment?”

Judge Faux suggests the amendments are necessary because they detail the particulars of why the lease extension should be challenged at a judicial review.

Looks like it's trying to be changed to be about the lease extension and the judges will give them assurances that the share issue can't be brought up going forward?

ccfcway · Nov 28, 2017

half time.

Overall, defence holding up strong, but as we are used to, it only takes one attack and we have problems.

2nd half kicks off at 2pm, with a focus on "decisions and medication"

(it maybe "mediation", but I think the former works better for all concerned)

Nick · Nov 28, 2017

What can they actually mediate on?

ccfcway · Nov 28, 2017

Nick said:
What can they actually mediate on?

I assume that's what part of this hour is about (apart from them getting lunch). to determine if there is a possibility of mediation

Deleted member 5849 · Nov 28, 2017

ccfcway said:
I assume that's what part of this hour is about (apart from them getting lunch). to determine if there is a possibility of mediation

Given they haven't bothered in the past five years, the probable answer to that's pretty clear...

Nick · Nov 28, 2017

ccfcway said:
I assume that's what part of this hour is about (apart from them getting lunch). to determine if there is a possibility of mediation

Surely if it's about "this case" and mediation it would be for Wasps to show SISU something to change their mind and for them to discuss it out of court and come to a conclusion?

SkyblueBri · Nov 28, 2017

I really do see what SISU hope to get out of this case, we know they only care about the money and if there is no gain in that sense why keep on.
By the sound of it they could just bring a Civil Claim for what ever they see has damages and save the costs of this case. I must be missing something?

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Nov 28, 2017

SkyblueBri said:
I really do see what SISU hope to get out of this case, we know they only care about the money and if there is no gain in that sense why keep on.
By the sound of it they could just bring a Civil Claim for what ever they see has damages and save the costs of this case. I must be missing something?

Think they need to win this case then use it in a civil action

jimmyhillsfanclub · Nov 28, 2017

SkyblueBri said:
I really do see what SISU hope to get out of this case, we know they only care about the money and if there is no gain in that sense why keep on.
By the sound of it they could just bring a Civil Claim for what ever they see has damages and save the costs of this case. I must be missing something?

is it a "not"?

skybluetony176 · Nov 28, 2017

They keep referring to land transfer. If ACL was already in possession of the lease at the time of the sale, which they were, what land has actually been transferred? Isn’t it also correct that ACL is/was the only people with a legal right to extend said lease which is what happened? If sisu are going to argue anything shouldn’t they keep it on the lease extension rather than going on about a land transfer that never happened? If they insist on going the land transfer route cheifdave put loads of details up here and it specifically referred to freehold disposal (I know some people are going to say 250years is virtual freehold but legally ccc is still the freeholder) and it also said that value obtained didn’t just have to represent monetary value it could be measured in other terms.

Could be wrong but all I’m seeing is a load of straw clutching and rather than strengthening the clubs/arvo’s case I would say it’s doing the opposite. We’ll see.

skybluetony176 · Nov 28, 2017

Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:
Think they need to win this case then use it in a civil action

They best not lose this one on purpose then

sky blue john · Nov 28, 2017

SkyblueBri said:
I really do see what SISU hope to get out of this case, we know they only care about the money and if there is no gain in that sense why keep on.
By the sound of it they could just bring a Civil Claim for what ever they see has damages and save the costs of this case. I must be missing something?

Sisu need these JR cases to force information into the public domain. Once its out there it can be used in a civil claim.
These are just fishing expeditions for the main money making event.

Captain Dart · Nov 28, 2017

skybluetony176 said:
They keep referring to land transfer. If ACL was already in possession of the lease at the time of the sale, which they were, what land has actually been transferred? Isn’t it also correct that ACL is/was the only people with a legal right to extend said lease which is what happened? If sisu are going to argue anything shouldn’t they keep it on the lease extension rather than going on about a land transfer that never happened? If they insist on going the land transfer route cheifdave put loads of details up here and it specifically referred to freehold disposal (I know some people are going to say 250years is virtual freehold but legally ccc is still the freeholder) and it also said that value obtained didn’t just have to represent monetary value it could be measured in other terms.

Could be wrong but all I’m seeing is a load of straw clutching and rather than strengthening the clubs/arvo’s case I would say it’s doing the opposite. We’ll see.

They're trying to imply the lease extension is equivalent to CCC selling Wasps freehold of the land, they didn't because the freehold still lies with CCC.

SkyblueBri · Nov 28, 2017

jimmyhillsfanclub said:
is it a "not"?

Could Be.

Nick · Nov 28, 2017

The judges are now back in the room. Here we go again.

Judge Irwin says CCFC will be allowed to amend its claim form.

He says “the claim should have the addition of the words, ahead of the words ‘the relief sought is’, ‘confined to the land transfer as defined above’.”

CCFC will be allowed to submit its own expert evidence. Judge Irwin says that “they draw no conclusions about how relevant it is to these proceedings”.

Looks like they are specifying it to the lease rather than shares.

Ding ding - round 2 (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency