Could you not publish it In a sticky on here?
I've seen it. In fact I've got a copy as it's in the public domain. You'll have 126 paragraphs to get through spread over 41 pages.
d.............The JR documented referred to is the submission put to the court in order to support the case put forward that a JR should take place. For want of a better way of putting it the story according to SISU. It will include those things that SISU believe would persuade a judge to allow a JR. As such, though it is supported by 1500 pages of documents it is one sided and incomplete and should be viewed in that way. The defendants did not at that stage have to provide much in the way of evidence to rebut the claims or tell their story. So if reading it keep an open mind, something many seem to leave behin
So are you saying that shareholders in a business are responsible for the acts of that business? Because if you are then shareholders in News International had better watch out
Link? (yes I'm that sad)
I don't really know all of the facts and what was agreed. If the charity have done nothing wrong at all then of course it is out of order.
Make that sort of in the public domain.Drop me a PM.
All perfectly legal and part of business at its hard nosed money edge but like many, probably nearly all Coventry citizens that are aware of this action it leaves a very nasty taste all the same.
If you don't know all the facts then DON'T COMMENT !!!!
Had the CCC not bailed CCFC out and built the Ricoh for them we would have had nowhere to play
our games, In fact it's just like now--we would have been homeless. If our useless owners had an iota of sense
they would go cap in hand to CCC and ask for a return to the RICOH. You I and everybody who cares for CCFC
and it's fans would do the same--Sisu on the other hand do not give a toss,money is their god and they don't care how they get it.
To defend against the Charity claim of £29000 (pocket money surely to our owners) then you do not need to counter sue. All you have to do is prove there was no such agreement to pay the costs. However if you cant do that, need to put pressure on the other side and their associates you put in a huge counter claim, not saying SISU are not entitled to "counter" sue if they so wish but I get the feeling this action is part of a bigger game.
Say the Charity withdrew their claim (i do not think they will for a second) then I doubt SISU would withdraw theirs. If you think about it though it isnt a big leap to think that such an action against the Charity was inevitable and SISU can now hide behind argument of Higgs sued first. The most vulnerable point financially is the Charity, they do not have lots of money to fund long expensive legal battles, embroil them in that and it puts pressure on them and their partners ACL & CCC.
All perfectly legal and part of business at its hard nosed money edge but like many, probably nearly all Coventry citizens that are aware of this action it leaves a very nasty taste all the same.
Sorry I won't post stuff, I'll leave it to the people on here who were in every meeting, read every contract.
If you read my posts I was trying to find out the facts?
Litigation and courtrooms are SISU's playground-they can run rings around the Council and the Higgs, be it out of spite or as part of getting that building with lots of seats and grass in it on the cheap. Although Fisher is a man with no influence on the bigger picture, suing a charity which has done a lot for the city doesn't quite bring that sense of community spirit he talked about in his Northampton programme notes once upon a time.
I'm sorry but I can't agree. The council benefits from having a football club and should support it. The club should not be grateful to the council for its current pitiful existence.
whilst sisu own us i dont think they will charge themselves extorionate rent. crazy i know
if they sell us they will need to offer a good stadium deal to any would be buyer.
council have hurt us for over a decade. can sisu do any worse? not a great situation to be in
And there ladies and gentleman is the moral of the story
30k 100k whatever........
There comes a time when PR is more important than the risk of exposing your true nature
Litigation and courtrooms are SISU's playground-they can run rings around the Council and the Higgs, be it out of spite or as part of getting that building with lots of seats and grass in it on the cheap. Although Fisher is a man with no influence on the bigger picture, suing a charity which has done a lot for the city doesn't quite bring that sense of community spirit he talked about in his Northampton programme notes once upon a time.
The current pitiful existence the Club is now in is down to sisu totally and absolutely.I'm sorry but I can't agree. The council benefits from having a football club and should support it. The club should not be grateful to the council for its current pitiful existence.
The current pitiful existence the Club is now in is down to sisu totally and absolutely.
Yes of course. Ten times the average rent, the most restricted revenues in the football league, near bankruptcy, administration, liquidation - yes of course it is - off the medication today?
None of which their due diligence recognised.......were SISU on medication when they went into this "deal" eyes wide shut I wonder:thinking about:
The same can be said for the Higgs charity for firstly investing in a high risk project and secondly for taking legal action over a disputed amount. If they lose or draw they too failed in their due dillegence didn't they?
Yes.... so I've answered you're question would you do me the courtesy of doing the same?
I'm not sure what answer in supposed to give. Ok let's say they were negligent in not realising the deal on offer was a road to oblivion? So what? Should we then say we should have been liquidated six years ago. That then would definately taken ACL and the Ricoh down with it and the club would have ceased to exist. I fail to see the point to be honest.
I'm not sure what answer in supposed to give. Ok let's say they were negligent in not realising the deal on offer was a road to oblivion? So what? Should we then say we should have been liquidated six years ago. That then would definately taken ACL and the Ricoh down with it and the club would have ceased to exist. I fail to see the point to be honest.
The same can be said for the Higgs charity for firstly investing in a high risk project and secondly for taking legal action over a disputed amount. If they lose or draw they too failed in their due dillegence didn't they?
What high risk project have they invested in?
On your theory there was no one else to bid to to save the club at that time ?
Well as James smith is very keen to point out no dividends have been paid. So at present their have been no earnings from the venture. Investment which is principally dependant on the success of a football team hitherto unsuccessful I'd say is very high risk.
get your tongue out mateNick, I admire your patience with this place and thanks for putting up with it all. On most forums, yelling at the admin? That's a banhammering...
The same can be said for the Higgs charity for firstly investing in a high risk project and secondly for taking legal action over a disputed amount. If they lose or draw they too failed in their due dillegence didn't they?
Yes of course. Ten times the average rent, the most restricted revenues in the football league, near bankruptcy, administration, liquidation - yes of course it is - off the medication today?
The current pitiful existence the Club is now in is down to sisu totally and absolutely.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?