Email from FL (2 Viewers)

Deleted member 5849 said:

It only got that far because they brought the case in the first place!

Click to expand...

Yes I agree with that but surely there is another way round just 29k. Higgs were just looking for a settlement on it not the full 29k. Instead there are countersued and taken to court and ended up costing much more than 29k. Charity again losses out.

Kingokings204 said:

Yes I agree with that but surely there is another way round just 29k.

Click to expand...

Not bringing the case, as it turns out...

So that makes it OK then?

torchomatic said:

And it's not even solely a children's charity either.

Click to expand...

Godiva said:

You are saying that Higgs suing sisu would not require court action?
I agree it was elevated to high court due to the size of the counterclaim.

Click to expand...

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Higgs never wanted to take sisu to court over just 29k it's not worth the legal fees which would be over 29k so really not worth it.

All they wanted was a settlement on the 29k out of court done behind closed doors. Instead they are dragged through court spend well over 29k and everyone loses out including sisu as they lost their counterclaim but still had to pay their 7 legal team. They hoped Higgs would back down and not take them to court hence the huge counterclaim.

Bennets Afro said:

Would that make ACL be worth even less?

Click to expand...

Taking out an asset and replacing it with equal value makes the company worth less, yes.

I think they would justify it by saying the relieved ACL of a debt of £15,3m (or was it £15.8m???) and replaced it with a debt of £14.4m. So that transaction made the company worth £1m more.
Then taking out Car Park C reduces the value back to what it was.

In short - Yorkshire bank paid the price, the council won the prize.

No. I'm just saying the heartstring tuggery (apologies to Mr Council) of a poor "children's charity" is a bit much, but then again I'm morally and emotionally bankrupt.

letsallsingtogether said:

So that makes it OK then?

Click to expand...

torchomatic said:

No. I'm just saying the heartstring tuggery (apologies to Mr Council) of a poor "children's charity" is a bit much.

Click to expand...

Can't stand any of that, from either side.

When ML brought up the council loan to ACL as instead of supporting social services and chaildcare etc I just told him it was emotive bollocks and he backed down and apologised on that one.

Exactly.

lordsummerisle said:

Can't stand any of that, from either side.

When ML brought up the council loan to ACL as instead of supporting social services and chaildcare etc I just told him it was emotive bollocks and he backed down and apologised on that one.

Click to expand...

Kingokings204 said:

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Higgs never wanted to take sisu to court over just 29k it's not worth the legal fees which would be over 29k so really not worth it.

All they wanted was a settlement on the 29k out of court done behind closed doors. Instead they are dragged through court spend well over 29k and everyone loses out including sisu as they lost their counterclaim but still had to pay their 7 legal team. They hoped Higgs would back down and not take them to court hence the huge counterclaim.

Click to expand...

... and we are full circle. Astute said they HAD to sue, so they did. And they lost.

What Higgs achieved was nothing but legal fee's.
What sisu achieved was more valuable than the cost of legal representation. They gained access to a lot of emails, notes, reports and sworn witness statements that they could (and did) use at the JR.

Oh, and sisu immediately abstained from claiming costs from Higgs. Just a small forgotten detail.

Kingokings204 said:

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Higgs never wanted to take sisu to court over just 29k it's not worth the legal fees which would be over 29k so really not worth it.

All they wanted was a settlement on the 29k out of court done behind closed doors. Instead they are dragged through court spend well over 29k and everyone loses out including sisu as they lost their counterclaim but still had to pay their 7 legal team. They hoped Higgs would back down and not take them to court hence the huge counterclaim.

Click to expand...

Playing devils advocate, the judge ruled that the club did not have to pay the £29k as it wasn't solely there fault for the breakdown of talks. Why would anyone settle out of court if they felt they shouldn't be liable to pay it (as agreed by the judgement), other than avoiding court costs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Godiva said:

... and we are full circle. Astute said they HAD to sue, so they did. And they lost.

What Higgs achieved was nothing but legal fee's.
What sisu achieved was more valuable than the cost of legal representation. They gained access to a lot of emails, notes, reports and sworn witness statements that they could (and did) used at the JR.

Oh, and sisu immediately abstained from claiming costs from Higgs. Just a small forgotten detail.

Click to expand...

Again I can't see the emails and documents they gained showed nothing of importance and even when used in JR nothing exactly Jumped out.

Sisu couldn't claim costs from the charity Higgs. You believe what ML said. What was it " it was very magnanimous of joy not to go claiming costs against a local charity" do me a favor. The judge would of ordered costs on both sides regardless of sisu wanting to pay or not. They had no choice than to pay their own costs but they got in the first word to make them look the good guys. Do me a favor lol

stupot07 said:

Playing devils advocate, the judge ruled that the club did not have to pay the £29k as it wasn't solely there fault for the breakdown of talks. Why would anyone settle out of court if they felt they shouldn't be liable to pay it (as agreed by the judgement), other than avoiding court costs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Click to expand...

Yes I agree. What was the judge said " no appetite in neither side" basically both sides are to blame for the talks failing down.

Yes I agree again but it would of cost sisu more than 29k to pay their 7 lawyers and that's what annoys me it's just clear bullying tactics and a horrible way to do business.

Sisu didn't want to go to court as much as Higgs. They must of thought throwing in a 290k counterclaim was enough to scare off Higgs straight away but Higgs stuck to their guns and went to court brought about by sisu.

SBA1987 said:

This term can be extended for two further periods of 12 months, provided the club can demonstrate sufficient progress towards the building of a new stadium in the Coventry area.

Click to expand...

Two periods of 12 months? Bizarre how they can't bring themselves to say 2 years. Strange.

Also, the Coventry 'area' thing. Why are the football league at it now with the whole 'area' thing?

Because Northampton is in the Coventry Area.

And as Coventry is in the Brum area does that make Brum in the Coventry area? just a thought........

Joy Division said:

Two periods of 12 months? Bizarre how they can't bring themselves to say 2 years. Strange.

Also, the Coventry 'area' thing. Why are the football league at it now with the whole 'area' thing?

Click to expand...

Kingokings204 said:

Yes I agree. What was the judge said " no appetite in neither side" basically both sides are to blame for the talks failing down.

Yes I agree again but it would of cost sisu more than 29k to pay their 7 lawyers and that's what annoys me it's just clear bullying tactics and a horrible way to do business.

Sisu didn't want to go to court as much as Higgs. They must of thought throwing in a 290k counterclaim was enough to scare off Higgs straight away but Higgs stuck to their guns and went to court brought about by sisu.

Click to expand...

So what did actually happen when the trial ended and the question for cost came up:

MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: You take instructions and I will sit here unless anybody asks me otherwise. (Pause)

MR THOMPSON: My instructions are simple, given that there's obviously been a judgment in both directions, that there could be no order as to costs. That would be an order that we would be content with. I don't know whether Mr Brennan has some other suggestion.

MR BRENNAN: My Lord, I wish life was so simple, but the test isn't simplicity; the test is justice.
This was an ordinary County Court claim, which shouldn't have been brought on the basis that it was brought and could and should have been defended in the counterclaim on the narrow basis which has ultimately succeeded. In the event, SISU sought to defend the case inter alia on another basis, which was predicated on stinging criticisms of the trustees' conduct, which were unwarranted.
As a matter of principle I say that the appropriate order as to costs is that we should have to pay SISU the proper and reasonable costs that it would have incurred had it defended the case on a proper basis without making the unwarranted criticisms and, in those circumstances, I would invite the court to grant SISU their costs of the claim, less a deduction, which, as best you can, you think meets the justice of that case, and order SISU to pay the costs of the counterclaim.
Unfortunately, it's very difficult to unravel it and the matter will have to be put off to a costs officer, but the costs officer, will need some guidance --

MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: You might end up worse off than on Mr Thompson's proposal. I know that's not the test of what I should do, but ...

MR BRENNAN: My instructing solicitor is rather closer to the costs than I am, so perhaps I can take --

MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Yes. It's not obvious what the costs are of the counterclaim and claim except, up to the time there's a counterclaim, of course, there weren't any costs of that.

MR BRENNAN: Yes, I follow that.

MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Once there was a counterclaim...

MR BRENNAN: The claim rather took second place thereafter.

MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: They were both sort of entangled with each other to some extent. The claim has obviously persisted for another day at the other end as well.
You have two days at the other end.

MR BRENNAN: As I say, my instructing solicitor is closer to costs. (Pause)
My Lord, these are not insignificant sums. I know it's 4.40, but could I ask for five minutes?

MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Of course you may. Call me back in when you're ready.

(4.41 pm)
(A short break)
(4.47 pm)

MR BRENNAN: My Lord, I'm very grateful for the extra time. Mr Thompson's suggestion is a sensible one and we wish to agree it.

MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Well, I think it is the right conclusion. I would have come to it anyway. These days, the usual approach is not, as it once was, to treat the counterclaim and the claim independently; it's to look overall at who the winner is and it seems to me that this is a case which has effectively ended as a nil-all draw, if I'm allowed to use the comparison.

MR BRENNAN: I think minus one each probably more accurately sums it up.

MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Well, that may be the case. Thank you.

MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Well, I think it is the right conclusion. I would have come to it anyway. These days, the usual approach is not, as it once was, to treat the counterclaim and the claim independently; it's to look overall at who the winner is and it seems to me that this is a case which has effectively ended as a nil-all draw, if I'm allowed to use the comparison.

MR BRENNAN: I think minus one each probably more accurately sums it up.

MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Well, that may be the case. Thank you.

So nobody won then they both lost ??

.....

Sub said:

MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Well, I think it is the right conclusion. I would have come to it anyway. These days, the usual approach is not, as it once was, to treat the counterclaim and the claim independently; it's to look overall at who the winner is and it seems to me that this is a case which has effectively ended as a nil-all draw, if I'm allowed to use the comparison.

MR BRENNAN: I think minus one each probably more accurately sums it up.

MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Well, that may be the case. Thank you.

So nobody won then they both lost ??

Click to expand...

I did say several times they both lost.

But let me ask you: If you were sued by me and I lost, would you not say you won?

Godiva said:

I did say several times they both lost.

But let me ask you: If you were sued by me and I lost, would you not say you won?

Click to expand...

If it cost me money no i would say we both lost

If it cost you money and cost me nothing yes i would of won

Godiva said:

I did say several times they both lost.

But let me ask you: If you were sued by me and I lost, would you not say you won?

Click to expand...

You did say several times that SISU won. So you also said several times that they didn't win?

I love it when someone knows what they are talking about

Kingokings204 said:

Yes I agree. What was the judge said " no appetite in neither side" basically both sides are to blame for the talks failing down.

Yes I agree again but it would of cost sisu more than 29k to pay their 7 lawyers and that's what annoys me it's just clear bullying tactics and a horrible way to do business.

Sisu didn't want to go to court as much as Higgs. They must of thought throwing in a 290k counterclaim was enough to scare off Higgs straight away but Higgs stuck to their guns and went to court brought about by sisu.

Click to expand...

Again the 7 lawyers/ bullying/whatever is a red herring.

Higgs wanted the £29k, sisu didn't think they should pay it, Higgs took them to court for it (yes sisu counter claimed but was thrown straight out).

You're suggesting that instead of going to court sisu should have either just paid it or offered to pay a portion of the £29k and settle out of court. If you believe you shouldn't have to pay it, why would you settle out of court. To me settling out of court suggests that you're in the wrong and you're saving yourself the embarrassment (not just costs).

And I don't mean this pro or anti sisu, because I would say the same about any company. Both side lost, you say "Higgs stuck to their guns and went to court brought about by sisu." Yes, sisu didn't not pay that money, but it was adjudged that all parties were to blame for not reaching an agreement and sisu were vindicated for not paying the money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Godiva said:

Really?
I thought I said something like 'we need the parties to agree on the history before we can move on'.
Why would I even want us not to move forward?

Click to expand...

I don't know as I'm not the one who made the comment and before you said what you mentioned above, your first comment was to disagree when Duffer (i think) said about wanting to move forward. One thing though, deals have been made all over the world despite bad history and it only seems to be the ones who want to continually rake over old ground who don't want to make progress.

Finally, you still haven't answered the question as to whether or not you disagreed with the judge and his draw conclusion.

Kingokings204 said:

Anyone else noticed there is no mention of the 590k settlement?

Very fishy

Click to expand...

Because it's irrelevant to the questions asked.

Did anybody else notice that the FL also didn't mention the missing Malaysia Airways flight. They're hiding something.

fernandopartridge said:

Because it's irrelevant to the questions asked.

Did anybody else notice that the FL also didn't mention the missing Malaysia Airways flight. They're hiding something.

Click to expand...

Good debate. NOT. Except the fact that the 590k was a condition of staying in the league and this was mentioned.

I have asked the question now so wait for the response if I get one.

stupot07 said:

Again the 7 lawyers/ bullying/whatever is a red herring.

Higgs wanted the £29k, sisu didn't think they should pay it, Higgs took them to court for it (yes sisu counter claimed but was thrown straight out).

You're suggesting that instead of going to court sisu should have either just paid it or offered to pay a portion of the £29k and settle out of court. If you believe you shouldn't have to pay it, why would you settle out of court. To me settling out of court suggests that you're in the wrong and you're saving yourself the embarrassment (not just costs).

And I don't mean this pro or anti sisu, because I would say the same about any company. Both side lost, you say "Higgs stuck to their guns and went to court brought about by sisu." Yes, sisu didn't not pay that money, but it was adjudged that all parties were to blame for not reaching an agreement and sisu were vindicated for not paying the money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Click to expand...

Yes I know what you're getting at at that's fine. But surely it would of costs them less to settle out of court than in court? Right or wrong I wouldn't care I would want the option that cost less money?

Also it's obvious sisu only counter claimed to get Higgs to go away but they didn't. Just horrible bullying tactics in a kids charity IMO.

I get the impression they counter-claimed to get more information out in the public domain.

Kingokings204 said:

Good debate. NOT. Except the fact that the 590k was a condition of staying in the league and this was mentioned.

I have asked the question now so wait for the response if I get one.

Click to expand...

I'd write to the RSPCC as well. Remember the children

Grendel said:

I'd write to the RSPCC as well. Remember the children

Click to expand...

Classic Wum

Kingokings204 said:

Classic Wum

Click to expand...

No just saying as you seem to be outraged about robbing a children's charity.

Grendel said:

I'd write to the RSPCC as well. Remember the children

Click to expand...

How could we ever forget about you?

Grendel said:

I'd write to the RSPCC as well. Remember the children

Click to expand...

I'm surprised at your compassion maybe your turning over a new leaf ?

Ooh, look at Astute and John posting in tandem, etc etc etc. :facepalm:

Godiva said:

What the club and ACL have in common is flawed business plans and failing operations. The club can't afford the rent level and exclusion from match day income streams, and ACL can't afford to reduce the rent or give away match day income. At least that was the case when the rent strike began in April 2012.

Click to expand...

so since the rent strike began ACL have refinanced and been able to make improved rent offer after improved rent offer, whereas sisu have moved the club to the wrong town and the rent vs income streams ratio has become a gazillion times worse than they ever were at the ricoh under any deal but you still think they have something in common?

it looks like to me one is still entrenched in a blind business plan that is killing the club while the other is getting on with things. remind me again, why do you spend so much time trying to proove whats wrong with ACL while ignoring the problems the club has which have been caused by an entrenched owner who's only interested in the succes of court cases and has no interest in the success of the club?

for a ccfc fan (if thats what you really are) your head and arse are screwed on the wrong way.

skybluetony176 said:

so since the rent strike began ACL have refinanced and been able to make improved rent offer after improved rent offer, whereas sisu have moved the club to the wrong town and the rent vs income streams ratio has become a gazillion times worse than they ever were at the ricoh under any deal but you still think they have something in common?

it looks like to me one is still entrenched in a blind business plan that is killing the club while the other is getting on with things. remind me again, why do you spend so much time trying to proove whats wrong with ACL while ignoring the problems the club has which have been caused by an entrenched owner who's only interested in the succes of court cases and has no interest in the success of the club?

for a ccfc fan (if thats what you really are) your head and arse are screwed on the wrong way.

Click to expand...

Which improved offers that? The one that reverted back to the original offer after 3 years?

skybluetony176 said:

so since the rent strike began ACL have refinanced and been able to make improved rent offer after improved rent offer, whereas sisu have moved the club to the wrong town and the rent vs income streams ratio has become a gazillion times worse than they ever were at the ricoh under any deal but you still think they have something in common?

it looks like to me one is still entrenched in a blind business plan that is killing the club while the other is getting on with things. remind me again, why do you spend so much time trying to proove whats wrong with ACL while ignoring the problems the club has which have been caused by an entrenched owner who's only interested in the succes of court cases and has no interest in the success of the club?

for a ccfc fan (if thats what you really are) your head and arse are screwed on the wrong way.

Click to expand...

The most puzzling people I find on here are those who constantly go on about how well ACL are doing and don't need the club anyway. You know the ones, those that seem to spend an inordinate amount of time counting how many cars are in the Ricoh car park whilst they're passing.

You'd almost think that they had some sort of agenda or something wouldn't you?