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.
Ooh, look at Astute and John posting in tandem, etc etc etc. :facepalm:
Something we learned from Grendel and yourself.
It was actually a joke. Nevermind.
Which improved offers that? The one that reverted back to the original offer after 3 years?
That's not completely correct grendel. Sorry about that.
Why isn't it?
Which improved offers that? The one that reverted back to the original offer after 3 years?
I've lost track of the offers, which one are you referring to?
There was one mentioned in the JR which was proposed by Yorkshire Bank, is that the one which was £400K for 3 years? That seemed more a 3 year period to negotiate a new long term deal rather than 3 years discount and then back to what we were paying before.
From memory following that there was a serious of offers from ACL to SISU. Think those started at £400K then dropped to £150K on a rolling 10 years term (in line with FL regulations) with the final offer being made via the FL. I suspect the final offer was made via the FL so that should SISU seek compensation ACL can have a third party verify that a 'fair' offer was made and that, at least in ACLs opinion, we weren't forced out of the Ricoh. Could be a key point if we get to the stage of talking about compensation.
Yes I'm referring to the offered agreed in January 2013 and shook on by TF and ML personally. It was 3 years at 400k a year then discuss a longer term strategy that depended on ccfc league and finance. It would have never gone back up to 1.3 p/a.
Because it was 400k for 3 years and then could of actually come down not up. Well it was dependent on what league ccfc were in.
Which improved offers that? The one that reverted back to the original offer after 3 years?
It was 3 years at 400k a year then discuss a longer term strategy that depended on ccfc league and finance. It would have never gone back up to 1.3 p/a.
I don't think that's correct. From what I recall (and I could obviously be wrong), the rent would revert to the original agreement after three years and would then have to be renegotiated from scratch. If no agreement could be reached then it would still be £1.3M pa.
I don't think that's correct. From what I recall (and I could obviously be wrong), the rent would revert to the original agreement after three years and would then have to be renegotiated from scratch. If no agreement could be reach then it would be £1.3M again.
Which improved offers that? The one that reverted back to the original offer after 3 years?
Man, you have some gaps in your knowledge of what's happened. Perhaps you've been in a coma, that would certainly explain why you think sisu are our saviours.
Who's going to break the bad news to grendull that we now play in the third tier. Lol, he's never going to believe that Coventry now play in Northampton. Someone book him some counseling. He's going to need it.
So it was the one that went back to £1.3 million. Thanks.
Like I said. You have some gaps that need filling in.
If you don't mind taking about it. How did you come to be in a coma and aside from the memory loss do you have any other side effects?
I don't also understand also why TF and ML shook on 400k on jan 19th and joy said no? Why? What was so different between the 3 people's view?
Also point 2 why did then they reject 150k another 250k knocked off out of desperation from ACL. I don't understand it. I can only assume joy was set on moving out regardless but I don't see the reason.
Any answers please?
Fill them then!
The only obvious reason that springs to mind is that she wasn't happy with other aspects - namely revenue streams. Which is ultimately a far bigger issue than the price of the rent.
More like the way to make money for her investors is get the freehold for the Ricoh. The more money she makes for them the more money she makes for herself. And pie money doesn't do this.
How would they get the freehold?
Yep I'd never heard that before either.It's not widely known.
But I find it interesting that many say nothing new came out at the JR. This was definitely new.
Don't forget that the judge said that he was going to rule each side pay their own costs if they hadn't. Seems fair enough to me, although I'd like to see the legal bills on both sides and know that the Sisu one isn't being added to the club debt mountain.... 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.
The only obvious reason that springs to mind is that she wasn't happy with other aspects - namely revenue streams. Which is ultimately a far bigger issue than the price of the rent.
Don't forget that the judge said that he was going to rule each side pay their own costs if they hadn't.
Don't forget that the judge said that he was going to rule each side pay their own costs if they hadn't.
Just like I tried to tell Godiva but he seems to think sisu offered to pay the charities costs. It would of been ruled anyway.
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.
If you read the actual transcript carefully you will notice that sisu QC rather quickly suggest they will accept a ruling of 'no order as to cost'.
It then takes the ACL QC quite some time to accept that.
Then the judge says he would have come to the same conclusion.
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?