Fans Forum (1 Viewer)

Godiva said:

I would think that any ruling can be appealed if one of the parties feel the ruling is unjust.
I don't think there is need for new evidence etc unless the ruling is from the supreme - or highest court there is.
If either party want to appeal the JR decision I think the next step up the court-ladder is The EU court of justice in Luxembourg.

Click to expand...

You can appeal the findings of a Judicial Review final hearing, but you have to do it within 21 days.

Something people must realise JR's are different to other courts. They are solely looking at the processes a government used to come to a decision. Did they follow correct procedure and was the decision lawful.

No witnesses give evidence. All evidence is delivered by barristers. Witnesses who submitted statements can attend and listen to the case.

After the evidence is given, the judge writes a report of his findings. THIS CAN TAKE SEVERAL WEEKS.

If the findings are against the government body the judge makes recommendations as to how the wrong can be put right.

Hope this helps some of you.

Godiva said:

Aye, but do you really think it's so simple? Then why go to court in the first place? How many days is the proceeding scheduled for?
When the judge makes his ruling he will also tell us what he base that ruling on. This is where the losing part may object and feel the judge get it wrong.

Click to expand...

Interesting.

Why go to court? We can thank SISU for that. Just like why did they go to court to try and be able to use lots more stuff that the judge wouldn't allow as it has nothing to do with his decision? Why waste much more than 29k to get out of paying Higgs this amount after they had agreed on it? Why keep our football club in Northampton?

The answer is the same to all of the questions.

Yes an appeal is allowed, but only if new evidence comes out. But can anyone explain how new evidence can come out that would show if a certain procedure had been followed or not? 3 days? If each of SISU's barristers get only an hour on the stand that will be more than a day taken up.

Astute said:

Interesting.

Why go to court? We can thank SISU for that. Just like why did they go to court to try and be able to use lots more stuff that the judge wouldn't allow as it has nothing to do with his decision? Why waste much more than 29k to get out of paying Higgs this amount after they had agreed on it? Why keep our football club in Northampton?

The answer is the same to all of the questions.

Yes an appeal is allowed, but only if new evidence comes out. But can anyone explain how new evidence can come out that would show if a certain procedure had been followed or not? 3 days? If each of SISU's barristers get only an hour on the stand that will be more than a day taken up.

Click to expand...

I think SISU know they will lose. M.L.'s forum angle is for the time after the JR. He is using propaganda tactics to get Coventry citizens on side. This "challenge" doesn't bring the two sides together, therefore CCC and ACL will decline the invitation to the forum. He will claim "aha....told you so. They have something to hide!"

What that achieves I can't say, but I assume it's part of the post JR plan - whatever that may entail. At a guess - a build up to more litigation.

I am sure that it has absolutely nothing to do with achieving sporting success on the football pitch - actually the only reason why CCFC exsists. CCFC is a football club, not a legal practice. Please inform SISU.

I found this web site that seems to explain the JR process and appeal applications (use link top right "appeals process) quite well.

http://www.richardbuxton.co.uk/v3.0/node/51

from Richard Buxton & Co, Environmental & Public Law

or this

http://www.deightonpierceglynn.co.uk/resources/pdf/Judicial_Review_Procedure.pdf

Pierce Glynn, Public Law & Human rights

Seems to be that 9/10 cases that the loser pays for the winners costs.

This must put sisu off an appeal even if they are allowed one which I would think is doubtful.

Who cares about some forum set up by a puppet who only wants to drag up old news and dirt.
I would rather he or Fisher picked up the phone to the Council and say "Hi, do you fancy a quiet drink away from all the press?"

Has Labovitch actually asked the Council or ACL to attend?

Twelve questions the Sky Blue Trust want answering: http://www.coventrycity-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/questions_the_trust_want_answering_834136/index.shtml

Sky Blues said:

Twelve questions the Sky Blue Trust want answering: http://www.coventrycity-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/questions_the_trust_want_answering_834136/index.shtml

Click to expand...

Sensible questions.

Godiva said:

Sensible questions.

Click to expand...

And we await some sensible answers. Although I suppose we can guess which way it will go.

Sky Blues said:

Twelve questions the Sky Blue Trust want answering: http://www.coventrycity-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/questions_the_trust_want_answering_834136/index.shtml

Click to expand...

Lets hope that the club send people who are willing to answer these questions honestly rather than Labovitch to spin things further and try to turn things round. How and when are the trust planning to put these questions to the club because as others say they are very good and important questions that need answering.

Astute said:

And we await some sensible answers. Although I suppose we can guess which way it will go.

Click to expand...

ACL blah blah blah, CCC blah blah blah on a loop.

The Gentleman said:

Lets hope that the club send people who are willing to answer these questions honestly rather than Labovitch to spin things further and try to turn things round. How and when are the trust planning to put these questions to the club because as others say they are very good and important questions that need answering.

Click to expand...

The financial questions shouldn't be answered by ML, he is definitely no financial genius. Hope they bring Steve Brookfield and equip him with a license to answer any questions truthfully.

But even more important - I really hope the audience will let the directors speak without interruption. If they're not allowed to finish their sentences how will we get any answers?

Godiva said:

The financial questions shouldn't be answered by ML, he is definitely no financial genius. Hope they bring Steve Brookfield and equip him with a license to answer any questions truthfully.

But even more important - I really hope the audience will let the directors speak without interruption. If they're not allowed to finish their sentences how will we get any answers?

Click to expand...

Powerful microphones for speakers and audience questions, plus a strong Chair (and I don't mean the Geoff Capes definition of strong, or any products from DFS). Also, no-one should be allowed to fold their arms for the duration, bring balloons or their pet dog.

Sky Blues said:

Twelve questions the Sky Blue Trust want answering: http://www.coventrycity-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/questions_the_trust_want_answering_834136/index.shtml

Click to expand...

I can answer number 2 (well the first bit):

Out of contract this summer:

Murphy, Moussa, Christie

Out of contract next summer:

Adams, Webster, Fleck, Baker, Barton, Seasborne, Willis, Clarke, Wilson (the last three have another year option)

The other questions are good. What about the one that forced the forum offer from Labovitch, I forget the exact wording but it was about a reduction in our asset base I think. Where's OSB when you need him?

I think the question in the interview he stumbled over was why had fixed assets value changed. I think that was when he suggested the Fans Forum

The reasons why fixed asset values have changed from 1.9m to 554k are:

Intangible assets (players registrations, trademarks and business goodwill) dropped from £952k to £79k. Each year trademarks are "depreciated" over their economic lives of apparently 10yrs value 2012 was £3051 and 2013 £2669. Players contracts are depreciated over the length of contracts. In 2012 player contracts had a net value of £948k by 31/05/13 after additions of £112k this value had been written down including disposals to £76k. Goodwill had no value in either year

Tangible (property and equipment) assets dropped from £962k in 2012 to £475k in 2013. Property (just Ryton I think) in the view of the directors dropped from a value of £785k to £360k in May 2013 they provided an additional write down above depreciation of £408k to do that. Equipment dropped from £176k to £115k after depreciation and write offs of equipment.

It is easier to understand when you look at the accounts than I can explain here. But there was no great mystery and a director of any company really ought to understand what happened and why. The question itself on CWR was a nothing one really but it made ML stumble and fluster. His solution was let someone else explain at a fans forum. Passed the buck

oldskyblue58 said:

Property (just Ryton I think) in the view of the directors dropped from a value of £785k to £360k in May 2013 they provided an additional write down above depreciation of £408k to do that.

Click to expand...

Does that mean the actual value of Ryton, if it were to be sold, has dropped? Seems a big drop if so or is it just an accounting trick?

oldskyblue58 said:

I think the question in the interview he stumbled over was why had fixed assets value changed. I think that was when he suggested the Fans Forum

The reasons why fixed asset values have changed from 1.9m to 554k are:

Intangible assets (players registrations, trademarks and business goodwill) dropped from £952k to £79k. Each year trademarks are "depreciated" over their economic lives of apparently 10yrs value 2012 was £3051 and 2013 £2669. Players contracts are depreciated over the length of contracts. In 2012 player contracts had a net value of £948k by 31/05/13 after additions of £112k this value had been written down including disposals to £76k. Goodwill had no value in either year

Tangible (property and equipment) assets dropped from £962k in 2012 to £475k in 2013. Property (just Ryton I think) in the view of the directors dropped from a value of £785k to £360k in May 2013 they provided an additional write down above depreciation of £408k to do that. Equipment dropped from £176k to £115k after depreciation and write offs of equipment.

It is easier to understand when you look at the accounts than I can explain here. But there was no great mystery and a director of any company really ought to understand what happened and why. The question itself on CWR was a nothing one really but it made ML stumble and fluster. His solution was let someone else explain at a fans forum. Passed the buck

Click to expand...

I'm not normally known for leaping to the defence of SISU/Otium Directors, but in this case I have some sympathy for ML.

In my experience, Directors (excluding FDs of course ) have only a passing acquaintance with the statutory accounts of their companies. They'll usually have a decent idea of what's going on in the P&L, but the Balance Sheet is a land of magic and mystery where they fear to tread.

DazzleTommyDazzle said:

I'm not normally known for leaping to the defence of SISU/Otium Directors, but in this case I have some sympathy for ML.

In my experience, Directors (excluding FDs of course ) have only a passing acquaintance with the statutory accounts of their companies. They'll usually have a decent idea of what's going on in the P&L, but the Balance Sheet is a land of magic and mystery where they fear to tread.

Click to expand...

Having said that - I would expect him to have a very good grasp of how the business case for building a new stadium stacks up and would be very interested to hear that!

chiefdave said:

Does that mean the actual value of Ryton, if it were to be sold, has dropped? Seems a big drop if so or is it just an accounting trick?

Click to expand...

No not really, it means that at 31/05 the directors feel the prudent value to state in the accounts for current use is £360k so that assets are not overstated. What they could sell it for (eg say for housing) could be very different.

dongonzalos said:

That's why people like OSB, Schmee and the trust should have smaller chats with TF and ask him to bring SB. So you can probe a bit further, without it going off on a tangent.

Click to expand...

I fully agree with this.

It would be very interesting if a small group of persons with each their expertize could have a meeting with TF and JS.
Finances, legal stuff, strategy and PR.
Maybe a single meeting would not be enough though.

DazzleTommyDazzle said:

I'm not normally known for leaping to the defence of SISU/Otium Directors, but in this case I have some sympathy for ML.

In my experience, Directors (excluding FDs of course ) have only a passing acquaintance with the statutory accounts of their companies. They'll usually have a decent idea of what's going on in the P&L, but the Balance Sheet is a land of magic and mystery where they fear to tread.

Click to expand...

Tend to agree with you to an extent. I was probably being a little harsh on him but the fixed assets is usually something straight forward most directors "get"and at times ML has lectured others on finance or where finance has gone wrong in this dispute. Why go on the radio to discuss the accounts if you don't actually understand them :thinking about:

DazzleTommyDazzle said:

Having said that - I would expect him to have a very good grasp of how the business case for building a new stadium stacks up and would be very interested to hear that!

Click to expand...

Yes, and for once it would be nice if he had a power point presentation (I usually hate those). That would at least force a structured presentation and help understanding how it all links.

oldskyblue58 said:

Why go on the radio to discuss the accounts if you don't actually understand them

Click to expand...

Exactly, if you're going on the radio to discuss the accounts surely you meet with your accounts team first to make sure you are clear on everything, or if you're not have them there with you to answer questions you can't. It seems nothing untoward has happened but by handling it the way they have it gives the appearance that they are trying to hide something.

chiefdave said:

Exactly, if you're going on the radio to discuss the accounts surely you meet with your accounts team first to make sure you are clear on everything, or if you're not have them there with you to answer questions you can't. It seems nothing untoward has happened but by handling it the way they have it gives the appearance that they are trying to hide something.

Click to expand...

Well, if they have nothing to hide why have no recent accounts been published for CCFC(H) Ltd & CCFC Ltd.. how could you tell if there has been a substantial transfer of assets from one to the other without those accounts being published?

Jack Griffin said:

Well, if they have nothing to hide why have no recent accounts been published for CCFC(H) Ltd & CCFC Ltd.. how could you tell if there has been a substantial transfer of assets from one to the other without those accounts being published?

Click to expand...

I guess Mr Appelton would have found the same as would be shown in the accounts?

Godiva said:

Sensible questions.

Click to expand...

I agree but the questions deter from the real reason for the purpose of the forum.. That being the Ricoh and negotiations to bring us back there. All the Trust's questions are very good but from the first seven or so I read they all bared relevance to the day to day running of the Club..

If the Trust would like to ask the questions taken from Cov Mad surely they could do that via the SCG Minutes Meeting in the Squirrel? As this forum is coming up we need to be getting answer to all the issues from all sides while it's available to do so.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are no discussions Robbo and at this point in time I do not see much likelihood of any either.

Even after the JR I am not sure the prospects improve any I but try to keep some optimism there might be some give in the situation. This event is clearly focussed on pointing fingers and that isn't going to make the prospect of negotiations more likely. Add to that the real possibility of further legal action and a return to the Ricoh any time soon seems to get further away not closer

In the mean time we are and will be no clearer about what is going on at the club now or what the real detail of the future plans are. The fans can change very little if anything in this but blame game or pointing fingers at things that can not be changed at all really is not solving or addressing the current and future security of our club in any way.

The fans are entitled to know what is going on now, very little meaningful is actually said about it by the club and owners, they are more interested in pointing to events 2 years ago. Why is that?

oldskyblue58 said:

There are no discussions Robbo and at this point in time I do not see much likelihood of any either.

Even after the JR I am not sure the prospects improve any but try to keep some optimism there might be some give in the situation. This event is clearly focussed on pointing fingers and that isn't going to make the prospect of negotiations more likely.

In the mean time we are and will be no clearer about what is going on at the club now or what the real detail of the future plans are. The fans can change very little if anything in this but blame game and pointing fingers at things that can not be changed at all really is not solving or addressing the current and future security of our club.

The fans are entitled to know what is going on now, very little meaningful is actually said about it by the club and owners, they are more interested in pointing to events 2 years ago. Why is that?

Click to expand...

I never said there was discussions OSB, but do you fan pressure in that environment might just get some information regarding negotiations or put ideas across?

Well bare in mind how last summers forum went, because this is a chance for real information and for the truth and I can't see how that can be achieved by asking questions that could have easily been asked during an SCG Minutes Meeting?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just see it differently Robbo doesn't make either of us wrong or right

I am going to be interested to see what bits of truth come out and fundamentally change things. By the time that this gets to the fans forum I suspect it will have been done to death. Isolated clips of He said she said isn't going to cut it. But will everything be out in the open? can everything be disclosed at the fans forum? - not so sure of that. Is there a silver bullet in there that changes everything? why spend millions on legals if you have a silver bullet?

How long are they planning this forum to last? There are thousands of pages of documents and witness statements let alone the skeleton arguments. In terms of practicality I don't see how you go through that at a fans forum putting every item in the right context and the right chronology. Or even read it all. Surely you have to rely on being told where to look? You will get a truth certainly but it will be based on a direction from an interested party and parts of documents taken possibly out of overall context. What that will create is more agitation and confusion, what it doesn't create is a solution. A solution is what the fans want.

From past forums things get missed, people shouted down, good questions side lined or deflected for others that go round in circles. In short nothing really comes out. This event will have to be stage managed to work in any way at all and that means it being led in chosen directions. Will other interested parties be involved I am prepared to be surprised but I don't think they will. So I think it will be the Club directors pointing the discussion in the direction of others and never quite answering clearly anything about their actions - it will be someone elses fault. Happy to be proven wrong

I am inclined to think that there is always a purpose in everything each side does that focusses solely on their own needs. In this case SISU's. The club is but a tool in a bigger game. It will be interesting to see what other actions are taken by SISU after the JR.

I can not knock the attempt to give the fans more information but this process has its limitations. I would prefer the sides got together and used the time to resolve it all one way or another.

Just my own opinion but I think we need to look forward not back, what is the future of the club? To understand that then you need to know what the financial situation is now - and we are not being told, but the questions have been asked and a number of times.

Right now there is a club with no home, very little in the way of income, and aside from a badge on a wall and the hopes of fans absolutely no link with the home it should be in. More pointing the finger of blame is not going to change that.

In a sense there isn't really a dispute any more ............. its more different parties scrambling for a way out that suits them. The Club and fans are some way down the list I feel

* Why are the amounts owed to ARVO and SBS&L £42m now shown as payable within 12 months rather than long term liabilities?
OSB do you think that the change from long term liabilities to short term, as pointed out by TSBT in their email gives us any indication as to what Otium/Sisu might be planning if the JR does not go their way? It can not be normal business practice to change this if you have a long term strategy for the business, by doing this you are surly encumbering yourself in the near future with a debt that makes your business model inoperable.

I am not sure why it has been reclassified as a current liability (within 12 mths) Vick. There is no way that the club can repay the amount in the first place let alone 12 months. We are told that SISU are here for the long term so it seems strange their "equity" in the club is now short term. The liability to ARVO I can perhaps understand but even so they are shareholders with links to SISU.

For the debt to be repayable within 12 months seems at odds with the concept of going concern. There is no way in the foreseeable future the ARVO liability let alone the £42m can be repaid as it stands. There is an intention not to withdraw the financial support of the stakeholders but it is not a contractual guarantee. So going concern is on rocky ground I think but so long as SISU/ARVO continue to support its not broken

Everything that is an asset in the group has a charge over it in favour of ARVO. So should it go bust any new entity would have to deal with ARVO to get things like trademark etc. Does it mean that after the JR SISU will pull the plug I do not think so. Things still have a ways to run I feel. That point may come but in my opinion not before end of 2014/15 season if it comes at all. They are working hard to make the club break even in terms of driving costs down now they need to increase income how they do it significantly at Sixfields god knows. Whilst they are doing that I think we will remain L1 at best

RoboCCFC90 said:

I agree but the questions deter from the real reason for the purpose of the forum.. That being the Ricoh and negotiations to bring us back there.

Click to expand...

How have you come to the conclusion that is the purpose? At the most recent of the smaller meetings Sepalla was reported as being very clear that we weren't going back to the Ricoh. From what has been said by the club this forum is to cover historical events and how we have ended up in this situation which in my opinion does very little to resolve anything.