Full Court Verdict (1 Viewer)

oldskyblue58 · Jun 30, 2014

Yes I know NW ....... never thought they battered in court as such more that they used courts as a weapon ...... clearly they are prepared to take very high risks in the cases they present banking on out funding their opposition.

The Judge made clear in his judgement he did not see the escrow and match day costs as rent ..... his learned opinion was that it was payments for expenses and SISU had a legal obligation to top up the Escrow stupot. I think where as you and I would see it as payments of rent the law looks at the contractual situation and drills down further. In theory I would guess ACL would have had to put the money back if they had received all the rent but its academic really.

shmmeee · Jun 30, 2014

James Smith said:
I asked before but I'm not sure if anyone knows: if there had been a mutually agreed ending of the lease by both sides what would have happened to the Escrow?

Just speculating, but surely if it's mutually agree then CCFC hasn't "failed to fulfil its financial obligations to ACL" so no money owed and the cash goes back to the guarantors (as is the nature of escrows).

TheRoyalScam · Jun 30, 2014

Anyone with a true interest in CCFC should download the full judgement - it gives a very accurate record of the history of the club, obviously with emphasis on the 'SISU years', and recent underhand SISU tactics.

If you haven't read it then you don't really have any credibility if you come on here posting any anti-ACL/Higgs/CCCouncil drivel.

Jack Griffin · Jun 30, 2014

oldskyblue58 said:
so a Judge has stated that the draw down of the Escrow and the £10k per match did not constitute payment of rent. Just a couple of questions

1) where does that leave the administrator who netted off these sums against a debt for rent?
2) how does that affect the FL settlement of £590k that Otium owe which is based on a failed CVA calculated by the administrator based on (1) above?

I am sure they will try to appeal this judgement that doesn't mean they can. This must put to rest the notion that "SISU batter people in Court" surely? I am not sure Justice Hickinbottom has left them much room to counter his judgement. He has read all available documentation, put it in to context and impartially given what actually went on.

Whatever you think of the Judge & the judicial system, you have got to admire this guys work rate & attention to detail.

Hobo · Jun 30, 2014

Jack Griffin said:
Whatever you think of the Judge & the judicial system, you have got to admire this guys work rate & attention to detail.

Certainly appears better value than SISU administrator!

wingy · Jun 30, 2014

stupot07 said:
That sounds like a cushy number, say the club didn't pay rent for 2 months due to cashflow issues, ACL draw down £200k, then cashflow gets sorted the club pay back the 2 months rent, suddenly ACL have doubled their money. Sounds a bit crazy fish to me.

Edit: just read the quote at the bottom - cover "loss of earnings" well as only the rent hasn't been paid, that is the only "loss of earnings" so it's effectively paid the rent, which then goes back to my question, if the club had paid back the rent, would ACL have to pay back the money into the escrow?

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

That's what I'd expect Stu .

blend · Jul 1, 2014

Very interesting read, the judge says that SISU's plans as set out in HoT were doomed on virtually every front. In my opinion this was brinkmanship of the highest order until their extremely risky game was taken out of their hands.

On Mr Thompson's suggestion that the council's conduct was irrational, underhand and reprehensible. JH 'I should make clear that I do not consider the picture he paints is fair or accurate.' Interesting.

A very good read, makes me angry reading it but the judgment needs to be read.

shmmeee · Jul 1, 2014

This bits good:

SISU and ACL signed Cooperation Agreement Heads of Terms on 26 November 2007, which emphasised that, although, following the acquisition of the Football Club by SISU all agreements between the Football Club and ACL (except the Licence Agreement) would be reviewed, absent agreed changes, “the primacy of the existing agreements will remain”.

So, actually, Sisu DID do due diligence and found the rent to be acceptable.

And this shows priorities:

Other than the provision for confidentiality, the terms did not create any legally binding obligations, and the document expressly stated that there was
no intention to do so.

So the only legally binding thing Sisu thought to put in was a confidentiality clause. Says it all really.

Too much to paste, but paragraphs 30-36 is a great pulling apart of the argument that the council somehow did the dirty on Sisu.

The whole thing is like the greatest, most well informed post on here ever. It just pulls apart argument after argument, the guy is formidable.

Given the showstopping nature of the failure to agree terms for the purchase of a share in ACL, it is strictly unnecessary to deal with the other aspects of SISU’s plan; but I shall do so because, in any event, none proved practical.

Love this guy.

stupot07 · Jul 1, 2014

Depressing reading so far, just got to point 26 and noticed that the judge has made an inaccuracy.

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

The Gentleman · Jul 1, 2014

stupot07 said:
Depressing reading so far, just got to point 26 and noticed that the judge has made an inaccuracy.

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

So rather than say anything about the depressing stuff you have read and others have mentioned on here you choose to say that :facepalm:

italiahorse · Jul 1, 2014

stupot07 said:
Depressing reading so far, just got to point 26 and noticed that the judge has made an inaccuracy.

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

Are we to expect the rest of the post or have you dismissed the whole document ?

shmmeee · Jul 1, 2014

I can't see an inaccuracy, unless it's in the turnover figures for that year.

Though I imagine if you've put so much energy into arguing against everything in the document, it must be depressing to see it written out so clearly and comprehensively

Kingokings204 · Jul 1, 2014

stupot07 said:
Depressing reading so far, just got to point 26 and noticed that the judge has made an inaccuracy.

What inaccuracy?

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

stupot07 · Jul 1, 2014

The Gentleman said:
So rather than say anything about the depressing stuff you have read and others have mentioned on here you choose to say that :facepalm:

I haven't finished reading it yet.

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

stupot07 · Jul 1, 2014

italiahorse said:
Are we to expect the rest of the post or have you dismissed the whole document ?

Bore off, I haven't finished reading it yet.

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

stupot07 · Jul 1, 2014

shmmeee said:
I can't see an inaccuracy, unless it's in the turnover figures for that year.

That's the one. Still reading only on point 29.

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

Jack Griffin · Jul 1, 2014

stupot07 said:
That's the one. Still reading only on point 29.

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

Only another 100 points to go, I've got as far as printing it out..

shmmeee · Jul 1, 2014

stupot07 said:
That's the one. Still reading only on point 29.

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

What are the correct figures? I can't find the 2011/12 accounts online.

Jack Griffin · Jul 1, 2014

shmmeee said:
What are the correct figures? I can't find the 2011/12 accounts online.

OSB did a summary of them a while back.. search for topics he started with stuff like 2012 & accounts in the title & you may find it.

The Gentleman · Jul 1, 2014

stupot07 said:
I haven't finished reading it yet.

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

Oh ok, nothing more interesting in the documents in the 26 pages you had read than an inaccuracy about turnover then. Although thinking about it and the way you are about stats and figures I bet you were rightly fuming.

shmmeee · Jul 1, 2014

I can't find them anywhere, I don't think they were ever filed as CCFC Ltd was wound up.

stupot07 · Jul 1, 2014

shmmeee said:
I can't find them anywhere, I don't think they were ever filed as CCFC Ltd was wound up.

Here you go.

Sky Blue Sports & Leisure 2013 accounts http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/showthread.php?t=42971

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

stupot07 · Jul 1, 2014

The Gentleman said:
Oh ok, nothing more interesting in the documents in the 26 pages you had read than an inaccuracy about turnover then. Although thinking about it and the way you are about stats and figures I bet you were rightly fuming.

Yes, the dire financial state of our club, year on year losses, the judge alluding to the poor management of the club (due to continual losses "commercial nightmare") and unsustainability....

....how much again do you think we should be paying baker, and offering murphy and moussa to stay?

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

RegTheDonk · Jul 1, 2014

The Gentleman said:
Oh ok, nothing more interesting in the documents in the 26 pages you had read than an inaccuracy about turnover then. Although thinking about it and the way you are about stats and figures I bet you were rightly fuming.

So was Fisher .... he's probably basing the Appeal on it :jerkit:

The Gentleman · Jul 1, 2014

stupot07 said:
Yes, the dire financial state of our club, year on year losses, the judge alluding to the poor management of the club (due to continual losses "commercial nightmare") and unsustainability....

....how much again do you think we should be paying baker, and offering murphy and moussa to stay?

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

Thanks for that, I thought you had missed some off your first post.

I don't know what we should be paying Baker but if he wants to stay discuss a pay cut with a caveat of it increasing if we get promotion. With regard to Murphy and Moussa, at the very least a fucking offer would have been nice and don't start with all that "I would imagine that a conversation went something like....." crap that you came out with before because you, me and any other people not directly involved has no clue what went on but we can safely say that no contract was offered.

shmmeee · Jul 1, 2014

The Gentleman said:
Thanks for that, I thought you had missed some off your first post.

I don't know what we should be paying Baker but if he wants to stay discuss a pay cut with a caveat of it increasing if we get promotion. With regard to Murphy and Moussa, at the very least a fucking offer would have been nice and don't start with all that "I would imagine that a conversation went something like....." crap that you came out with before because you, me and any other people not directly involved has no clue what went on but we can safely say that no contract was offered.

Nor was a contract offered to Marshall apparently.

Stu: That's 2013 SBS&L accounts the group didn't include CCFC Ltd at the time did it? Are we sure we're comparing apples and oranges? The figures in that post about the previous year (the one the judge is talking about) seem to match but it's hard to follow in that format. TBH I'm out of my depth, where's OSB when you need him?

Found the post for that year: http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/38617-SBS-amp-L-accounts

Still not smart enough to follow it though

Edit 2: OK, I think you're right, OSB seems to be saying the Turnover was £10.8m and the loss £4m. Though I don't know how any of the other figures play into that. £2.8m player sales profit, £1.6m Prozone profit surely go towards turnover too?

stupot07 · Jul 1, 2014

shmmeee said:
Nor was a contract offered to Marshall apparently.

Stu: That's SBS&L accounts the group didn't include CCFC Ltd at the time did it? Are we sure we're comparing apples and oranges? TBH I'm out of my depth, where's OSB when you need him?

I would imagine that they would have included CCFC Ltd as part of the group for 2011/12 as it didn't go into administration until right at the financial year, not sure about the 12/13. OSB should be able to confirm. It's depressing, big losses at the Ricoh in the championship, bottom 3-4 in terms of turnover, still massive losses in league one at the Ricoh. The judge keeps mentioning mismanagement of the company which pushed it into a "parlours state". It's depressing, I just can't see way out even with sisu gone.

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

shmmeee · Jul 1, 2014

stupot07 said:
I would imagine that they would have included CCFC Ltd as part of the group for 2011/12 as it didn't go into administration until right at the financial year, not sure about the 12/13. OSB should be able to confirm. It's depressing, big losses at the Ricoh in the championship, bottom 3-4 in terms of turnover, still massive losses in league one at the Ricoh. The judge keeps mentioning mismanagement of the company which pushed it into a "parlours state". It's depressing, I just can't see way out even with sisu gone.

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

Parlous = a state of uncertainty or danger. No doubt we were spending beyond our means and had falling gate receipts for a long time. An optimist would say we seem to have tackled the former now, unfortunately we've gone into hyperspeed in reverse on the latter. FWIW I think these are problems of every chairman since Richardson (and Richardson got the gates up, but went into overdrive on the overspend).

We need more money, no doubt, but the point the judge is making is adressing Sisu's claims that the rent was a deciding factor. Remember he's not there to judge on whether the club should have extra revenue, just whether (in this instance) it was reasonable for the club to start the rent strike.

oldskyblue58 · Jul 1, 2014

The SBS&L accounts for 2012 and 2013 are group accounts and include all income and expenses of the football club whichever company in the group owned it (including those in administration etc ).

Hope that helps

shmmeee · Jul 1, 2014

oldskyblue58 said:
The SBS&L accounts for 2012 and 2013 are group accounts and include all income and expenses of the football club whichever company in the group owned it (including those in administration etc ).

Hope that helps

Can you help with Stu's claim that the judge's figures are wrong?

Given the £5m loss on turnover of £15m in 2011-12

spider_ricoh · Jul 1, 2014

I was out of the country with no internet access until this morning, so only read the verdict during today.

We should all be thankful that the court has seen through Sisu's tactics in trying to destabilize/distress ACL and that their claims were a load of hot air - however, it does make you wonder where this will lead. Sisu will try appeal by the sounds of things, but what if they are refused leave to appeal? Or what if their appeal fails? At some point negotiations have to re-start and Sisu need to accept that simply demanding various income streams simply because "the club needs them to be competitive" has to have a trade off. They will obviously have to pay something or give something in exchange for these revenues, now that their attempt to grab the Ricoh by force appears to have failed.

Meanwhile, as promised, I am breaking open a bottle of decent champagne with 'er indoors tonight to celebrate this victory for common sense and decency - my faith in British justice pretty much restored.

stupot07 · Jul 1, 2014

shmmeee said:
Can you help with Stu's claim that the judge's figures are wrong?

To be fair I think the judge meant to say expenditure not turnover, which is why I said inaccuracy rather than wrong. This is from an earlier point (14)

"In the season 2011-12, the club incurred losses of £5m, expenditure being £15.4m (including £6.1m on players’ wages) compared with revenue of only £10.4m. [/i]

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

Full Court Verdict (1 Viewer)

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency