T
true sky blue
Guest
exactly : Without the council we would not be in the ricoh, we would still be in highfield road, and probably back in top flight by now. The coucil are by no means our saviours
you feckin moron - without the council there wouldn't be a ground to argue about - they had to save the deal because the previous owmers blew the money and we nearly didnt have anywhere to play. Sisu have put in hardly any money - they have sold all our decent players and hardly bought anyone (we were embargoed most of the time) and charged ccfc a fortune for feck all to build up fictitious debts to give them the upper hand in an administration that they were always planning. That's what these feckers do - asset strip, screw partner organisations and then having taken them over on the cheap - either asset strip them too or sell to take their profit and look for the next poor buggers to shaft!!
You are aware of hotel development, exhibition halls, retail, the casino etc...
If SISU have fucked off to northants and acl put up the Ricoh for sale, why would you erroneously assume only someone owning a football team would bid for it?
According to their published accounts, income from CCFC accounts for approx 9% of their income.
Yet you insist on repeating this lie about then being dead in the water ad finitum. I wonder why you would do such a thing?
HAVE A SEARCH YOURSELF BUD:: IM TOO BUSY TO BE HONEST.. YOU WILL FIND ONE OR TWO
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/
OR HERE
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/sino_...EMENTS&method=boolean&highlight=1&mask_path=/
- VINTER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 66069/09 130/10 3896/10 - Grand Chamber Judgment [2013] ECHR 645 (09 July 2013) (View without highlighting) [100%]
([2013] ECHR 645; From European Court of Human Rights; 215 KB)
... other listings removed... pointless
exactly : Without the council we would not be in the ricoh, we would still be in highfield road, and probably back in top flight by now. The coucil are by no means our saviours
exactly : Without the council we would not be in the ricoh, we would still be in highfield road, and probably back in top flight by now. The coucil are by no means our saviours
Oh right, so it was the council that sold Highfield Road and paid just shy of a million pounds per season to rent it back!
Bryan Richardson will be so pleased that it wasn't his fault after all!
edit: Seyeclops beat me to it!
sorry you said earlier:
(my bolding)
so did you just mean cov city council or any council?
i'm afraid most of that seems to relate to stuff coming in the future. Could you be bothered to read a little further, i think the local government act 2003, section 12 (which is i believe is still in force) might inform you further:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/26/section/12
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/26/notes/division/4/1/9
here's the key note:
A local authority may invest—
(a)for any purpose relevant to its functions under any enactment, or
(b)for the purposes of the prudent management of its financial affairs.
For the avoidance of doubt, section 12 makes clear that authorities have power to invest, not only for any purpose relevant to their functions but also for the purpose of the prudential management of their financial affairs.
Are sisu challenging that with their judicial review, do you think? Pretty tough one to win, i'd say.
Unless you know of any other law or rule they might've broken - the stuff you've sent is rather vague and wishy-washy i'm afraid.
I've looked through a few here. They're absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.
Be honest, there's not a single example of a JR being used in the way that you've outlined is there? Not one.
Sorry to catch you out, but with regard to JRs you're going on entirely on opinion and not evidence. You are misinformed.
So c'mon bud. You've made the claim. Back it up.
i've looked through a few here. They're absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.
Be honest, there's not a single example of a jr being used in the way that you've outlined is there? Not one.
Sorry to catch you out, but with regard to jrs you're going on entirely on opinion and not evidence. You are misinformed.
so c'mon bud. You've made the claim. Back it up.
Doh Doh Doh !!!!! :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
The club had already sold Highfield Road before the Council were forced to step in a save the ground deal (and by the way this was Conservative led Council and not the lot that are in now)!! I didnt want to leave Highfield Road either but you are blaming the Council for that now too - epic fail!!
exactly : Without the council we would not be in the ricoh, we would still be in highfield road, and probably back in top flight by now. The coucil are by no means our saviours
So Swansea Council are just as guilty as Coventry City Council then? Will SISU be going after them too?no council can loan to a company it is a share owner in. None. It can grant, it can provide government funding, but it cant simply loan. However if all parties agree on a loan there would be no civil action to prevent it or action to recoup after the fact. There is also tax payer consultation for figures of that amount. To think the coucil have gone ahead and released 14 million pounds without any consultation of tax payers is an absolute disgrace. Wrongful and unlawful. The council must account for each pound - propping up their own company is simply not one of those scenarios
The Role of Local Authorities in Delivering Football Stadia by County Council of The City and County of Cardiff said:37. In the case of Swansea County Council, the Council put direct money
into the scheme (£27 million plus £6.854 million from the sale of Council
owned land) as well as providing a loan of £2 million to the Stadium
Management Company to cover fit out costs. This loan is over a 20year
period and was provided via prudential borrowing. In addition, the
Council provided a £2.5 million rental guarantee to the retail developer,
Capital & Regional; in the event this guarantee has not been required
and the Council are due overage monies due to the success of the retail
development. Finally, Swansea Council agreed to meet the remediation
and piling costs of the stadium at risk; in the event, these costs were as
predicted and further monies were not required from the Council.
to be clear the issue is that the council are part owners of the firm they have loaned to. That is the sole issue.
Sorry but in business, especially if you are financial experts, then bad luck or blaming it on the players performance really does not wash too well. They still made the decisions to spend on wages more than turnover to acquire the player for example. They havent detailed the mistakes they made though have they, so do they know or is it a sound bite to try mellow fan reactions?
strictly speaking the council is not a share holder in ACL - North Coventry Holdings is
i guarantee this JR is regards solely the lawfullness of the payment of loan, not so much anti - comp. though the anti comp matter can be another litigation in the high court and i believe it should as the council in essence used tax to prop up ACL when they were clearly beat and about to go under.. leaving the door open for sisu.. there is some competition issues there.
The document you refer to seems to cover govenment grants - this wasnt
Plus the policy is dated after the refinancing of ACL was completed
That aside the JR action is brought under the European anti competition rules
i hope you clicked on the link: There are about 50,000 judicial reviews for you to search - over the last 10 years. Youll need to search further
even the best qc in the uk wouldnt have found one that fast bud: Sorry to catch you out there
to be clear the issue is that the council are part owners of the firm they have loaned to. That is the sole issue.
(the first post from TSB)
JUDICIAL REVIEW: there is no higher rate of claim than a judicial review. the council have paid 14 million pounds to prop up a business they are partners in!! unless there has been a law change councils can not invest council owned monies into business they have a part in, it unethical and i believe it is against the law. There have been a few cases of council doing this in the past and they have been hammered for doing so.
<tumbleweed>
Mate, seriously, you're making the claim. You prove it. Who has caught who out here, really?
i havent got the time duffer and i am no where near case judgements. it takes days if not weeks to find case judgement. its easy to discount - and there the difference between a winner and loser in a court trial
i hope you clicked on the link: There are about 50,000 judicial reviews for you to search - over the last 10 years. Youll need to search further
even the best qc in the uk wouldnt have found one that fast bud: Sorry to catch you out there
Actually no they own shares in North Coventry Holdings Limited who own shares in ACL. The money has been lent bearing an interest charge to ACL not NCH ltd. ACL being a seperate legal entity over which, based on the issued share capital, CCC has no overall control.
Going to be some interesting legal arguments I think
I would guess that you would call that not actual ownership but "beneficial ownership"........... now where have I heard that before?
i havent got the time duffer and i am no where near case judgements. it takes days if not weeks to find case judgement. its easy to discount - and there the difference between a winner and loser in a court trial
got to say though judicial reviews are much more expensive than straight forward high court money claims.
Besides time is money, and you know how much you bleedin' lawyers charge.
i dont charge high rates at all, im in family law and employment law now after becoming bored with money claims. my only interest in this is my love of the club and my past history in judicial reviews. they are a strange animal and council lose more than they publish to the public.
Total and utter bullshit!
i dont charge high rates at all, im in family law and employment law now after becoming bored with money claims. my only interest in this is my love of the club and my past history in judicial reviews. they are a strange animal and council lose more than they publish to the public.
Well, according to Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, I'm not sure that SISU can pursue a claim of state aid.
One of the tests is that the aid provided by the State must "affect trade between Member States".
Not quite sure how providing a loan to a stadium management company in Coventry is going to affect trade between other Member States of the EU.
oh dear :facepalm:
yep thats the kind of clever response i expect from some. its why the council have you so easily believe them
it still is not the same as our situation. were the owners of the club and the stadium in a pitch battle at the time? no .. it seems to me the swansea method was agreed by all parties
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?