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.
Here are the problems I have with all this JR stuff
The loan wasnt from central government it was from the Public Works Loan Board at a favourable rate of interest - nothing I have seen from that body says they can not make the loan
Certainly the PWLB doesnt seem to be acting outside its powers
The Council with unanimous support of the councillors approved the deal in a meeting where you would assume full details were provided
Councillors on both sides represent the local taxpayers
The loan to ACL is at a higher rate of interest than the Council is paying - so in theory no loss to the tax payer
ACL is not just a stadium operator (in the sense that football comes first in terms of turnover or share of turnover) and forms part of a clear documented plan to regenerate North Coventry ie there is more at stake for them than the interests of a League1 football club
The reduction in loan repayments reduced ACL cashflow and increased profits to enable them to pass on the benefits to the club in their reduced rent offer
ACL did not go bust as could have happened under the old loan arrangement
CCFC still had a good opportunity to improve their arrangement and finances because of it
So leaving aside whether there is some small print that leaves open a challenge by someone prejudiced by the loan - where is the down side for Taxpayer, Council, ACL even CCFC ?
Unless the prejudice was to stop the club getting hands on an asset valuable to the City of Coventry at below market value:thinking about:Is that a vexacious claim?
So leaving aside whether there is some small print that leaves open a challenge by someone prejudiced by the loan - where is the down side for Taxpayer, Council, ACL even CCFC ?
Unless the prejudice was to stop the club getting hands on an asset valuable to the City of Coventry at below market value:thinking about:Is that a vexacious claim?
fair points all the way. the only reply i would like to make is regards the previous 4 years. I think sisu have admitted to mismanging the club in those years. they opologised to the fans and sought to move forward, the Ranson years were not good, they were poor, every time a business model was put in place the club had either awful luck or the players turned out to be damp squids.
Are you sure you don't mean damp squits?
Personally I wouldn't take legal advice from someone who doesn't check their english. but I suppose legal experts rely on their secretaries to get the wording right on contracts.
plus the amount of time you spend on here must be costing someone a fortune.
APOLOGY-Oops didn't mean to like this post-wasn't concentrating-sorry
Are you sure you don't mean damp squits?
Personally I wouldn't take legal advice from someone who doesn't check their english. but I suppose legal experts rely on their secretaries to get the wording right on contracts.
plus the amount of time you spend on here must be costing someone a fortune.
you dont think Sisu have shown any good business strategy? they have kept a club alive (when in reality its dead as door nails) with massive debts most companies would have crumbled under. yet we are still alive. you dont think Sisu show good business sense? Sisu have pandered to our fans buy sacking every manager when the fans have a majority asking the manager to go, Sisu have invested in good players with great reputations -only to be let down by the players, Sisu have staved off a proper attempt by the council/acl to have our club liquidated (something our fans seem blind to), Sisu have sought to save this club by manoeuvring the rent issue - wether you as a fan like what they have done or not doesnt matter - the fact is Sisu acted in the best way forward for the BUSINESS .. AND THE CLUB.
You dont think Sisu have kept us from being liquidated? what do you think has just taken place in the last couple of months?
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. also there is the question : why do the council need to be so closely involved in our club? why?? they have nothing to do with football, they should need to be involved but they are - i am not going to say too much for fear of being sued however do not be surprised to find a proper controversy and scandal hitting Coventry city council in the upcoming months - obviously around the time of the JR
i dont think ive ever heard such a lot of moaning little whiners in my life ... back the owners against the council, the council tried to fuck our club up - when are you deluded mothers going to get it? they started administration proceedings against to liquidate us!!! and yet we still have fans backing the council. pathetic truly.
.. what i do know is you dont start a judicial review unless you have pretty good QC and barristers thinking they see a winner.
Exactly last week he was disabled with a carer looking after him, today he is a lawyer who spends half the day on SBT.
Obviously he could be a disabled lawyer with a carer...
I don't fancy getting damp squits http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/SquitsAre you sure you don't mean damp squits?
Personally I wouldn't take legal advice from someone who doesn't check their english. but I suppose legal experts rely on their secretaries to get the wording right on contracts.
plus the amount of time you spend on here must be costing someone a fortune.
What I do know is that you've completely misunderstood the situation.
This particular JR is unusual: it implies that CCC have somehow broken EU fair competition laws by refinancing a company (ACL) that was itself in the process of being distressed by the company bringing the JR.
In other words SISU are saying 'You've scuppered our chance of distressing ACL so we can get it on the cheap, so we'll do what we do best and take you to court, citing some obscure EU ruling in an attempt to obfuscate the real facts.'
What's to prove that their 'pretty good QC and barristers' have told them they think they see a winner? They might have told them they haven't got a chance. After all, they'll still get paid win or lose, and the whole matter seems to me to be posturing and poor PR by SISU. What's the betting that they withdraw at the last moment? What's in it for SISU even if they win the JR?
What you have done is make this thread come off topic with your usual misunderstanding of the history and facts, together with your blind faith in SISU.
I suspect you are a SISU plant - I'm certain you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.
I feel sorry for his family, being left in Spain whilst Daddy heads back to the UK.I think GH knows that SISU/TF unlikely to accept. Our owners it would seem are perfectly capable of finding the funds if they wanted to. As you say Nick this is just a loan, and do SISU need loans from GH & Co - No
I tend to think this was an exercise to prove to others including the FL that there were deals that could have been done. As it is portrayed it shows TF as being intransigent and not wanting to do a deal the Ricoh. Which is important because TF has been telling FL that ACL wont deal with SISU and therefore this whole situation is ACL's fault. Coming back from holiday was also a clever move because it has been portrayed as TF refusing to meet someone who was willing to make a deak work at the Ricoh.
Overall it is all still a PR battle if you ask me
I don't drive, but if I did I'd join you doing that - could do a Top Gear style race. Which reminds me I must get my hair cut, I do not suit a bandana.If I had as much money I'd drive my R8 back from Spain (like on top gear) just because I could...
i spoke to somebody the other day ,a big business figure in coventry ,who told me RICOH are looking to pull out of the arena deal (naming rights)as all the negative talk is under their name and not ACL / council etc .There are some very good points raised on here as I read through. TBF true sky blue has raised quite a few valid arguments but I tend to agree with the over view that OSB outlines in a couple of post.
I'm not quite sure where SISU are headed with this JR process but then again we are not fully aware of all the facts.
As for the Hoffman saga. Many on here when it was first muted backed it to the hilt and accused Fisher of being somewhat of a dick to refuse etc etc. I insisted it was wrong and was not a sensible offer for SISU to accept and was among the few. Now it seems many of you have come to realise this.
I only mention this because before you run your mouth think carefully first. Stick with what you believe not change your mind days later.
SISU/Fisher may not be the flavour of the month but I do wish everyone would try and see how both sides have acted consistently badly and both are somewhat culpable for this entire sorry predicament.
As for someone saying ACL's accounts were only affected 9% by the absence of the football club my be correct I don't know but you can't dismiss the damage the footfall has on the other business interest that have to make their money and with the footfall gone that will have a dramatic affect for ACL. If I were a lease holder there I would probably want out or compensating.
There is not a sporting team anywhere big enough to fill the shoes left by the Sky Blues at the Ricoh...a thought that must worry ACL a lot.
How these two sides have failed to find a way forward is beyond me other than to say the Sky Blues need it all to stack up for them or renting a stadium becomes pointless.
Absolutely.
He said, at a minimum, expect a five-figure biil (not £109.99 btw!) to get it to court.
You could do the pre-planning and submit the initial case bundle (the legal paperwork) with a bit of good will and some hard work for a lot less than that, but once it gets to instructing barristers costs start to rocket.
Interesting that. Remind me how much rent do Premier League Swansea pay and how much did they contribute to the stadium construction?
http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/C...tory-12754243-detail/story.html#axzz2Z8FAOl3HPWC report via thisissouthwales.co.uk said:"financial position of SSMC remains precarious and the current revenue sharing arrangements are considered unsustainable". It also reveals that Swansea Council made a further loan to the SSMC in 2005, for £2.6 million, which it later wrote off, even though auditors "were not aware of any reason why such a loan could not have been sought from a commercial lender".
I don't fancy getting damp squits http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Squits
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?