hell will freeze over... (7 Viewers)

[Nick]

Agreed but the ccc and Higgs are gone now. Sisu haven't I think that's people's problem.

Interestingly only said by people who didn't think the ccc did anything wrong. Gr etc have gone but doesn't mean we shouldn't find out the truths about back then does it?

Coventry city council will always be involved with ccfc won't they in some way or another.

 

---

[Kingokings204]

Interestingly only said by people who didn't think the ccc did anything wrong. Gr etc have gone but doesn't mean we shouldn't find out the truths about back then does it?

Coventry city council will always be involved with ccfc won't they in some way or another.

Possibly but they can't run the day to day players in players out all that side can they? The council have not helped the football club for one second but it doesn't take a genius to see why.

Fwiw I don't think not one fan thinks the council did "nothing" wrong. They have done nothing wrong legally as a fact and sisu have as a fact. That's got to matter when our owners have broke the law on our football club? If it was the council who were proved to have broke the law I would love to see this forum for a few days. Be in meltdown.

 

[torchomatic]

I'm sure we don't know the full facts. And, of course, you're right. The judge ruled on State Aid and SISU got it wrong. However, I think if CCC/ACL/SISU had been more honest and open from the start then we might not even be discussing this, or Sixfields, or Wasps. It would be nice to think that CCFC had the Ricoh for 250 years.

What makes you think we know the full facts from either side? All we know that are the ones relevant to the JR and even then it will only be the ones that have been unearthed and deemed relevant from both sides.

In the big scheme of what's happened we know jack and you can guarantee that the suppression of facts is happening on all sides.

You have to accept the judges (plural) verdicts and they say SISU have it wrong.

 

[Nick]

Possibly but they can't run the day to day players in players out all that side can they? The council have not helped the football club for one second but it doesn't take a genius to see why.

Fwiw I don't think not one fan thinks the council did "nothing" wrong. They have done nothing wrong legally as a fact and sisu have as a fact. That's got to matter when our owners have broke the law on our football club? If it was the council who were proved to have broke the law I would love to see this forum for a few days. Be in meltdown.

Has a judge said sisu broke the law? Have they been charged and found guilty?

I agree, I want the truths to come out about all sides, whether it makes some of my personal thoughts look wrong or not. Surely any fan would want to know the truth about what has gone on rather than sweep it under the carpet?

 

[torchomatic]

In denial more like.

Be in meltdown.

 

[Noggin]

Interestingly only said by people who didn't think the ccc did anything wrong. Gr etc have gone but doesn't mean we shouldn't find out the truths about back then does it?

Coventry city council will always be involved with ccfc won't they in some way or another.

if the majority of posts on the forum were talking about GR and BR then that would be pretty weird.

I'm all for finding out exactly what happened from everyone involved be that the council, current owners, old owners, administrator etc etc but 100 times more important than that is focusing on the people who are doing the damage now and continuing to do the damage. by all means once sisu are gone focus on the council around election time if you think they hold a big part of the blame.

The suggestion that it's a good thing that sisu are starting yet another case because it will get to the truth is ridiculous, it will take forever, the damage is continueing rapidly while it happens and there is no evidence thats going to change anything or even get to the truth.

If they were to fuck off and then continue the court cases there would be a hell of alot less opposition to them.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Has a judge said sisu broke the law? Have they been charged and found guilty?

I agree, I want the truths to come out about all sides, whether it makes some of my personal thoughts look wrong or not. Surely any fan would want to know the truth about what has gone on rather than sweep it under the carpet?

Read today's Telegraph article, Nick. The one about why SISU's latest appeal has been thrown out. Specifically, this bit with regards Mr Justice Hickinbottom's judgement:

'The judge delivered a comprehensive assessment of legal challenge in favour of the council after a three-day hearing at Birmingham High Court, which was also largely damning of the Sky Blues’ owners.'

This is after consideration of ALL facts presented by all sides. Indeed, SISU are not shy in holding back, indeed Lord Justice Burnett has just stated that “The over-long skeleton argument (and supporting annex) over-complicates the factual and legal issues".

So, SISU take rather a blunderbuss approach to getting as much out there as they can. The notion of sweeping under the carpet is laughable.

And when all of this data is considered by independent judges - time and time again - they are all primarily damning of the club's owners.

Nobody is saying that the council are perfect, of course they're not; but this continued belief that there's some equality of blame (or anything even close); or trawling over every nuance of any transgression from CCC in the face of 'the bigger picture' goes against everything independent judges are seeing. Repeatedly

 

[chiefdave]

if the majority of posts on the forum were talking about GR and BR then that would be pretty weird.

It's more like suggesting if SISU left tomorrow then we'd never speak about them again and they couldn't be blamed for any future problems. Somehow I don't think that would be how it would play out.

 

[Nick]

Read today's Telegraph article, Nick. The one about why SISU's latest appeal has been thrown out. Specifically, this bit with regards Mr Justice Hickinbottom's judgement:

'The judge delivered a comprehensive assessment of legal challenge in favour of the council after a three-day hearing at Birmingham High Court, which was also largely damning of the Sky Blues’ owners.'

This is after consideration of ALL facts presented by all sides. Indeed, SISU are not shy in holding back, indeed Lord Justice Burnett has just stated that “The over-long skeleton argument (and supporting annex) over-complicates the factual and legal issues".

So, SISU take rather a blunderbuss approach to getting as much out there as they can. The notion of sweeping under the carpet is laughable.

And when all of this data is considered by independent judges - time and time again - they are all primarily damning of the club's owners.

Nobody is saying that the council are perfect, of course they're not; but this continued belief that there's some equality of blame (or anything even close); or trawling over every nuance of any transgression from CCC in the face of 'the bigger picture' goes against everything independent judges are seeing. Repeatedly

So people don't want things CCC have done swept under the carpet?

Again, they are still persisting about it being illegal state aid. I think they are fighting a losing battle, however just because the judge doesn't think it was illegal state aid it doesn't mean the council can't do anything wrong (like you say).

Are these independent judges looking to see whether CCC were dicks to the club or are they looking to see whether it was illegal state aid? By me saying the council being dicks, that doesn't automatically mean that SISU are angels by the way, it is a given that they have been dicks.

 

[Nick]

if the majority of posts on the forum were talking about GR and BR then that would be pretty weird.

No but if for example it came out that something happened to do with the Ricoh at the start where they were all blackmailed because they were all caught sniffing coke off a rent boys chest (not that they did, I am not saying they did) then surely people would want to know about it? OR if there was a bit of funny business with a land deal or something like that when we first moved, people should know about it shouldn't they?

If SISU go next week, does that mean nobody will want to know more about things they have done? I certainly would. OR would it all be totally down to the new owners and everything is in the past and they are nothing to do with the club now?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

So people don't want things CCC have done swept under the carpet?

Again, they are still persisting about it being illegal state aid. I think they are fighting a losing battle, however just because the judge doesn't think it was illegal state aid it doesn't mean the council can't do anything wrong (like you say).

Are these independent judges looking to see whether CCC were dicks to the club or are they looking to see whether it was illegal state aid?

Well let's think back to the court hearings of 2012.

“Sisu distressed the financial position of ACL by refusing to pay ACL any rent or licence fee,” the judge found. “... It had the effect of reducing the value of the share in ACL that Sisu coveted. Sisu’s strategy of distressing ACL’s financial position ... was quite deliberate.”

So, the point being, these judges will look at actions and draw logical conclusions; almost all of which have been very, very critical of our owners. Very little being critical of the council

 

[Samo]

So people don't want things CCC have done swept under the carpet?

Again, they are still persisting about it being illegal state aid. I think they are fighting a losing battle, however just because the judge doesn't think it was illegal state aid it doesn't mean the council can't do anything wrong (like you say).

Are these independent judges looking to see whether CCC were dicks to the club or are they looking to see whether it was illegal state aid? By me saying the council being dicks, that doesn't automatically mean that SISU are angels by the way, it is a given that they have been dicks.

Nail on the head. Regardless of the JR or state aid or what any judge says about that particular issue, CCC have treated the club in a very shoddy manner and that should not be forgotten.

 

[Ian1779]

Read today's Telegraph article, Nick. The one about why SISU's latest appeal has been thrown out. Specifically, this bit with regards Mr Justice Hickinbottom's judgement:

'The judge delivered a comprehensive assessment of legal challenge in favour of the council after a three-day hearing at Birmingham High Court, which was also largely damning of the Sky Blues’ owners.'

This is after consideration of ALL facts presented by all sides. Indeed, SISU are not shy in holding back, indeed Lord Justice Burnett has just stated that “The over-long skeleton argument (and supporting annex) over-complicates the factual and legal issues".

So, SISU take rather a blunderbuss approach to getting as much out there as they can. The notion of sweeping under the carpet is laughable.

And when all of this data is considered by independent judges - time and time again - they are all primarily damning of the club's owners.

Nobody is saying that the council are perfect, of course they're not; but this continued belief that there's some equality of blame (or anything even close); or trawling over every nuance of any transgression from CCC in the face of 'the bigger picture' goes against everything independent judges are seeing. Repeatedly

Look at this from another way.

Currently at this point.. neither CCC or SISU have acted in a way deemed to be illegal.

The CVA was rejected and the club was put into a second administration because, we are told, that ACL felt that something untoward took place. That implies illegal. Yet this was not proven at all to this date.

So in the best interests of all... lets have the council and AL investigated appropriately to see if there was anything illegal that took place in regards to her (and her subordinates) conduct in this matter.

 

[Kingokings204]

Has a judge said sisu broke the law? Have they been charged and found guilty?

I agree, I want the truths to come out about all sides, whether it makes some of my personal thoughts look wrong or not. Surely any fan would want to know the truth about what has gone on rather than sweep it under the carpet?

Yes Of course sisu broke the law illegally. Yes they were found guilty. Why ask obvious questions.

"Sisu illegally stopped paying rent to distress ACL"

I have seen and heard that quote a million times. It's in black and white.

Yes we all want to kno what's going on of course I agree but sisu aren't doing anything to our football club but run it into the ground and league 2 is certain imo. Don't you think that's a shame?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Look at this from another way.

Currently at this point.. neither CCC or SISU have acted in a way deemed to be illegal.

The CVA was rejected and the club was put into a second administration because, we are told, that ACL felt that something untoward took place. That implies illegal. Yet this was not proven at all to this date.

So in the best interests of all... lets have the council and AL investigated appropriately to see if there was anything illegal that took place in regards to her (and her subordinates) conduct in this matter.

Illegal is a strong word as it implies breaking the law per se, as opposed to breaking a contract. SISU have been found guilty of breaking the rent contract at Birmingham Court, no?

Beyind that, the question of legality has never really been raised. Also remaining mindful that CCC or ACL have normally been defending their position in the face of SISU's litigation; not the other way around. Despite them defending, there's normally overwhelming criticism of SISU's position, across - what - four judges now?

 

[Ian1779]

Yes Of course sisu broke the law illegally. Yes they were found guilty. Why ask obvious questions.

"Sisu illegally stopped paying rent to distress ACL"

I have seen and heard that quote a million times. It's in black and white.

Yes we all want to kno what's going on of course I agree but sisu aren't doing anything to our football club but run it into the ground and league 2 is certain imo. Don't you think that's a shame?

Remind me what sentence they received.... for their illegal action. Didn't realise that a criminal case had occured...

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Remind me what sentence they received.... for their illegal action. Didn't realise that a criminal case had occured...

See above. I think I covered this off

 

[Ian1779]

Illegal is a strong word as it implies breaking the law per se, as opposed to breaking a contract. SISU have been found guilty of breaking the rent contract at Birmingham Court, no?

Beyind that, the question of legality has never really been raised. Also remaining mindful that CCC or ACL have normally been defending their position in the face of SISU's litigation; not the other way around. Despite them defending, there's normally overwhelming criticism of SISU's position, across - what - four judges now?

I'm not disputing the case of the JR.. they made a claim.. they lost. It is simple in my eyes.

I'm more interested in why certain parties in this case have casually thrown around the notion of things being illegal yet there has not been anything that has come to light that is. That includes obviously the JR, but the reasons behind rejecting the CVA.. and now Lucas' apparent deception.

We've had the JR findings
We've seen the admin process was not illegal
Now let's see if the Council's actions are up to the measure aswell.

 

[Ian1779]

See above. I think I covered this off

Thanks

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I'm not disputing the case of the JR.. they made a claim.. they lost. It is simple in my eyes.

I'm more interested in why certain parties in this case have casually thrown around the notion of things being illegal yet there has not been anything that has come to light that is. That includes obviously the JR, but the reasons behind rejecting the CVA.. and now Lucas' apparent deception.

We've had the JR findings
We've seen the admin process was not illegal
Now let's see if the Council's actions are up to the measure aswell.

But surely the councils actions have been scrutinised within the context of the Judicial Review?!?

Edited to add: and the sanctity of the Judicial Review upheld - totally - by the Judicial Review appeal

 

[Sub]

Remind me what sentence they received.... for their illegal action. Didn't realise that a criminal case had occured...

The fans are the ones that get the sentence not the council or SISU no matter who wins all the legal battles

 

[Ian1779]

But surely the councils actions have been scrutinised within the context of the Judicial Review?!?

In the context of the matter of state aid - yes.

In the matter of deceiving people about the state of the ACL business - most certainly not.

 

[torchomatic]

State aid wise yep. The judge scrutinized the information the council gave him, didn't he? What has come to light subsequently seems to dispute some of that, doesn't it? For example the pot of money where the £14M came from. Fair enough I guess as the judge could only come to a decision on what he had before him, but still.

But surely the councils actions have been scrutinised within the context of the Judicial Review?!?

Edited to add: and the sanctity of the Judicial Review upheld - totally - by the Judicial Review appeal

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

In the context of the matter of state aid - yes.

In the matter of deceiving people about the state of the ACL business - most certainly not.

You're wrong. Have you read the wording of the State Aid case? The judge actually commented on that ACL were quite able to service the loan for over 40 years. The businesses' health was absolutely and certainly looked at.

Indeed as I commented the other day, the judge's view actually supports what Lucas was saying at the time, being in possession of the same data supplied by all parties (including the club's owners)

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

State aid wise yep. The judge scrutinized the information the council gave him, didn't he? What has come to light subsequently seems to dispute some of that, doesn't it? For example the pot of money where the £14M came from. Fair enough I guess as the judge could only come to a decision on what he had before him, but still.

No, not information from the council, information from all parties - including the club's owners. If CCC or ACL's information was incorrect, SISU should have challenged it at the time. That's how it works

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

This is what the judge stated:

"On the basis of all the evidence, in my judgment, a rational private market operator in the position of the Council might well have considered that refinancing ACL on the terms in fact agreed was commercially preferable to allowing ACL to become insolvent.”

He said: “The private investor in the shoes of the Council would have been properly entitled to take the view that ACL was capable of servicing a loan for £14.4m over 41 years, and the security was sufficient to make the risk of it failing to do so commercially worthwhile.”

And you think he would make a judgement like that without appraising ACL's forward prognosis?

 

[Kingokings204]

Remind me what sentence they received.... for their illegal action. Didn't realise that a criminal case had occured...

MMM stated correctly. I merely just quoted the judge. He said illegal so that's good enough for me.

 

[lordsummerisle]

He said: “The private investor in the shoes of the Council would have been properly entitled to take the view that ACL was capable of servicing a loan for £14.4m over 41 years, and the security was sufficient to make the risk of it failing to do so commercially worthwhile.”

I wonder why a private investor didn't provide the loan to ACL though instead of CCC?

 

[italiahorse]

Nail on the head. Regardless of the JR or state aid or what any judge says about that particular issue, CCC have treated the club in a very shoddy manner and that should not be forgotten.

They have prioritised their decisions and as CCC ratepayers would expect made CCFC low priority.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I wonder why a private investor didn't provide the loan to ACL though instead of CCC?

That I can't say. What I can say is that a judge, asked to make that specific judgement based on information given to him by all parties (including the club's owners), concluded what he did; and those considerations are in black and white above. There's enough going on right now without introducing conjecture; but if you deal with facts from independent judges, it's all there, and has all been considered

 

[torchomatic]

Did anyone here Maton on CWR this morning talking about it? The council are giving £2M to the redevelopers of Cathedral Lanes. He seemed quite reluctant to go too far into it though. "Commercial sensitivity" and all that.

 

[skybluetony176]

Did anyone here Maton on CWR this morning talking about it? The council are giving £2M to the redevelopers of Cathedral Lanes. He seemed quite reluctant to go too far into it though. "Commercial sensitivity" and all that.

I hear the owners of West Orchard are applying for a JR as they believe its illegal state aid.

 

[tisza]

I wonder why a private investor didn't provide the loan to ACL though instead of CCC?

at the time the argument was that it needed doing quickly in order to protect the council's investment and they were unsure of whether SISU would be successful in buying the debt of YB.

 

[torchomatic]

All well and good but it puts the Council's cash at risk, doesn't it? Why not let a private investor take the risk and protect the taxpayer?

at the time the argument was that it needed doing quickly in order to protect the council's investment and they were unsure of whether SISU would be successful in buying the debt of YB.

 

[chiefdave]

But surely the councils actions have been scrutinised within the context of the Judicial Review?!?

Edited to add: and the sanctity of the Judicial Review upheld - totally - by the Judicial Review appeal

Isn't the JR's only concern the validity of the original loan to ACL, and then only on the basis of information available at the time? Does that not mean any other action by CCC, such as the sale to Wasps, is not covered?

There's all sorts of other issues. For example the loan, to date, has been ruled legal. However the vote taken by CCC was not if ACL should be loaned money from CCC reserves yet that is what has happened. Isn't there an arguement that the vote is therefore invalidated? Same with the sale to Wasps, Lucas is claiming the information supplied by, presumably, Reeves and West was incorrect, a vote to sell based on that incorrect information could therefore be considered invalid. Certainly I think there is enough doubt there to warrant an investigation of some sort.