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?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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
if the majority of posts on the forum were talking about GR and BR then that would be pretty weird.
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
if the majority of posts on the forum were talking about GR and BR then that would be pretty weird.
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?
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.
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
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?
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.
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...
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?
See above. I think I covered this off
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.
Remind me what sentence they received.... for their illegal action. Didn't realise that a criminal case had occured...
But surely the councils actions have been scrutinised within the context of the Judicial Review?!?
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
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.
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.
Remind me what sentence they received.... for their illegal action. Didn't realise that a criminal case had occured...
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.”
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.
I wonder why a private investor didn't provide the loan to ACL though instead of CCC?
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.
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.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.
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
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?