I'm yet to be convinced of that.
What the hell are you on about?
At the moment we have one side, who have been proven to be untruthful on more than one occasion, saying one thing and we have the other side, who have never been proven to be untruthful saying something different. Why on earth would anyone presented with those two options decide the most likely side to be telling the truth is the one who have been found to be less than truthful in the past?
How on earth you get from that to announcing the world is flat i have no idea!
Oh I think your confused. Its Higgs and sisu who are consistent here. Its the council who are not. You know Dave that caring sharing council whose every word you hang on to.
Can someone please summarise the last 100 pages as I do not have the time nor the will to read through them!
Or you could what I'm doing Tony and wait for the final verdict.
Find it much less a strain than trying to second guess everything and conjure up theories and say 'this must mean this' and 'that must mean that.'
I'm just sitting chilling and waiting for the court to decide for me.
Can someone please summarise the last 100 pages as I do not have the time nor the will to read through them!
Oh I think your confused. Its Higgs and sisu who are consistent here. Its the council who are not. You know Dave that caring sharing council whose every word you hang on to.
I'm yet to be convinced of that.
Oh ok so if he lies to a charity you are ok with that? So if that's ok I assume lying to a charity is ok from anyone - yes?
Can someone please summarise the last 100 pages as I do not have the time nor the will to read through them!
Greggs are selling quite a few Sausage Rolls apparently .
Bloody hell grendull. I thought you said that this thread was pointless. You're giving Rob S a run for his money on number of post today and he's doing running commentary.
Ultimately a Ricoh return is the priority.
I'm sure this case will go Higgs way. If it doesn't that would be a positive as it may result in a deal being done before a JR. This is unlikely and so we wait until June. If sisu fail then its bye bye CCFC. Pick your side carefully and be careful what you wish for.
Judge thought the counterclaim was over the top and had no merit, some people believe SISU always knew this and just wanted more evidence out in the open.
PWKH didn't tie a balloon on Fisher's car, but he did put one under a windscreen wiper, importantly if was partially deflated.
Simon Gilbert has more twitter followers.
A chap who posts as Rob S has a nice tie.
There's been a lot of talk about things that happened a long time after the £29k was or wasn't due, but this doesn't seem to matter, and I don't pretend to know why.
Charity trustee tells High Court hearing he was assured Sky Blues would be informed in advance about council deal for ACL debt A charity trustee has told a court he was assured the Sky Blues WOULD be told in advance about a council deal to buy out ACL’s debt.
The claim came from Paul Harris, a trustee of the Alan Edward Higgs Charity and a board member of ACL – the firm which operates the Ricoh Arena.
Coventry City owners Sisu say they were kept in the dark about the council’s plan to buy ACL’s debt from Yorkshire Bank.
The hearing centres on a dispute for the £29,000 capped costs the charity says it is owed by Sisu after negotiations to buy the charity’s stake in ACL broke down.
The claim emerged during the second day of the court hearing between the Higgs charity and Sisu at Birmingham High Court.
Under questioning from Sisu’s QC, Mr Harris said that, during an ACL board meeting in August 2012, he had spoken to Chris West, finance officer at Coventry City Council and a fellow board member of ACL.
The court has previously heard evidence that after the exclusivity period had ended the council planned to buy ACL’s debt from Yorkshire Bank and effectively become ACL’s mortgage lenders themselves without the knowledge of Sisu - who claim they were still in negotiations with the Higgs charity.
Mr Harris insisted he wanted the charity to be seen as acting ‘‘ethically’’ and therefore wanted the council to inform Sisu of their plan to buy ACL’s debt from Yorkshire Bank.
He insisted he was given assurances, by Mr West, that Sisu had already been informed of the plan by the council - and that the conversation was minuted.
He said: “I said if we are going to change the way we are looking at a potential deal we should be generally open about that.
“I received verbal confirmation of that at the board meeting on the 29th from Chris West, an ACL director.
“He told me Sisu had been informed. I can’t say whether they were. All I can say is I sought that confirmation and I was given that confirmation.
“I wanted the city council, who were in dialogue with Sisu and the trustees, to be very clear about what they were going to do as part of that restructure.
“I was given assurances of that and they were minuted assurances.”
The minutes referred to by Mr Harris could not be entered as evidence as they belong to ACL which is not directly involved in these proceedings. However, they could come to light during an impending judicial review into the council’s deal with Yorkshire Bank scheduled for June.
Earlier the court heard a memo from Mr West to Martin Reeves, chief executive of the council, stated that Sisu would be likely to see the council’s move to buy the bank debt as a ‘hostile act’.
Chairman of the Higgs trustees, Marilyn Knatchbull-Hugessen, was also called to the stand later in the proceedings - as were fellow trustees Roly Higgs and Lucy Barlow.
Mrs Knatchbull-Hugessen was asked by Mr Thompson if she was hostile towards Sisu - and the organisation’s boss Joy Seppala - because she felt the charity had spent enough money and Sisu had not put in enough into the football club.
She said: “Actually, I do think we have put enough in. But it doesn’t come down to that.
“It comes down to the use of threats and bullying to gain a commercial advantage, with which I don’t agree.”
Sisu are defending a claim from the Higgs charity for costs capped at £29,000 which they say they are owed after negotiations to buy the charity’s stake in Ricoh Arena operating firm ACL broke down.
Part of Sisu’s defence is that the Higgs Charity colluded with the council to complete the deal with Yorkshire Bank - thus making any deal with Sisu for the charity’s share impossible.
Mr Justice Leggatt had made clear earlier in the hearing that the Higgs Charity had no legal obligation to inform Sisu of talks with other parties after an ‘exclusivity’ period had expired at the end of July 2012 - leading to the dismissal of Sisu’s £290,000 counter claim.
The trial continues.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/higgs-v-sisu-latest-i-6911141
Ultimately a Ricoh return is the priority.
I'm sure this case will go Higgs way. If it doesn't that would be a positive as it may result in a deal being done before a JR. This is unlikely and so we wait until June. If sisu fail then its bye bye CCFC. Pick your side carefully and be careful what you wish for.
It's equally fair to say however, that it's in our owners' interests to have a successful football club. That may be for the 'wrong' motivations, but despite the most scurrilous rumours, failure hasn't been planned. The money may have been spent wrongly on a quick gamble with players, the foundations may have been neglected, they may have seen the club as a route to improving the wealth of their investors (and why not) but a successful club has still been the aim.
The club... should come first. I can understand it not coming first in a council with a wider objective, I can understand it not coming first in an investment fund with a wider objective... the saddest thing for me is that on a message board for Coventry City Football Club, even in the last bastion where the club should be central, it often isn't. It often reads to me that it's secondary to much of what's posted here, too... and if the club can't be made central here, where can it? Why is there a limited push to make the club come first not just in the eyes of SISU, but elsewhere too? It may be a futile aim, but why isn't that at least attempted? What is lobbying if there is no lobbying for that which should be lobbied for?
Also, Mutton and Lucas don't have the absolute power. I thought it had become apparent this was where Lucas's attempts at resolving the conflict fell down, as she wasn't in a position to make decisions by herself? (Incidentally, I'd be somewhat concerned if she could but then this is where the bipolar nature of so much comes in - I can quite happily say it's ridiculous for SISU to expect resolution by sure, swift, one-off meetings! Being critical of some elements doesn't make me a SISU plant in the slightest!)
As for other city fans who have shown themselves incompetent, repeatedly (such as Joe Elliott) then they should never darken the club's doors again. I don't care how well intentioned, his track record is either incompetent or... worse. What's best for the club is all failures of the past to have nothing to do with the club in the future. They have all had their chance, and blown it.
Clean slate, root and branch surgery. Drastic change so all those who have helped destroy the club don't get a chance to do it again.
And again.
And again.
Anyway, Masterchef's on now. I may have no football club, but I can at least watch presenters gurn ridiculously while people come up with (s)wanky dishes for them!
I'm sure this case will go Higgs way.
Ultimately a Ricoh return is the priority.
I'm sure this case will go Higgs way. If it doesn't that would be a positive as it may result in a deal being done before a JR. This is unlikely and so we wait until June. If sisu fail then its bye bye CCFC. Pick your side carefully and be careful what you wish for.
Yes I agree, Higgs seem to have acted in good faith and have put the blame firmly on CCC.
Can anyone summarise what's happened so far?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks Godiva much appreciated.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think that the best thing you can do is wait for the judges summing up and form an opinion on that Rob. That's what I'm going to do.
Yes I agree, Higgs seem to have acted in good faith and have put the blame firmly on CCC.
Well written as ever, but just to pick you up on a couple of things here.
If you spend £50m and end up in a shed when you had the use of a mansion you are in big trouble. I suppose if they had got the use of wembley it would have got my seal of approval.So the tenure if your argument is Northampton have an inferior ground - a "shed". So if they had a superior ground the temporary relocation would have your seal of approval?
Thank Simon, he did the hard part. In fact we should pool together and buy him a new pen for tomorrow.
You'll be in for a shock if they decide you're liable...
If you want to find someone guilty that hasn't had a chance to speak then yes. But you have always backed SISU all the way anyway so it isn't much of a surprise.
Oh I think your confused. Its Higgs and sisu who are consistent here. Its the council who are not. You know Dave that caring sharing council whose every word you hang on to.
But what about Masterchef? Celia's dish looks like cat vomit!
I'm recording it. Generally speaking it just highlights me for the brutish ignoramus I am - the wife tires of me asking questions like, "what's a jus" and "is a ganache just a posh chocolate cake then". But when I ask her to sum up the relevant points from SISU's latest court outing she is utterly stumped, so I can always get my own back.
Plus I think she secretly likes my oldskyblue58 t-shirt.
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?