Higgs vs CCFC Court Row (29 Viewers)

lordsummerisle said:

And should a charity apparently dedicated to the disadvantaged children of the Coventry Area be bailing out a club that had massively overspent?

Click to expand...

It's not just dedicated to disavantaged children though is it, it's something like to benefit the people of Coventry and the environs. Now obviously that will include the disadvantaged children but it isn't limited to them and could include our club. The Higgs (family not the charity) were always big supporters of the Club so hardly surprising that they wanted to help us out. The exact wording of what the charity supports can be found in the accounts (available on the Charity Commission website,) my phone has lost the last accounts that I downloaded so I can't check at the mo.

!Question, if Sisu are claiming that the Higgs were conspiring with the council against Sisu - if Sisu were to lose does that affect the JR? Or is the council 'cheating' Sisu out of ACL by buying the mortgage not covered by the JR and it is just related to the fact that the council bought the mortgage at all?
Either way it will be interesting to see some facts come out. Will Mr Labovitch be giving evidence by any chance?

James Smith said:

!Question, if Sisu are claiming that the Higgs were conspiring with the council against Sisu - if Sisu were to lose does that affect the JR? Or is the council 'cheating' Sisu out of ACL by buying the mortgage not covered by the JR and it is just related to the fact that the council bought the mortgage at all?
Either way it will be interesting to see some facts come out. Will Mr Labovitch be giving evidence by any chance?

Click to expand...

I was thinking that myself.

Surely the judge cannot make a decision on whether Higgs and CCC conspired against Sisu before the Juducial Review.

The way I see it is, Higgs have a signed agreement that costs will be awarded to them if the deal to but the Ricoh doesn't go ahead (that doesn't seem to be disputed by either party).

Sisu's defence is Higgs knew about the "illegal" loan by CCC to ACL. However that has yet to be proven to be illegal, and could only by proven as that by the JR in June.

So Sisu's argument is that Higgs knew that CCC lent ACL a legitimate (as at the moment the loan has not been deemed illegal, and is therefore legitimate) loan. Not exactly a strong case for them is it?

........... & people, albeit a few, can still only think of getting their short term 'fix' of Football by attending Sixfields, buying shirts, thinking this is doing us any good etc.
'You must support the lads on a Saturday' etc........... Bollocks! It's selfish, end of!

What about the Club's history being destroyed day by day by these leeches? Starve them out & if need be we start again from the bottom. Lets how bad I feel now.

It's an utter disgrace, the whole thing.........

kevinleftpeg said:

........... & people, albeit a few, can still only think of getting their short term 'fix' of Football by attending Sixfields, buying shirts, thinking this is doing us any good etc.
'You must support the lads on a Saturday' etc........... Bollocks! It's selfish, end of!

What about the Club's history being destroyed day by day by these leeches? Starve them out & if need be we start again from the bottom. Lets how bad I feel now.

It's an utter disgrace, the whole thing.........

Click to expand...

Starve them out? Football fix?

I suggest there are 7,000 day visitors to London you need a word with.

Grendel- I am passionate & stand over what I say. You, on the other hand, are basically a sarcastic & arrogant troll. NOPM & whoever the owners, OUT!

chiefdave said:

I think you're quoting the formula price there which was of course set at the time of sale to prevent the club having to pay a huge amount if the value went up and equally prevent the charity from incurring a loss if the value went down.

Seem to recall the amount agreed when the HOT was drawn up was somewhere in the region of £4-5m.

Click to expand...

Was that figure ever confirmed? Can't find any links to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

It isn't Higgs vs CCFC though is it.............. It is Higgs vs SISU................. CCFC/OEG/SBS&L are not actually part of the action at all as I understand it.

Which kind of points to it being SISU or their investors (was it the same investors?)that tried to buy the Charity shares not CCFC doesn't it ? (it certainly was not on the basis of the option that existed we have been told)

In my opinion the reason there is such a discrepancy in the two claims is not because SISU spent that much more
1) the size of the counter claim was designed to bully and scare the Charity in to giving in (nothing illegal or unusual in that)
2) I suspect that SISU feel there are documents that the charity have that could be useful in their case for the JR. Which is a problem because the JR has been taken out by CCFC H, SBS&L and ARVO none of whom are party to this first action and have no right to the information so can not legally use it. Therefore they need the documents to become public (eg read out in Court would do that) so that the applicants to the JR can use them. I think the Charity were supposed to roll over and do that. Will they ? Does that imply there was anything to find? who knows, there might but just as likely there might not be...... was it perhaps to some degree a fishing expedition by SISU? that in the scheme of things wont have cost much in my opinion
3)perhaps they needed to expand the case (create a case) to include other actions/inactions linked to the JR so needed to make the claim. The Charity case itself it seems to me actually rests on whether the clause in the Heads of terms on the share deal is binding or not and who it relates to, all the other stuff is not as relevant as people think in my opinion. SISU have not put in a defence of that claim as far as I know, but instead issued a counter claim. By expanding the case they bring other actions and documents in to play that may help in the JR

All just guesswork and I expect it will become clear next week

Of course if SISU were actually the owners of CCFC then I would guess there would be a good case for CCFCH, SBS&L and ARVO using any documents....... but my understanding is that SISU are agents for investors not beneficial owners of OEG/CCFC. Remember the first court case is Higgs vs SISU and SISU vs Higgs (counter claim). SISU might feel they have strong case that proves otherwise

Of course the Charity took action, they have a clause they see as binding for SISU to pay them £29000 if talks cease. If the clause is that simple then it doesn't matter why they ceased, surely it would be more detailed?. But as I understand it talks on the shares started in May 2012, SISU conducted some due diligence in June 2012 but never came back and completed it apparently, the meeting in Leeds was December 2012 when the SISU plan was rejected seemingly, and the Council loan was January 2013....... there are some big gaps there for something that was apparently crucial to the survival of the club and recovery of investment. Yes things take time but ............. The Charity had a legal debt to recover, in a sense it could be argued SISU needed the Charity to claim so they could issue their counter claim in order to go fishing for "discovery" of Charity documents to use in the JR to back the conspiracy case put forward (couldn't do that so easily if no claim by the Charity) but we are unlikely to find out if there is any truth in that

Will the case make 3 days or will it all be struck out? There are a lot more outcomes than a 3 day case and one side winning the money I think...... just my opinion but I do not think it is the money that is important to SISU right now

reality may of course be completely different

*** Edit ....... Just to make clear despite the moral outrage there is nothing that has been done or surmised as done that is illegal as far as I know. This is use of the law as it exists and the involvement of a charity does not change that.

SISU - Korean translation, 'I sneezed and shat my pants at the same time'

Hardly a swear word, but embarrassing none the less

diggerdaley said:

Surely Sisu have burned their boats with anything associated with Coventry ever,the very name Sisu is like a swearword now.

Click to expand...

not a nice situation

just hope the out come is one that helps CCFC move forward one way or the other.

OLDSKYBLUE58, it demonstrates to what lengths Sisu will go to achieve their aims.
Disgraceful, they have no morals.
& allegedly their CEO is a devout Christian. Beggars belief.

Good analysis as ever OSB. I'm struggling to see how SISU's counter claim works.

Basically you've got to think Higgs have got something in writing to say that SISU owe them money for walking away from the HoT.

SISU's claim is that Higgs did something to scupper the deal at least six months after the HoT - but would appear to have little or no evidence of that and are hoping to force Higgs into providing that evidence. Not sure how that stacks up.

In short, regarding the initial claim, Higgs have documentary evidence of an agreement to pay, and that's the basis of their case. It's for SISU to prove it wrong.

Regarding the counter-claim, SISU would appear to have little evidence, and there's no obligation in law on Higgs to provide them with any.

Can't really see how this pans out, unless SISU really have some sort of smoking gun. At the moment it looks like they're simply trying to find one. All mho, obviously.

Edit: Removed quote from OSB, as it has been subsequently amended. Thoughts above are my opinions - we'll soon see if they're right.

For instance

if higgs wins on the 1st of april could they then counter claim sisu's counter claim for something like defimation of charachter? it seems to me that the sisu counter claim is based on them saying that higgs deliberately scuppered the talks so they could rip off the poor little hedge fund to the tune off £ 29K. or have i got that completely wrong?

Brighton Sky Blue said:

The deal signed with the club at the time had a pre-agreed formula that would be used for valuation of the share. It was McGinnity who got the ball rolling on this, I suggest you direct your complaints to him and the regime of the time rather than the charity which bailed out the club.

Click to expand...

It was a question, not a complaint. The formula derived by the previous regime is neither here nor there.

duffer said:

Good analysis as ever OSB. I'm struggling to see how SISU's counter claim works.

Basically you've got to think Higgs have got something in writing to say that SISU owe them money for walking away from the HoT.

SISU's claim is that Higgs did something to scupper the deal at least six months after the HoT - but would appear to have little or no evidence of that and are hoping to force Higgs into providing that evidence. Not sure how that stacks up.

In short, regarding the initial claim, Higgs have documentary evidence of an agreement to pay, and that's the basis of their case. It's for SISU to prove it wrong.

Regarding the counter-claim, SISU would appear to have little evidence, and there's no obligation in law on Higgs to provide them with any.

Can't really see how this pans out, unless SISU really have some sort of smoking gun. At the moment it looks like they're simply trying to find one. All mho, obviously.

Click to expand...

This sounds plausible to me, it's certainly not about £29k is it.

Can you imagine the amount of bollocks and misinformation that's going to be posted here on Tuesday with it being April fools day and the court case at the same time.

I think a problem with this case is people are already saying if SISU 'win' then clearly they are in the right but to me it's not as black and white as that. If there is a clause that, due to the way it is worded, is not legally binding then IMO that doesn't mean SISU should be trying to avoid cover the costs incurred by Higgs. There is a scenario where SISU are not required to pay that does not give any evidence of Higgs doing anything underhand and certainly shouldn't be used as an indication of what will happen in the JR.

Noggin said:

Can you imagine the amount of bollocks and misinformation that's going to be posted here on Tuesday with it being April fools day and the court case at the same time.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure April Fools day has anything to do with the bollocks posted on here. How do you explain the rest of the year ?

chiefdave said:

I think a problem with this case is people are already saying if SISU 'win' then clearly they are in the right but to me it's not as black and white as that.

Click to expand...

In which case, the same must apply the other way around...

Deleted member 5849 said:

In which case, the same must apply the other way around...

Click to expand...

If you mean a judgement in favour of Higgs has no influence on the JR then I would absolutly agree.

Not sure you could apply the same to this actual case, from what's already been mentioned there is no agreement for Higgs to pay SISUs costs in any circumstances so IMO SISU shouldn't be going after the money and should be paying what they promised to pay rather than looking to get out of it on a technicallity. Of course it may be the case that more details come out during the case that we aren't currently aware of but as things stand that my point of view.

No, I mean if you accept that SISU 'winning' doesn't mean they are clearly in the right, you also have to accept if Higgs 'win' they also may not be clearly in the right.

It can't be one rule for one, and a completely different one for others.

Either it's a total irrelevance, or the judgement reached is a fair and just one.

Nick said:

Exactly, but people don't like it when you turn things round the other way. It is one huge one way street.

Click to expand...

If there is a clause saying SISU pay Higgs costs if they don't complete the deal that is a one way street isn't it, how do you interpret it otherwise? Unless there is an additional clause saying if, in this certain set of circumstances, the deal isn't concluded Higgs are liable for SISUs costs how can it be seen to work both ways?

Deleted member 5849 said:

No, I mean if you accept that SISU 'winning' doesn't mean they are cearly in the right, you also have to accept if Higgs 'win' they also may not be clearly in the right.

It can't be one rule for one, and a completely different one for others.

Either it's a total irrelevance, or the judgement reached is a fair and just one.

Click to expand...

From what I've seen SISU have not suggested the clause doesn't exist. Therefore if we assume SISU did indeed agree a clause that stated they would pay Higgs costs in the event that the deal was not concluded. In that scenario the conclusion is that SISU are trying to get out of paying a debt owed by trying to find a loophole or technicality, to me that doesn't equate to them being in the right.

I view it as similar scenario to when an insurance company for example tries to find a way to not have to pay you. You know that they should pay you, they know they should pay you but they will do everything they can to find a technicality that means they don't have to pay you.

...or somebody having to pay an insurance company because they didn't read the small print properly.

Selective judgements on judgements leads down a dangerous path.

Deleted member 5849 said:

No, I mean if you accept that SISU 'winning' doesn't mean they are clearly in the right, you also have to accept if Higgs 'win' they also may not be clearly in the right.

It can't be one rule for one, and a completely different one for others.

Either it's a total irrelevance, or the judgement reached is a fair and just one.

Click to expand...

I think it's not unreasonable to say that whoever wins will have been found to be right in the court of law, based on a point of law, as judged by a neutral arbiter.

Whether that means they are 'morally' right is rather more ambiguous. I suspect that will be argued for some time after both this court case and the JR. Especially here.

Edit: I should say that personally I'd suspect the charity fits more closely to my moral code than SISU do, but who knows what the trial will reveal. Maybe I've read it all wrong and SISU genuinely are the injured party and I've been played for a fool all along. Wouldn't be the first time!

duffer said:

I suspect that will be argued for some time after both this court case and the JR. Especially here.

Click to expand...

Something to look forward to eh!

Still, that's hard nosed good business sense for you

Duffer, morals and Sisu don't even go there.

Spionkop said:

Duffer, morals and Sisu don't even go there.

Click to expand...

Accepted, but I'm trying to keep an open mind. There was a great quote yesterday from someone along the lines of 'some people are trying so hard to keep an open mind that their brains have fallen out'. I'll have to watch out for that!

duffer said:

Accepted, but I'm trying to keep an open mind. There was a great quote yesterday from someone along the lines of 'some people are trying so hard to keep an open mind that their brains have fallen out'. I'll have to watch out for that!

Click to expand...

Pre judging court cases however, shows exactly why trialby jury anddemocracy aren't always what they're cracked up to be!

Deleted member 5849 said:

Pre judging court cases however, shows exactly why trialby jury and democracy aren't always what they're cracked up to be!

Click to expand...

They're just lucky I'm not the judge!

"Twenty years! Take him down."
"But m'lud, this is a civil case. And we haven't made our opening arguments yet."
"I don't care. Twenty years. Court is adjourned, unless you'd like to join your client."

Noggin said:

Can you imagine the amount of bollocks and misinformation that's going to be posted here on Tuesday with it being April fools day and the court case at the same time.

Click to expand...

The correct stuff will seem like April fools day anyway.

Can you imagine 3 years ago getting told

We would be suing a children's charity for 290 k

At some point our chairman will sit beside the manager on the bench

We will be fighting relegation in the third tier of English football. Whilst building a new 20-30 million pound stadium.

We will be playing our football in Northampton

Some fans outside on a hill some inside. The majority abstaining.

We would be taking out a judicial review against the council for paying the face value of a loan.

We still have not seen the person overseeing all of this

Aprils fool ( gotcha! )

smouch1975 said:

SISU - Korean translation, 'I sneezed and shat my pants at the same time'

Hardly a swear word, but embarrassing none the less

Click to expand...

I looked Sisu up on google translate which now has a dictionary feature and it said:
in Bosnian/Croation - Tit
In Esperanto - Content
In Finnish - Go or (rather bizarrely) Spunk
In Maori - Jesus
In Swedish - Perseverance

dongonzalos said:

The correct stuff will seem like April fools day anyway.

Can you imagine 3 years ago getting told

We would be suing a children's charity for 290 k

At some point our chairman will sit beside the manager on the bench

We will be fighting relegation in the third tier of English football. Whilst building a new 20-30 million pound stadium.

We will be playing our football in Northampton

Some fans outside on a hill some inside. The majority abstaining.

We would be taking out a judicial review against the council for paying the face value of a loan.

We still have not seen the person overseeing all of this

Aprils fool ( gotcha! )

Click to expand...

you missed out" the classic" supporters texting the subs.