Higgs vs CCFC Court Row (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
Rob S

Rob S

Well-Known Member
duffer said:
I'm confused - how could ACL/CCC/AEHC hope to take over if SISU continued to pay the bills? The only way SISU could have lost control of the club is via Administration, there's no other route for anyone to take over the club (other than selling at an agreed price), is there?
Click to expand...

Correction to my earlier post: Getting a different owner on board (e.g. Preston Haskell IV) rather than the Council etc. to take over!

I guess that the idea would be to get Joy to walk away, even liquidate the club, if she couldn't do a deal to get the AEHC share of ACL, but keep paying the rent whilst negotiations were ongoing.

But as I said before, these are all allegations just like the whole counter-allegations that she's just out to distress ACL to get the Arena on the cheap. My only hope is that something comes out this week which can confirm or deny which story is true. We've heard a lot of stuff about these failed negotiations, mortgage buy-outs and everything else that led to the Ricoh exit and Sixfields hell but there has been very little definite evidence.

We live in hope.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
So if SISU win they're lying, but if they lose everyone is telling the truth?
 
James Smith

James Smith

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
Bullet points for the simpletons like me :)

Are there laws on recording equipment in courts?
Click to expand...

Yes apart from writing things down which is okay. You can get done for using something like a tape recorder or video recorder (or the modern versions) if you're not authorised.
 
Rob S

Rob S

Well-Known Member
sky blue john said:
I'm not expecting Sisu to play fair in court.
Did a judge not condemn Joy for lying in court ?
Do we believe Sisu have been lying to the fans all along ?
Do we believe Jan is not lying on the latest trust v Sisu saga ?
Would Sisu concoct evidence to win this case and the JR ?
Click to expand...

I don't think he said she was lying but he called her out for being '...the least satisfactory of all the witnesses.' And that's the great thing about having this out in court. It's out there in public with media in attendance. If the judge doesn't like something he can call them on it. If they don't play fair then they get slapped down. Judges don't like being fooled around with in court. (oo-er!) Cooking up evidence? Lying in court (aka perjury)? You can get prosecuted, i.e. the Crown Prosecution Service take you to court at a later date.

I'm not saying anything will definitely come out but be prepared to re-think some hard-held beliefs if it does. I doubt we'll start erecting any statues just yet tho' :D
 
Samo

Samo

Well-Known Member
lordsummerisle said:
Possibly they should get Joy in a Ducking stool.

If she drowns she's innocent, if she doesn't she's a witch and we can burn her.
Click to expand...

There you see, we just don't know where we stand with this woman! :whistle:
 
Astute

Astute

Well-Known Member
The bit I don't understand is if they are taking this case seriously why isn't Joy or her mouthpieces turning up? Are they expecting to lose but are using it for information that they might get? Laura Deeling is expendable. She is nothing to do with our club. She is Joys PA. Yet she could be the one dealing with the case on Joys behalf.
 
G

Godiva

Well-Known Member
Astute said:
The bit I don't understand is if they are taking this case seriously why isn't Joy or her mouthpieces turning up? Are they expecting to lose but are using it for information that they might get? Laura Deeling is expendable. She is nothing to do with our club. She is Joys PA. Yet she could be the one dealing with the case on Joys behalf.
Click to expand...

It's Higgs vs Sisu - the club is not directly involved.
 
Rob S

Rob S

Well-Known Member
She's not Joy's PA* – that's someone else – she's a company assistant/advisor/contact (+ mouthpiece).

Someone with more knowledge of legal procedures will know more but I'm guessing that unless either side call a person as a witness they don't appear.

This isn't some big court trial, just a reasonably straightforward contract dispute so witness statements will have been made, documents / evidence requested (there have been two hearings about this already) and skeleton arguments – which refer to the relevant bits of evidence – submitted in advance.

I think that the skeleton arguments are the things we'll be wanting to feast our eyes on first.

[EDIT] * She = Laura Deering. She was the point of contact when the share buyout was going on and attended CCFC board meetings. I think she reps Joy when she is elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
@TheSimonGilbert on twitter says Fisher has arrived at court.

I wonder if he'll offer to buy a round of drinks?

(Fisher that is, not Simon. Who's ever heard of a journalist buying someone a drink.) ;)
 
Astute

Astute

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
It says who she is throughout this thread.
Click to expand...

Yes. But someone that has hardly had anything to do with our club and SISU. It is more like it that Fisher has turned up if he really has. Don't know what to believe today :D
 
Warwickhunt

Warwickhunt

Well-Known Member
duffer said:
Personally, I'm entirely supportive of the actions of the Charity. SISU have got plenty of form for breaking contracts and as far as I'm concerned it's good that someone is taking them on with regard to it.

As for the counter-claim, that's entirely their right but (imho) it's hard to see it as anything other than an attempt to dissuade the charity from continuing the action. They weren't obliged to counter-claim, they could just have defended the action. I suspect that the counter-claim is the only hope of a defence that they have, this on the basis that you have to think that the charity have something in writing to bring to the court.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out - it will shed a lot of light on what's coming in the JR.
Click to expand...
If Higgs win this then you can forget the JR
 
Warwickhunt

Warwickhunt

Well-Known Member
dongonzalos said:
When you say considered every possibility. As a charity I think if the solicitors provide the advice to sue. Then legally their are no other options for them to consider they have to do it.

(I think)
Click to expand...
The trustee's are required by law to act on advice given in the best interest of the Higgs Charity else they will be held individually responsible for any losses incurred from their indecision.
 
Warwickhunt

Warwickhunt

Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58 said:
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.
Click to expand...
£29K + to get them documents out in the open is small fry for SISU i should imagine
 
James Smith

James Smith

Well-Known Member
skybluetony176 said:
the mascot has just turned up, suesue sam,
Click to expand...

I'd have thought the mascot would be Sisu Sue modelled on that awful panda puppet from Sooty. The mascot would have the same patronising female voice too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top