skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Is this some of the "professionalism" that you're going to bring to the Sky Blue Trust when you're running it?
Interesting Tweets from Kieren Crowley (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
Is this some of the "professionalism" that you're going to bring to the Sky Blue Trust when you're running it?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
That's what was happening. SISU were paying their costs and Higgs were paying theirs. Then Higgs decided to take SISU to court to get them to pay Higgs costs as well.
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
Professional what !
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Mirror, Mirror on the wall.......
No. The agreement was that SISU covered the extra costs of due diligence or whatever -with the view to a sale. The clauses were to ensure that SISU paid Higgs for the work even if the sale didn't go ahead. Several reasons for possible failure were listed to ensure that SISU had to pay for the extra work involved. The judge said that none of them covered what actually happened - both parties losing interest. One could say, ok let's go 50:50 - either Higgs or SISU - neither did. So waste of time lots of bad feeling and costs etc. Question: are SISU better off now than if they had tried to negotiate a fair compromise and in the worse case pay the 30 grand - taking into account SISU need a football stadium in Cov?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sisu-v-higgs-court-battle-6916957
Barking up the wrong tree here mart, keep going though. Had sisu paid the £30k it would have made no difference to where we are now because they would have still done the Jr against the council, they'd have still moved to sixfields, the council would have still sold their shares to wasps, wasps would have still bought higgs share and we would still be fucked.
And personally, I wouldn't pay £30k or even £30 to someone I believed shouldnt have to pay, which the judge completely agreed with sisu.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
You're right of course, but if they had paid some or all of the amount without court, maybe just maybe, they could have to started to build bridges - they are the ones who needed a stadium and the goodwill of people in Coventry. 30000 in this saga is really peanuts. It is done and dealt, but the effects of the whole saga are that we may not have the Ricoh in 2 years and may have to accept investing a smaller stadium for the next few years, making life difficult should we ever be successful again.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
But they didn't have to pay any of it.
Sorry, often I see the point you're making, sometimes I even agree. Here... I'm completely lost!
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The irony being that there legal bill possibly cost more than £30K to fight it. Especially when you consider they made sure it went to Crown Court with the size of their counter claim and how many were present in their legal team sitting on the bench on the day. Five in total wasn't it? Not sure they had that many for JR itself. What was that all about?
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
I think SISU could give a master class on that topic.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Sometimes its about a point of principle, had higgs not been a charity they would have made them pay the costs. I agree o have no idea why they needed so many lawyers though.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Given that the chairman or whoever is is has said "say that to my face" in a provocative manner this is an ironic statement.
I am not in that position. If I was I would not post other than on a separate section on this Forum which would be designated to the Trust and aim to seek responses to ideas and to gauge opinions and take those forward.
Also and lets be clear about this, I would not accept the nonsense LAST spouted about all Sixfields attendees kissing Fishers hand. That is devisive and unacceptable. It assist no-one in achieving the ultimate mission statement. He would need to apologise or face exclusion.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
A charity that spend 30K on legal advice for a deal that never happened is not a particular efficient charity.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The judge ruled that both parties would pick up their own costs. SISU were never given the option to pass their costs over to Higgs. You really shouldn't take Mark Labovich seriously.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Which was absolutely the right thing, especially morally.
The water was only clouded with the sensationalist reporting of 'starving kids robbed of money by evil hedge fund'.
Funny how same reporting organisation said nothing when the same thing happened a couple of years later to the tune of 30 times more.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
You've definitely got my vote. For this promise alone.
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
For this reason alone he should be appointed NOW !!
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Just like to say hi everyone have you missed me.
And lol at this thread !!!!!!
And lol at this thread !!!!!!
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Awesome the Council must be struggling. GPE soon
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Not really a smoking gun that sisu offered more than Wasps. Its a shame Sisu left it so late in the day to negotiate. Maybe withholding the rent and legal action might not have helped their cause ?
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
You will have to blame Nick the new website has allowed me to log in again on my mobile.
They thought SISU were paying
Nick
Administrator
Did they?
Nick
Administrator
So using your theory, the council should give sisu some money to prevent court, even thigh they don't need to?
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Makes no sense - if the deal had been done they'd have paid for themselves.
Unless of course you're suggesting they never had any intention of doing a deal.....
No, but that may be SISUs aim and there may yet be some compromise ( unlikely though ).
Otis
Well-Known Member
They had to get things done for SISU so that SISU knew what they were buying and Higgs covered the risk of the deal not going ahead with an agreement for SISU to cover the costs involved in otherwise unnecessary work. They put in various clauses to cover the event of it not happening and thought they were covered. Makes perfect sense - missed out both sides losing interest in the deal in the clauses though.
According to the agreement both parties signed.
No it was Higgs taking SISU to court based on an agreement and the subsequent non acceptance of a less than 1% increase on Wasps' bid accompanied by a flowery letter that caused the present crisis. You haven't been here for a while have you? Kieran has revealed all with a tweet.
Nick
Administrator
But the agreement obviously didn't cover that situation, so they didn't have to pay.
I will watch out for you calling for the council to negotiate with sisu to prevent court cases, even though they don't have to.
As it happens they didn't have to pay. The court decided that - not SISU. If SISU believed that they didn't have to pay because both sides had lost interest, then they could have pursued that with 1 lawyer in a lower court and without 5 lawyers and a 290000 counterclaim, that was described by the judge as " hopeless ", in a higher court. A - from a reasonable person's point of view - total overkill, time wasting, costly and badwill creating exercise. We are bearing the fruits of such tactics now. Even with Wasps in the Ricoh we should be working with the council to find a solution. It is hardly surprising that CCC is not chomping at the bit to help out though.
Nick
Administrator
They decided they didn't have to pay, because they didn't pay...
Maybe.. Or it is possible they wanted to use the court to get access to documents which would help JR1 - which they seem to be losing on. Another bad decision which is costing the club. What was the reason they gave for not wanting to honour the agreement that they had signed? Seems as if the answer was a counterclaim and not a plausible argument.