Interesting Tweets from Kieren Crowley (7 Viewers)

[Nick]

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.

So they decided they didn't want to pay so that Higgs would take them to court on purpose, where the court also agrees they didn't have to pay?

I am not sure you are understanding, obviously the agreement didn't cover the situation that actually happened, hence it was decided they didn't have to pay.

 

---

[martcov]

So they decided they didn't want to pay so that Higgs would take them to court on purpose, where the court also agrees they didn't have to pay?

I am not sure you are understanding, obviously the agreement didn't cover the situation that actually happened, hence it was decided they didn't have to pay.

I am understanding that - the court Said that. If it was already cut and dried, then why not walk over Higgs in a lower court with 1 lawyer? They could have saved a fortune and wouldn't need to piss anyone off with a huge and "hopeless" counterclaim.

 

[Nick]

I am understanding that - the court Said that. If it was already cut and dried, then why not walk over Higgs in a lower court with 1 lawyer? They could have saved a fortune and wouldn't need to piss anyone off with a huge and "hopeless" counterclaim.

There would have been no counter claim with the first action.

Is like moaning if sisu start action and get counter claimed

 

[martcov]

There would have been no counter claim with the first action.

Is like moaning if sisu start action and get counter claimed

Obviously Higgs thought they had a claim at the time. There are counterclaims and counterclaims - this one was hopeless from the start - according to the judge - and pissed People off. And what did SISU get out of it? Did it help with their later bid for the share?

 

[chiefdave]

Obviously Higgs thought they had a claim at the time.

And SISU think they have a claim against the council. Using your logic the council should just pay up.

 

[martcov]

And SISU think they have a claim against the council. Using your logic the council should just pay up.

What does it say in the ageement? Oh.... There isn't a written agreement.... No comparison then.

 

[Nick]

What does it say in the ageement? Oh.... There isn't a written agreement.... No comparison then.

There wasn't an agreement that covered the situation with higgs, hence they didn't have to pay...

 

[chiefdave]

What does it say in the ageement? Oh.... There isn't a written agreement.... No comparison then.

There was no agreement for what Higgs took SISU to court over otherwise they would have won!

 

[martcov]

There was no agreement for what Higgs took SISU to court over otherwise they would have won!

Ffs. They had an agreement which
they thought was valid. The court decided it wasn't. That is why the court is there. The counterclaim, the army of lawyers - the costs, the bad will generated were not necessary. That is the point. Now you wonder why Higgs weren't interested in selling to SISU. The answer is staring you in the face. No offence meant.

 

[Nick]

Ffs. They had an agreement which
they thought was valid. The court decided it wasn't. That is why the court is there. The counterclaim, the army of lawyers - the costs, the bad will generated were not necessary. That is the point. Now you wonder why Higgs weren't interested in selling to SISU. The answer is staring you in the face. No offence meant.

So if it wasn't valid why would sisu negotiate and pay?

 

[chiefdave]

Ffs. They had an agreement which they thought was valid.

If i think you owe me £50 but you know you don't would you pay me?

 

[martcov]

If i think you owe me £50 but you know you don't would you pay me?

What was in the contract? I wouldn't come on the idea of a counterclaim of 290000 pounds though.

 

[Brylowes]

A charity that spend 30K on legal advice for a deal that never happened is not a particular efficient charity.

And a Hedge Fund who were in pole position to purchase a state of the art stadium and
then fuck it up and end up with nowt. Only to persue endless days in court that will
cost hundreds of thousands if not millions by the time they reach a conclusion
(If ever) .Is not a particularly efficient Hedge Fund

But they're you go.

 

[martcov]

So if it wasn't valid why would sisu negotiate and pay?

1. they didn't come on the judge's verdict beforhand
2. 30 grand is peanuts in this saga. The costs of the court case weigh agsinst this anyway.
3. the Goodwill by not always being a cxxt is probably worth more.

 

[Nick]

1. they didn't come on the judge's verdict beforhand
2. 30 grand is peanuts in this saga. The costs of the court case weigh agsinst this anyway.
3. the Goodwill by not always being a cxxt is probably worth more.

So they should have just paid it even though they didn't owe it?

 

[oldfiver]

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.

It was reported,documents blocked by the Court in JR 1 at CCC request became evidence in the Higgs Case and can now be used in JR2

 

[martcov]

So they should have just paid it even though they didn't owe it?

They didn't know until the judge ruled on it. They went to court without being sure of the outcome. They had 5 lawyers, a 290000 pounds counterclaim and laughed at Higgs - the holders of a share.

Do you think that was productive?

 

[chiefdave]

What was in the contract?

Contract says you don't owe me anything. Would you still pay if I think you owe me?

 

[martcov]

Contract says you don't owe me anything. Would you still pay if I think you owe me?

Contract said on the face of it I do. go to court for a ruling. I'm bringing a hopeless 290000 counterclaim to be a cxxt anyway.

 

[martcov]

It was reported,documents blocked by the Court in JR 1 at CCC request became evidence in the Higgs Case and can now be used in JR2

Great. Here we go...

 

[chiefdave]

Contract said on the face of it I do.

This is your problem. The contract didn't say it was owed! You can't say on the face of it. There was three specific circumstances in which SISU were liable for Higgs costs. None of those situations occurred so they weren't liable.

 

[stupot07]

Honestly this is the biggest red herring I have read on here in ages. Without wanting to repeat myself paying the higgs the £30k wouldn't have:
- stopped sisu persuing the JR
- moving to Northampton
- council selling their shares to wasps
- higgs then selling their shares to wasps



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[martcov]

Honestly this is the biggest red herring I have read on here in ages. Without wanting to repeat myself paying the higgs the £30k wouldn't have:
- stopped sisu persuing the JR
- moving to Northampton
- council selling their shares to wasps
- higgs then selling their shares to wasps

The red herring being this thread about Kieran's revealation that Higgs didn't take the bid with the extra 25000. as if they would have... Thus implying that if only Higgs had accepted all would be well... As if the 25000 extra was the deciding point... It wasn't about pounds and the deal had been done anyway... I merely pointed out that 25000 after the whole saga wouldn't mean anything to Higgs - including because of the Court case with the hopeless counterclaim which I gave as an example..

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[stupot07]

But the point is Mart, wasps always wanted 100% of ACL, they had already negotiated with the council and higgs share. Had there been any doubt that higgs would turn down wasps bid thru wouldn't have bought the councils share there for the court case and counter claim had no bearing on it.

The only reason they had a period of bidding with us also bidding was because of the buy back clause we had so Higgs had to go through the motions.

If there was any real chance of ccfcs bid getting excepted, wasps wouldn't have bought the councils share in the first place, the higgs share was a done deal.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[martcov]

But the point is Mart, wasps always wanted 100% of ACL, they had already negotiated with the council and higgs share. Had there been any doubt that higgs would turn down wasps bid thru wouldn't have bought the councils share there for the court case and counter claim had no bearing on it.

The only reason they had a period of bidding with us also bidding was because of the buy back clause we had so Higgs had to go through the motions.

If there was any real chance of ccfcs bid getting excepted, wasps wouldn't have bought the councils share in the first place, the higgs share was a done deal.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Yes, just cosmetic.... I agree.... Because of all the things - just saying Kieran's tweet didn't Show anything game changing.. I just quoted 1 example of why there was no chance - there are plenty of others ...

 

[oldskyblue58]

The reason Higgs went to court was because the Trustees on legal advice thought they were entitled to SISU paying their costs for the aborted sale based on their understanding of the contract signed. SISU disagreed and the only place the contract could be tested and the matter settled was in court

SISU counter claimed and the size of the claim was designed to frighten Higgs off but having counter claimed then Higgs would have to go to court to defend it even if Higgs dropped their action. Of course the side effect of that was probably a lot more information was made available under disclosure than perhaps would have been prior to JR1

Both sides lost. SISU's counter claim had no basis in law, the Higgs claim failed because the contract did not have a clause in it that covered the specific situation that happened. Both sides had been advised by lawyers as to the validity of their case.

 

[mark82]

The reason Higgs went to court was because the Trustees on legal advice thought they were entitled to SISU paying their costs for the aborted sale based on their understanding of the contract signed. SISU disagreed and the only place the contract could be tested and the matter settled was in court

SISU counter claimed and the size of the claim was designed to frighten Higgs off but having counter claimed then Higgs would have to go to court to defend it even if Higgs dropped their action. Of course the side effect of that was probably a lot more information was made available under disclosure than perhaps would have been prior to JR1

Both sides lost. SISU's counter claim had no basis in law, the Higgs claim failed because the contract did not have a clause in it that covered the specific situation that happened. Both sides had been advised by lawyers as to the validity of their case.

Good summary.

 

[mark82]

In fact, would the size of the claim have been specifically aimed to move it to a higher court to make documents available for use in the JR? I'd have thought that would be more motive than trying to scare Higgs trust.

 

[Nick]

In fact, would the size of the claim have been specifically aimed to move it to a higher court to make documents available for use in the JR? I'd have thought that would be more motive than trying to scare Higgs trust.

I think that is what was said at the time.

I don't think they ever actually thought they would win that they just wanted the documents and stuff.

 

[ccfcway]

what does a thread have to do to be moved to the ricoh row / sisu forum ?