Interesting Tweets from Kieren Crowley (1 Viewer)

[olderskyblue]

Are you not curious about the deluge of information suddenly coming out of a club this week? The timing the purpose? In the past it has always meant something else has been going on when such things have happened. Perhaps I am getting too old and cynical about all this.

Agreed (not the old and cynical bit...)

 

---

[martcov]

And Lucas would only sell as long as it didn't damage the football club or CRFC.

They are potentially chucking out of the Higgs and CRFC have stated promises haven't been kept.

Still as long as Wasps are doing ok.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

I think SISU are doing a remarkable job in destroying the club.

And that is not ok whether Wasps are doing ok or not.

 

[clint van damme]

Couldn't agree more, as someone who lives away from Coventry I have found this forum
invaluable as a viewer for about 3years ,and been posting since Xmas.
But there's a little " click " on here who behave like a group of schoolboys huddling together
And sniggering at everyone else .pitty really if it was just about the football it would be a good
forum, but this is CCFC and if there is one thing we know about CCFC its that it's hardly ever
about the football.

So you don't see the incompetency of the council in the day to day running of the city?

As I 've always said, no time for SISU, but one day they will be gone. As a Coventry resident I'll always be saddled with the council.

 

[Otis]

So you don't see the incompetency of the council in the day to day running of the city?

As I 've always said, no time for SISU, but one day they will be gone. As a Coventry resident I'll always be saddled with the council.

Vote Green like me. Let's get all the Tory/Labour fat bastards out and embrace the lentil.

 

[MusicDating]

True, but people are getting a tad excited over something that will probably never, ever happen.

I wouldn't get the least bit excited until the first breeze block went in.

That went well at Northampton this season...

 

[oldskyblue58]

So if the ducks were already in a row it is pretty much safe to say that it was pointless CCFC bidding anything as they were always going to accept Wasps bid anyway? So all of the crap about "come and make an offer, it is down to the club" was all a bit cheeky. Somebody from Wasps was posting on here saying that it was always about 100% for Wasps, I very much doubt Wasps would have come here for 50%.

I am more curious about what part Cov Rugby have to play in it, as they seem to have kicked it all off.

Come on Nick. Of course it was all about Wasps getting 100%. They wouldn't come here without getting control and do you honestly see either Wasps or SISU wanting to partner up? That's what I mean about ducks in a row, there was a process to get round potential problems to Wasps getting 100% everything done in a certain order.

CRFC (perhaps CCFC / SISU) I suspect need to attract interest in order to attract finance and gather momentum with or without CCFC. It looks to me that CCFC are pretty keen on this and are at least publically backing away from a deal at the Ricoh. I am just guessing but the first BPA article helped them gauge initial fans reaction and gave some confidence to the scheme. CRFC has since submitted 3 year plans to CCC and it is only right a proper that the leaseholder to the site drives this project ..... at least to begin with

 

[Nick]

Come on Nick. Of course it was all about Wasps getting 100%. They wouldn't come here without getting control and do you honestly see either Wasps or SISU wanting to partner up? That's what I mean about ducks in a row, there was a process to get round potential problems to Wasps getting 100% everything done in a certain order.

CRFC (perhaps CCFC / SISU) I suspect need to attract interest in order to attract finance and gather momentum with or without CCFC. It looks to me that CCFC are pretty keen on this and are at least publically backing away from a deal at the Ricoh. I am just guessing but the first BPA article helped them gauge initial fans reaction and gave some confidence to the scheme. CRFC has since submitted 3 year plans to CCC and it is only right a proper that the leaseholder to the site drives this project ..... at least to begin with

I have said all along it was about Wasps getting 100%, the same as when people say that SISU should buy 50% of it from Wasps. It isn't going to happen

I said it at the time when the headlines in the Telegraph were basically saying "It is now down to the club to buy the Higgs share..." and things like that.

 

[chiefdave]

Higgs had an agreement which on the face of it looked reasonable.

Didn't Higgs lose their claim?

 

[chiefdave]

The fact I've been prevented from being able to post here

Shame that got fixed

 

[chiefdave]

All very interesting but to what purpose nearly 2 years after the event. Why would he have seen it yesterday?

It wasn't a random tweet, it was quite a way in to a conversation regarding the council and Higgs treatment of the club. He said he looked at it yesterday to check what he was tweeting was correct.

 

[armybike]

Shame that got fixed

Rude!

 

[chiefdave]

The thing I don't get in all this is, we don't believe Maton, we didn't believe Mutton, we didn't believe Lucas, we don't believe the council, we don't believe Fisher, we don't believe Seppala, we don't believe Sisu, we don't believe Joe Elliot, we don't believe Simon Gilbert, we don't believe the Telegraph, but we believe Kieren Crowley?

I think you build up a picture over time. The problem is that some people took a stance on day one and refuse to consider anything else no matter what happens.

Personally I tend to default to believing people until it is proven otherwise. I believed Maton, Mutton and Lucas but then things started to emerge which changed that opinion. Likewise with Fisher anyone would struggle to believe him as so much he has said in the past has been bollocks.

Think the CT is largely factual with a huge amount of spin. Same with Reid.

 

[martcov]

Didn't Higgs lose their claim?

yes. did both parties know when they signed that something would happen that wasn't covered? Was there any malice in asking for what appeared on the face of it to be agreed? So they lost a normal claim. What was the 200000 GBP about which the judge said had no chance of succeeding? was that malice or being "a prick" by TF?

 

[chiefdave]

yes. did both parties know when they signed that something would happen that wasn't covered? Was there any malice in asking for what appeared on the face of it to be agreed? So they lost a normal claim. What was the 200000 GBP about which the judge said had no chance of succeeding? was that malice or being "a prick" by TF?

If Higgs hadn't taken SISU to court would there have been a counter claim? The simple fact is, that unlike all the other legal action, this wasn't initiated by SISU. It was initiated by Higgs and the court decided the case bought by Higgs was not valid.

 

[Moff]

Because the repetitiveness comes about because the same points are gone over again and again and again and again.......

If someone (like the forum moderator maybe!?) stood back from posting in such away the problem would be greatly reduced.

So where do we stop. Should you give it a rest now as all your posts are of a fairly similar slant on this thread? and shall we stop those that agree with you?

What about others who disgaree? Shall we stop them or just the ones who disagree a few times.

Its a forum, people disgaree. If you dont like what was written, dont reply to it. You both write what you think, but are differing in opinion, why not just accept that?

 

[martcov]

If Higgs hadn't taken SISU to court would there have been a counter claim? The simple fact is, that unlike all the other legal action, this wasn't initiated by SISU. It was initiated by Higgs and the court decided the case bought by Higgs was not valid.

No there wouldn't have been. SISU were asked to pay the bill as agreed. They didn't. If they felt the bill was not justified they could have said so and suggested a compromise as the situation had not been foreseen by either party. Higgs had incurred costs - in good faith - in preparation for a sale that didn't happen. Most situations were covered by the agreement. It was neither Higgs nor SISUs fault in this case, as both sides lost interest in the deal. Why not say "let's split the costs down the middle and call it a day"? No. Let's make a big deal out of half of 30000 and go to a high court thus raising the stakes and the costs. Let's have a laugh at the old guy's expense and drag some dirt through the courts. Loads of lawyers, loads of costs, loads of bad feeling. What tossers.... and then they go to the same people and say we want to buy your share - here's less than 1% more than Wasps and some waffle about working together. Actually "fuck off" would have been too polite as an answer in this case.

 

[chiefdave]

SISU were asked to pay the bill as agreed.

So what you're saying is the agreement that was made did not require SISU to pay the bill in the situation that unfolded. Higgs then took them to court to try to get them to pay it anyway but its still SISU who are in the wrong?

 

[Nick]

No there wouldn't have been. SISU were asked to pay the bill as agreed. They didn't. If they felt the bill was not justified they could have said so and suggested a compromise as the situation had not been foreseen by either party. Higgs had incurred costs - in good faith - in preparation for a sale that didn't happen. Most situations were covered by the agreement. It was neither Higgs nor SISUs fault in this case, as both sides lost interest in the deal. Why not say "let's split the costs down the middle and call it a day"? No. Let's make a big deal out of half of 30000 and go to a high court thus raising the stakes and the costs. Let's have a laugh at the old guy's expense and drag some dirt through the courts. Loads of lawyers, loads of costs, loads of bad feeling. What tossers.... and then they go to the same people and say we want to buy your share - here's less than 1% more than Wasps and some waffle about working together. Actually "fuck off" would have been too polite as an answer in this case.

How does that work?

If they were liable to pay the bill and it was agreed, surely they would have been forced to pay it? It must have been clear cut, as SISU's legal team don't have much of a history of winning things.

 

[Grendel]

No there wouldn't have been. SISU were asked to pay the bill as agreed. They didn't. If they felt the bill was not justified they could have said so and suggested a compromise as the situation had not been foreseen by either party. Higgs had incurred costs - in good faith - in preparation for a sale that didn't happen. Most situations were covered by the agreement. It was neither Higgs nor SISUs fault in this case, as both sides lost interest in the deal. Why not say "let's split the costs down the middle and call it a day"? No. Let's make a big deal out of half of 30000 and go to a high court thus raising the stakes and the costs. Let's have a laugh at the old guy's expense and drag some dirt through the courts. Loads of lawyers, loads of costs, loads of bad feeling. What tossers.... and then they go to the same people and say we want to buy your share - here's less than 1% more than Wasps and some waffle about working together. Actually "fuck off" would have been too polite as an answer in this case.

You are losing it. So sisu should have agreed to pay costs that Higgs were not entitled to?

Who is the "old guy" out of interest?

 

[Brylowes]

So you don't see the incompetency of the council in the day to day running of the city?

As I 've always said, no time for SISU, but one day they will be gone. As a Coventry resident I'll always be saddled with the council.

Concerning council decisions around CCFC and the Ricoh, I'm sure they were all cross party
decisions weren't they ! Everyday decisions about running the City is a different matter, every
local authority in the country are having to cut vital services, more so in labour controlled areas
we are not really all in it together. You call it incompetency really it's just trying to make the best
out of a bad lot.

 

[Grendel]

Concerning council decisions around CCFC and the Ricoh, I'm sure they were all cross party
decisions weren't they ! Everyday decisions about running the City is a different matter, every
local authority in the country are having to cut vital services, more so in labour controlled areas
we are not really all in it together. You call it incompetency really it's just trying to make the best
out of a bad lot.

Spoken like a true fan if CCFC

 

[Brylowes]

Spoken like a true fan if CCFC

So are you saying that I'm not.

 

[Grendel]

So are you saying that I'm not.

No I don't. I think your an idiot.

 

[Brylowes]

No I don't. I think your an idiot.

Ha Ha came across you before in a different place, you were very much a (junior doctor)
in that particular asylum. Trying to get noticed by other posters, and getting ignored, and
what was it about, drooling over Brummie fucking tower blocks.
Cretin.

 

[Nick]

Back on topic away from the silly name calling

 

[clint van damme]

I

Concerning council decisions around CCFC and the Ricoh, I'm sure they were all cross party
decisions weren't they ! Everyday decisions about running the City is a different matter, every
local authority in the country are having to cut vital services, more so in labour controlled areas
we are not really all in it together. You call it incompetency really it's just trying to make the best
out of a bad lot.

I'm talking about bad strategic decisions and lack of fore sight, been going on since long before austerity.

 

[Brylowes]

I


I'm talking about bad strategic decisions and lack of fore sight, been going on since long before austerity.

Can't disagree with that, I visit all of Britain's larger Cities & some smaller ones and Coventry
sadly lags behind. It's a real shame and I have always thought it is somewhat hamstrung by
that monstrosity of a ring road, it looks terrible and acts as a barrier.

 

[martcov]

So what you're saying is the agreement that was made did not require SISU to pay the bill in the situation that unfolded. Higgs then took them to court to try to get them to pay it anyway but its still SISU who are in the wrong?

I am saying that nobody really knew. No sale had taken place. If SISU had asked, maybe they could have negotiated, but they didn't as far as we know. SISU are not in the wrong about the bill. Both sides had lost interest in the sale. Costs had been incurred and they could have shared them - if Higgs had agreed, but the attitude is always court first. If Higgs had said no you have to pay, then fair enough go to court, but the 200000 counterclaim was a joke and added to the bad feelings that were already there.

 

[Nick]

If the attitude is court first, Higgs were the ones taking people to court..

Why would SISU offer to pay if they believed they didn't have to pay them?

 

[martcov]

You are losing it. So sisu should have agreed to pay costs that Higgs were not entitled to?

Who is the "old guy" out of interest?

No, they should have negotiated and, if that failed go to court. The 200000 counterclaim was a joke though - although most would come up with a counterclaim in such circumstances - the 200000 was probably to raise the stakes by going to a higher court. PWKH - although tbf I don't know if he is that old - probably younger than me...

 

[Nick]

No, they should have negotiated and, if that failed go to court. The 200000 counterclaim was a joke though - although most would come up with a counterclaim in such circumstances - the 200000 was probably to raise the stakes by going to a higher court. PWKH - although tbf I don't know if he is that old - probably younger than me...

Negotiated what though?

"Give us this money"
"No we dont think we need to pay"

If I don't think I owe somebody money, I don't then offer to give them half.

 

[martcov]

If the attitude is court first, Higgs were the ones taking people to court..

Why would SISU offer to pay if they believed they didn't have to pay them?

There was an agreement which they both signed. If they knew that it was no longer valid, did they say why? Why did we have to go to court to find out? How much were their costs? At a guess? The time, the stress and the costs to save a share of the original claim plus the bad blood. Was it worth it? Doubt it. I don't know what Higgs attitude was. Maybe they thought they had a 100% case, but did SISU attempt to negotiate? There are sometimes alternatives to going to court. Most of the things going on are caused by bad blood. Other businesses make compromises - and no, I don't think SISU are always to blame, but the battering people in court attitude seems to be prevalent.

 

[martcov]

Negotiated what though?

"Give us this money"
"No we dont think we need to pay"

If I don't think I owe somebody money, I don't then offer to give them half.

The deal that the costs were incurred for never took place - a good starting point I would have thought.

 

[Nick]

The deal that the costs were incurred for never took place - a good starting point I would have thought.

Yes, but it turns out they didn't have to pay the costs which is why they didn't pay them.

CCC didn't have to give SISU any compensation, should they have negotiated on the compensation rather than let it go to court?

 

[stupot07]

There was an agreement which they both signed. If they knew that it was no longer valid, did they say why? Why did we have to go to court to find out? How much were their costs? At a guess? The time, the stress and the costs to save a share of the original claim plus the bad blood. Was it worth it? Doubt it. I don't know what Higgs attitude was. Maybe they thought they had a 100% case, but did SISU attempt to negotiate? There are sometimes alternatives to going to court. Most of the things going on are caused by bad blood. Other businesses make compromises - and no, I don't think SISU are always to blame, but the battering people in court attitude seems to be prevalent.

Of course they said why, they said they weren't paying it because they weren't the sole reason the deal fell apart. Highs disagreed which is why they took sisu to court. The judge agreed with sisu.

I agree about the counter claim, but short of wrongly paying higgs the money, I don't know what sisu could have done to avoid going to court.

I don't get why you're being a like dog with a bone on a tiny issue that was resolved 3 years ago. Its just deflection.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk