Grendel
Well-Known Member
I back the club - what fools like you don't get us we are stuck. A business with no investment worth, no home, no revenue and no hope.
You need to read the High Court Judgement, 40 + pages and he is a judge. It is there in black and white, SISU are not to be trusted. You have backed a Donkey.
I support the club not the owners. You will not find any posts where I have said I do.
The fact that even in the first season at the club when we had crowds of 27,000 and still lost money tells you a you need to know about the business model.
This is serious stuff and unless people really open their eyes to the predicament we face we will soon have no club at all.
You must have gone to the same Sisu school of lies and constant bullshit !!
If your such a great CCFC super fan how come you have so much vile abuse for the council ?
It seems 99% of CCFC fans understand the judges verdict which is pretty damning towards Sisu's actions !!
Why are you coming up with exactly the same bullshit as TF when its been proven as bullshit in a court of law if you don't support Sisu ?
Joy has said she will bankrupt the club( they all ready have) if she cannot have her own way. Will she walk away in revenge or try and recover some of the money by selling now she cannot get her hands on the RICOH.I support the club not the owners. You will not find any posts where I have said I do.
The fact that even in the first season at the club when we had crowds of 27,000 and still lost money tells you a you need to know about the business model.
This is serious stuff and unless people really open their eyes to the predicament we face we will soon have no club at all.
With ACL the club as an attraction to potential suitors is negligible.
How does any of what you have just said get the club back in Coventry?
Back them up?
£1.3 million plus match day costs. Frankly if you think that's acceptable you are no fan of the club.
Remember - even when the club had gates of 26,000 it was losing money with a wage bill that wasn't even excessive by championship standards. What does that tell you?
I think we should just except Grendel is in the minority that just doesn't get it !!
Who's fault is that then Grenduffy? Judge Hickinbottam has made his judgement of total exoneration for CCC/ACL in this matter. Or are you akin to Fisher when he says that the Judge is wrong?I back the club - what fools like you don't get us we are stuck. A business with no investment worth, no home, no revenue and no hope.
ACL is the ultimate issue though. It's not going to attract a purchaser to pay anything like the initial outlay. It's value is only there when the club is in place.
Forget sisu for one minute. If you were an investor on the look out for a club you wouldn't think twice about Coventry.
When at the Ricoh it has always lost money and unless it has the management company and all it's benefits its never going to offer any appeal. The high crowds at the Ricoh disguise the fact that the average price has always been £10 per ticket. It's just not an attractive ownership proposition.
People think sisu will now move on. I don't. I can see a long hard road ahead. The attrition has just begun. More legal cases, more stalemate. The club is in limbo - not wanted by the owner and not attractive to a new one. This isn't a desirable place to be.
I back the club - what fools like you don't get us we are stuck. A business with no investment worth, no home, no revenue and no hope.
I think we should just except Grendel is in the minority that just doesn't get it !!
ACL is the ultimate issue though. It's not going to attract a purchaser to pay anything like the initial outlay. It's value is only there when the club is in place.
Forget sisu for one minute. If you were an investor on the look out for a club you wouldn't think twice about Coventry.
When at the Ricoh it has always lost money and unless it has the management company and all it's benefits its never going to offer any appeal. The high crowds at the Ricoh disguise the fact that the average price has always been £10 per ticket. It's just not an attractive ownership proposition.
People think sisu will now move on. I don't. I can see a long hard road ahead. The attrition has just begun. More legal cases, more stalemate. The club is in limbo - not wanted by the owner and not attractive to a new one. This isn't a desirable place to be.
Why you guys entertain him????
Every time I see his post. I just skip straight past it. Majority of the time his comments has no substance, non constructive and at time's rude so why bother reading it.
It all about attention seeking in my opinion, so move on to a post that is worthy of a reply.
You are right I am humbled, the likes of you and Sky Blue John bring so much more gravitas to the forum.
Many stated that the council were as bad or in some cases possibly worse than SISU in this mess. They stated it would all come out in the JR. Then those defending the council stance will be shocked and embarrassed.
If I have it right the judge pretty much said that SISU had been trying to get ACL to breaking point to pick it up cheaply and they had no back up plan.
This has failed and the council has done no wrong.
I hope those who staunchly attacked the council are now big enough to say we were wrong they did nothing wrong.
SISU need to change their negotiating tactics come back to the table and agree a long term sliding scale rent with access to 80% F and B.
Or start bidding for ACL in full
When the rent deal was drawn up it was only about 5% of turnover and the Judge said at the end it was 10% of turnover and not the reason for the clubs problems. ACL/Council asked SISU to produce a plan for the club and they did not show the council anything. Their plan was to use the club and get hold of the RICOH for nothing.
Other than;
Overcharging on rent
Overcharging on rates
Docking the club 20 points
Placing no worth of the club as an asset
Playing a part in bankrupting the club twice (something that never happened before in its 130 year history)
Creating a business model that means we are stuck with sisu for god knows how long
Yes other than that they've done a top job.
Moronic - how can he operate a keyboard?
He never said that. He said
"the £1.3m rent being only one of the many problems the Football Club faced and arguably not the worst."
Which is completely different to what you have said.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Grendel. How do you think we can get the club back to Coventry? I am actually interested in your opinion.Oh so we are back in Coventry then?
Says the "man" who called OSB a worm.
Ok, so that being said, what would you say were worse.
Bearing in mind you bring up the rent quite a lot............oh and Bakers wages.
Why wouldn't I bring up the rent quite a lot, that's been central to the shit.
Not affording RENT
Not paying RENT
Being taking to court for non payment of RENT
Going into administration for none payment of RENT
The JR as a result of ACL refinancing because of none payment of RENT.
The KCIC RENTal offer
Etc.
I would imagine the biggest cost would be staffing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
just out of interest anyone clear to which particular principle of law SISU are planning to try to appeal or are we assume it is all of the JR case?
the appeals process appears to be this
Court of Appeal
In most cases permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal is required. The lower court may grant permission, but this is unusual as it is a way of saying that the judge accepts the decision may not be right. More often, permission is refused and one has to apply for permission from the Court of Appeal itself. It is vital to initiate this process quickly. One has to lodge an "Appellant's Notice" within 21 days of the decision to be appealed along with grounds of appeal. This is relatively easy to do, as the information required is not great. Nevertheless, full documentation and a skeleton argument in support have to be provided shortly after that.
In cases where permission for judicial review is refused by the High Court, the Appellant's Notice must be lodged within one week (7 days).
Refused permission
A decision is made on paper by a Lord/Lady Justice of Appeal. If the decision is to refuse permission, one can renew the application to an oral hearing within 7 days of the order refusing permission). That will usually be before one, but sometimes two, Lord/Lady Justices. The other party or parties are not normally invited, but in practice they will often turn up to the hearing. They may still not be allowed to make representations or claim costs - the point is that the prospective appellant must show that the proposed appeal stands a realistic prospect of success.
If permission to appeal is refused at that stage, that is the end of the matter. One cannot take it further to the Supreme Court because you will have been refused twice - in the High Court and Court of Appeal.
In this sense the Court of Appeal is, therefore, a court of last instance and as a matter of law must refer points of European law that are not acte clair to the Court of Justice of the European Union. In practice in such cases the Lord/Lady Justice(s) hearing the application for permission will usually adjourn the matter to a full three person court for further consideration.
Granted permission
If permission is granted, the appeal will be heard, usually before a three-person court. Usually, no new evidence is allowed as the facts have been available at the High Court stage, but sometimes it is possible to file fresh evidence. The appeal stage therefore tends to be quicker and cheaper than the High Court stage.
As in the High Court, judgment may be given on the spot, though usually it is handed down. Increasingly, the Court of Appeal will either give one judgment on behalf of the Lord/Lady Justices, or two will simply agree with one lead judgment. This unanimity is less interesting than previous practice where the judges had different perspectives. There is also again argument about costs and permission to appeal to the Supreme Court (which is almost invariably refused). This may be done in Court or, frequently, on paper.
Supreme Court of the United Kingdon ('Supreme Court')
A dissenting judgment in the Court of Appeal could be a good route to getting permission to appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal direct. We have successfully obtained such permission once (and went on to win - the Lappel Bank case).
Usually it is necessary to apply to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal. An "Appeals Committee" of three Supreme Court Justices will decide whether to grant permission to appeal or not. Permission is given extremely sparingly, usually in relation to cases involving important points of principle.
However, the Supreme Court is obliged to take a case where it involves a European Community law point that is not acte clair, so we often approach appeals to the Supreme Court with more hope than many prospective appellants because many of our cases involve such points.
The other parties may be asked to provide observations before the Appeals Committee makes up its mind. If still undecided, it can order a short oral hearing. If permission is granted, the procedure in the Supreme Court is elaborate and relatively expensive. But - if you are the appellant - you are lucky to be there.
taken from
http://www.richardbuxton.co.uk/v3.0/node/15
All I can add is that this seems to indicate plenty of court time yet to come and even more legal bills
How many other words can you get the word RENT into?
Other than;
Overcharging on rent
Overcharging on rates
Docking the club 20 points
Placing no worth of the club as an asset
Playing a part in bankrupting the club twice (something that never happened before in its 130 year history)
Creating a business model that means we are stuck with sisu for god knows how long
Yes other than that they've done a top job.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?