Astute
Well-Known Member
And have CCC call Fisher up and ask him if he said that they wouldn't have done the same deal as Wasps after the deal was done?
Or ask Joy if she refused to negotiate with CCC?
And explain why we had moved to Northampton.
JR2 (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter Willo The Wisp
- Start date
Or ask Joy if she refused to negotiate with CCC?
And explain why we had moved to Northampton.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Even if that meant the club folds?
Yes the reason given by the the Football League for allowing Northampton was because the club was in a rent dispute , this is Taking our landlords to court, Thus making ourselves homeless
Bridport_SBA
Member
It's the discretion that we would be relying upon. EVERYONE involved in football can see what a car crash SISU have been and what damage they are doing to the club and therefore to the game. You can take the view that the people on the EFL board are just as bad as SISU, but they're not. They have no vested interest in supporting SISU and they should see that SISU are treating the club (and therefore the league) with contempt. They won't want to be in the firing line, bombarded by fans letters, called to Parliamentary select committees. There is a possibility that pressure brought to bear on them might (let's put it no stronger than that) have some effect. In the words of Monty Python, SISU wouldn't budge if you put 3 million volts through them.
Bridport_SBA
Member
What's the alternative? To drift down the leagues. To move to some tiny stadium. If it folds, then it'll phoenix somewhere else without SISU.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Hope you are right but I know relying on them before did not work and despite pressure their default position is to support its own members.
Add to that the Sisu usual weapon of attack and defence and I do not share your more positive take on the EFL
Add to that the Sisu usual weapon of attack and defence and I do not share your more positive take on the EFL
duffer
Well-Known Member
We're not taking our landlords to court though - we're taking the council to court. Wasps are solely named as an 'interested party', in reality the only people at actual risk of having to pay damages are Coventry City Council (and most would see that as a fairly remote outcome).
Wasps were refusing to negotiate on the rent deal long before this decision was made. I don't think the FL will take the line that we've made ourselves homeless if it comes to that, so I wouldn't look to them for help.
I'm perhaps unique here in that I have no problem with JR2. Everyone is entitled to present their case to the courts if they feel they've been wronged, and I've got no problem with the council having their decision making challenged. If it's all completely above board SISU will get their arses kicked, again, and if it isn't I'd like the truth out there.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I would go for this, if it wasn't the for the fact that this was the standard line for JR1, and we all saw how that panned out. Occam's razor suggests that Sisu are doing what Sisu said they would do and using the courts to enact revenge when a deal doesn't go their way. Frankly, I think that an abuse of taxpayer money. And if the reports are true that they still haven't paid up for the last one, even more taxpayer money.
The council have been repeatedly challenged throughout, including complaints to the ethics board, and come out clean every time. At some point it's just a vexatious lawsuit.
Fair point , for the record I have no problem with JR2 either , I think like a lot of people, thought it would have automatically started straight after the first one, Hence the Frustration now
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Not strictly true
PART 54 - JUDICIAL REVIEW AND STATUTORY REVIEW - Civil Procedure Rules
"(f) ‘interested party’ means any person (other than the claimant and defendant) who is directly affected by the claim; and"
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
It would rise as a Phoenix without me, would be out if it came to that, but I completely Agree with
you the FL need to get a grip and get involved, this needs bringing to a head.
Astute
Well-Known Member
I would like to know what the real truth is.
But if SISU are only still with us because of ongoing court cases I want them to end so our club can go to someone who at least cares in some way other than legal matters. JR1 must have taken a few years from the build up to end of appeals. So will JR2 take as long? Then will there be a JR3, JR4 and so on?
duffer
Well-Known Member
All fair enough, but if it's truly vexatious and without foundation then the court will bounce it out pretty quickly on that basis. Occam's razor (iirc) proposes that the simplest possible solution is the right one - but there's nothing simple about how any of this has been conducted. With all respect to the ethics board, that was the council investigating itself and the scope was far more limited than the JR.
The point about taxpayer money is fair, but then the argument behind a JR is an abuse of process (which may or may not have cost the taxpayers money). I don't think in itself it costing the taxpayer money is an argument for a case not to be brought.
If SISU haven't paid the last set of costs, then I presume the Council will take action against them for that, and I'd be right behind them doing that. SISU had their day(s) in court, lost, and should pay the full price according to the judgement for doing so. It's an absolutely undisputable debt set by court order, so recovering payment won't be an issue. The unfairness here which I absolutely accept is that what they will pay probably doesn't truly match the Council's full costs, but the flaw there is within how the law works on these matters.
duffer
Well-Known Member
Yes SBT, they're an interested party in that they were part of the deal that's going to be analysed in JR2. As I understand it they could have joined themselves to the case anyway, had they wished.
However, unless you know different, there's no scope for either unwinding the deal or claiming damages against Wasps. No one is accusing Wasps of legal wrongdoing (morally though, a whole other matter!).
As such the impact on Waps is trivial, although it would seem (as with their refusal to negotiate a continuation on the Ricoh with CCFC) their interests are best served by backing the council who appear to be favouring them in other areas.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Yeah generally I agree. Just playing Devil's Advocate as usual. I'd be very surprised if the council didn't ensure their backs are well covered knowing how litigious Sisu are. Mostly I'm pissed off that it looks like scuppering a new Ricoh deal and keeping Sisu here another couple of years.
My main issue with Sisu is that I start from an assumption on what they are doing (using the courts as a weapon, leaving the club to rot out of spite) in the hope that I'll be pleasantly surprised, yet they never fail to disappoint so I suppose I do go in assuming the worst from the start.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
They are the group holding company who own Otium.
The Real Owners of Otium Enteryainment Group are:.....
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
duffer
Well-Known Member
I don't think that's an unreasonable approach given past history! Don't get me wrong, I've got my doubts about the whole thing but JR2 looks like a pretty thin case to me, at least from the outside.
It'll be interesting to read through another 3000 pages of legal argument, at least for me. But then I'm a pretty sad type really.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Oh and for SBK, and because I hadn't seen proof Otium are claimants anywhere else until this:
Don't need to thank me shmmeee. You can give your thanks to OSB58. Like I've already said, I was merely pointing out to some people that cba to read previous posts on the same thread, eg, oldfiver!
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Got my outfit for the day ready
That would make a quality away day protest idea.
duffer
Well-Known Member
Got my outfit for the day ready
I've gotta get one of them! Imagine a few hundred of us wearing those at the Ricoh. "GUILTY!"
Nick
Administrator
skyblueinBaku
Well-Known Member
I can't for the life of me understand how Fisher can claim that CCFC is keeping it's distance from the legal stuff when CCFC is the trading name of Otium who are one of the claimants. How does he justify that claim?
duffer
Well-Known Member
Nick
Administrator
First question for the next fans forum...
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Not quite, I'll get back on this after work.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Just asking I think that's how I feel too
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
He's applying to be Trumps new Press Secretary. We are also going to have an alternative stadium (deckchairs in the Memorial)
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I'm reasonably comfortable holding both positions on this however.
I can be convinced SISU aren't doing this for the good of CCFC, or even mankind... but I'd also like everything possible to be flushed out... flushed out. The problem when Richardson left were the whispers and the innuendos (and the fact Robinson, McGinnity, Higgs were still about when, I'm not convinced they should have been and the confidentiality clauses also, paradoxically, helped them to keep power when a clean break would have been useful), so although it's unrealistic to expect a bearing of souls from both CCC and SISU, every little bit helps in knowing how we came to be here.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Would make an ideal outfit for leading the Conga !Got my outfit for the day ready