AFCCOVENTRY
Well-Known Member
@TheSimonGilbert: We're underway. Council QC James Goudie on his feet.
Judicial review day 3 - judgement day (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter AFCCOVENTRY
- Start date
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Have CWR been doing any coverage?
AFCCOVENTRY
Well-Known Member
@covtelegraph: 9.42am BREAKING: Double decker bus on fire in #Coventry http://t.co/tRY6KmRdG7
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Is 'D' a rapper?
Hobo
Well-Known Member
It is just like a Raymond Chandler novel isn't it?
Seems to me that amongst all of the hot air and bluster from both (all) sides, there is a relatively simple centre thrust to the argument.
The council made the loan at preferential terms when another commercial loan had been offered, and possibly not all of the councillors had been involved in the decision.
Then they failed to comply with the EU notification that it had used its own funds to make the loan.
No matter how they have tried to mitigate and justify, that appears to have been the case.
The JR was brought on the grounds that CCC had used state funds inappropriately.
It's going to be interesting to see how this pans out .............
The council made the loan at preferential terms when another commercial loan had been offered, and possibly not all of the councillors had been involved in the decision.
Then they failed to comply with the EU notification that it had used its own funds to make the loan.
No matter how they have tried to mitigate and justify, that appears to have been the case.
The JR was brought on the grounds that CCC had used state funds inappropriately.
It's going to be interesting to see how this pans out .............
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
I thought it couldn't be moved from the museum
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Hot news.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
D and Jon Strange sounds like an underground dub beat duo
Rob S
Well-Known Member
Overall thought from yesterday from someone who was paying close attention:
Sisu QC seemed weak but could always provide evidence and a reply when challenged by the judge. CCC QC has far stronger manner but doesn't seem to have the answers as readily when off script / challenged by judge.
Key point from yesterday could be the value of the stadium – if £15m then could exonerate CCC. If max £8.5m then more shaky. Non-payment of rent has been established in this court so could also be a major factor.
Personally, I'm not sure if anything will change. I'm going to do my best to find out what Sisu / ACL plans are post-verdict but my thought is the same as it was before: Negotiations will have to take place with all options on the table.
If CCC win then we are as we are. If Sisu win then it all depends on what CCC has to do to remedy the situation.
Ultimately, the survival of ACL as a business is what is at stake here.
Sisu QC seemed weak but could always provide evidence and a reply when challenged by the judge. CCC QC has far stronger manner but doesn't seem to have the answers as readily when off script / challenged by judge.
Key point from yesterday could be the value of the stadium – if £15m then could exonerate CCC. If max £8.5m then more shaky. Non-payment of rent has been established in this court so could also be a major factor.
Personally, I'm not sure if anything will change. I'm going to do my best to find out what Sisu / ACL plans are post-verdict but my thought is the same as it was before: Negotiations will have to take place with all options on the table.
If CCC win then we are as we are. If Sisu win then it all depends on what CCC has to do to remedy the situation.
Ultimately, the survival of ACL as a business is what is at stake here.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Did you not realise that when SISU went for a JR?
AFCCOVENTRY
Well-Known Member
Acl and sisu arguing about non payment of rent...
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
This
The rest of the 3 days it tit for tat.
Lets face it, this could have been over in an hour, all ccc need to do is defend this, if they can.
This is what sisu are hanging hat on, their evidence is pretty irrelevant.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It's White Dee of 'Benefits Street' fame - she's in the wrong Court
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
How could it not be illegal.
It was a legally binding contract they broke?
We're they rely suggesting that wasn't illegal?
Obviously it's all been kicking around for forever, but following the case it seems to have been put much more clearly (to me, anyway).
Rob S
Well-Known Member
One thing I totally forgot yesterday: The living god that is Cyrille Regis came in for part of the day. Looking very trim and apparently still playing footie (as well as that funny stick-ball old man game). Still remembering '87 and his international appearances at Wembley. Don't think he was too enthralled by the legal proceedings.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
There is likely to be no remedy if SISU win IMO. SISU illegally withheld rent. Thus their behaviour unreasonably led CCC to make a potentially incorrect decision.
If the Judge feels SISU's behaviour contributed to the council making the decision he can say no to a remedy.
Last edited:
Hobo
Well-Known Member
The JR remit has always been narrow. I think SISU have used it to get disclosure and try and bring things out to their advantage. However the Judge has kept it, rightly, to what is relevant to the case he is hearing.
I think a lot of fans haven't always had their heads around what the JR was going to be about, reading many of the posts in recent months.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
as a stab in the dark, my shout is...
the judge will say the loan didn't follow proper procedure and thus was illegal, however they were forced to do it by the rent being withheld....
result, slap on the wrists and small fine for council, with costs to be paid by each side and no compo awarded.
the judge will say the loan didn't follow proper procedure and thus was illegal, however they were forced to do it by the rent being withheld....
result, slap on the wrists and small fine for council, with costs to be paid by each side and no compo awarded.
AFCCOVENTRY
Well-Known Member
@TheSimonGilbert: Council QC going over EU case law now. Main thrust is advice to council must have been material misleading to breach state aid law.
Rob S
Well-Known Member
In rebutting Sisu's claim, the CCC QC misquoted the Sisu QC (from yesterday) which is where the argument came from.
There's been a lot of discussion about the rent and if there was an agreement to reduce it, run down the escrow etc. The legal decision here (which is what counts) will be that whatever was discussed in 2012 wasn't legally binding so the club going ahead with the discussed terms is non-payment, even if reduced rather than complete non-payment.
Bear in mind that the appeal judge that got us to this point accepted that some rent was paid so the judgment today should include an actual legal decision on that if I understand correctly. We'll see what the judge says in his summing up.
Rob S
Well-Known Member
Sounds like a good shout but TBH, predicting the judge's decision is, as you say, a stab in the dark.
This is really involved legal stuff so get out your dartboard or wait until THE JUDGENING!!
Rob S
Well-Known Member
You might know her from Twitter as skybluechick. She was on Late Kick Off a few months ago giving a very impassioned speech on our plight. Moz Baker has been taking the piss out of her ever since
(in a nice way – everyone loves D)
Nick
Administrator
So is that him saying the state aid law was breached but because they were misled or am I reading it wrong?
Rob S
Well-Known Member
You might know her from Twitter as skybluechick. She was on Late Kick Off a few months ago giving a very impassioned speech on our plight. Moz Baker has been taking the piss out of her ever since
BTW, worth following @skybluechick today. She's been tweeting furiously and seems to have been picking quite a few holes in Simon Gilbert's reporting.
(For context, she's away days only but doesn't trust anyone in this dispute and just wants it over.)