Judicial review thread - day 2 (14 Viewers)

Rob S

Well-Known Member
I expect the judge to be just as harsh to CCC when appropriate, don't read anything into that.

Indeed. The idea that expensive lawyers can walk all over cowering judges is so wide of the mark. This guy knows what he's doing and isn't going to let either side get away with anything.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Did YB know about Sisu's intention to liquidate?

If you're looking at the decision made at the time, wouldn't it be reasonable to suggest that the council were planning for the worst case scenario of no CCFC and YB weren't?

(genuine question, I've not been following what YB were privy to)

But decisions made were not about CCFC but about ACL surely?
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Gilbert's Tweet this morning: Had a peek at Sisu's skeleton argument. Main thrust is terms of council/ACL loan were "wholly uncommercial" contrary to EU state aid law

How can it be uncommercial, if YB made an 'almost equivalent' offer?

I don't know the terms. I was talking equivalence in figures. I was under the impression that the loan was to protect the asset (in the absence of being able to refinance elsewhere).
 

Bennets Afro

Well-Known Member
Surely the whole reason for the bail out was to save a community asset from going under.
If other options were available there was no need for the council to step in

And one option that would of left ACL debt free


Gilbert's Tweet this morning: Had a peek at Sisu's skeleton argument. Main thrust is terms of council/ACL loan were "wholly uncommercial" contrary to EU state aid law

How can it be uncommercial, if YB made an 'almost equivalent' offer?
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
'Sisu QC says ACL continued to string club along on rent negotiations in Dec 12 after knowing debt was to be sold to council'

Again, I can't understand this. In what way is the landlord's negotiations with it's fund provider in any way linked with the landlord's negotiation with it's tenant? I simply cannot understand on what basis this is drawn.

As I see it -

If sisu were told all deals were off before the council took over the loan there was a real threat that sisu would put the club in administration/liquidation immediately. That would make it impossible for the council to provide the loan and also have YB to pull out completely. ACL would be totally bankrupt.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
But decisions made were not about CCFC but about ACL surely?

Sorry, I'm not following. CCFC's status effects ACL's business. Quite significantly, as you pointed out yourself earlier.

I'm just reading through the Telegraph page (didn't see that yesterday!) and it makes a bit more sense now. But seems to me that the offer from YB came with conditions of cost cutting. If that's the case then the loan from CCC would be more attractive if there was a regeneration strategy around boosting ACL's business, that wouldn't fit with an austerity program surely? It wasn't oranges and oranges as your first post suggested.
 

AFCCOVENTRY

Well-Known Member
@TheSimonGilbert: Sisu present evidence they believe shows ACL was not as profitable as stated to councillors.
 

Rob S

Well-Known Member
Talk of ACL cash-flow, accounts and ability to service loan. All in court hunting for the accounts!
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Surely the whole reason for the bail out was to save a community asset from going under.
If other options were available there was no need for the council to step in

But the other options weren't identical, they came with strings attached. Strings that may not have been compatible with the council's stated aims for Coventry.

And one option that would of left ACL debt free

Where have I heard that phrase in relation to a Sisu owned company before? ;)
 

Sub

Well-Known Member
Sisu QC tells court PriceWaterhouseCoopers report found that profitably of ACL was “overstated” and the cash flows required for repaying debt “were significantly” lower.
Accounts skewed by £1.3m payment from Isle of Capri casino which were spread out over more than one year for accounting reasons but in fact all the money was banked in the first year and no more of the cash would be coming so should be “stripped out of the accounts”.
PWC said ACL only able to service £4m to £5m of debt.
 

sky blue john

Well-Known Member
Getting to the crux now.
Judge has mentioned EU test. So I presume if the loan has passed the EU test then the rest is irrelevant !
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Sorry, I'm not following. CCFC's status effects ACL's business. Quite significantly, as you pointed out yourself earlier.

I'm just reading through the Telegraph page (didn't see that yesterday!) and it makes a bit more sense now. But seems to me that the offer from YB came with conditions of cost cutting. If that's the case then the loan from CCC would be more attractive if there was a regeneration strategy around boosting ACL's business, that wouldn't fit with an austerity program surely? It wasn't oranges and oranges as your first post suggested.

What drove the need to refinance the loan?
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Sisu QC tells court PriceWaterhouseCoopers report found that profitably of ACL was “overstated” and the cash flows required for repaying debt “were significantly” lower.
Accounts skewed by £1.3m payment from Isle of Capri casino which were spread out over more than one year for accounting reasons but in fact all the money was banked in the first year and no more of the cash would be coming so should be “stripped out of the accounts”.
PWC said ACL only able to service £4m to £5m of debt.

Sorry, but Sisu complaining about creative accounting?

LOL
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
But the other options weren't identical, they came with strings attached. Strings that may not have been compatible with the council's stated aims for Coventry.



Where have I heard that phrase in relation to a Sisu owned company before? ;)

ACL are a private company? Are you saying there is a conflict of interest?
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
As I see it -

If sisu were told all deals were off before the council took over the loan there was a real threat that sisu would put the club in administration/liquidation immediately. That would make it impossible for the council to provide the loan and also have YB to pull out completely. ACL would be totally bankrupt.

As yet, we haven't seen or heard anything that suggested SISU would have an interest in anything other than tenancy, have we?
 

Rob S

Well-Known Member
5 min break. Seems to be a bit of a mess re: accounts. Sisu QC, Deering & JS in very animated discussion during break.
 

AFCCOVENTRY

Well-Known Member
Lol
@TheSimonGilbert: Judge asks what was wrong with councillors being told ACL was profitable when audited accounts show they were.
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
Gilbert's Tweet this morning: Had a peek at Sisu's skeleton argument. Main thrust is terms of council/ACL loan were "wholly uncommercial" contrary to EU state aid law

How can it be uncommercial, if YB made an 'almost equivalent' offer?

They didn't - the interest rate would be considerably higher.
When public money is used in commercial ways it MUST be with the intend of making a profit equal to any comparable private enterprises. The ccc loan should have been on normal interests to follow EU legislation.

Beside that - when a bank had offered to provide the loan then ccc had no grounds for providing the loan itself. That's upsetting the fair and free market using public means - something the whole regulating of state aid is set up to avoid.
 

Nick

Administrator
That'd be a no then. Sorry mate, you're going to have to explain like I'm 5 today.

Only if you put your hand up before asking!

*Couldn't resist a shit, teacher gag on a Tuesday while all the talk is about politics, law, accounts.
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
Surely the whole reason for the bail out was to save a community asset from going under.
If other options were available there was no need for the council to step in

And one option that would of left ACL debt free

The stadium itself is a community asset - ACL is not.
 

martcov

Well-Known Member
They didn't - the interest rate would be considerably higher.
When public money is used in commercial ways it MUST be with the intend of making a profit equal to any comparable private enterprises. The ccc loan should have been on normal interests to follow EU legislation.

Beside that - when a bank had offered to provide the loan then ccc had no grounds for providing the loan itself. That's upsetting the fair and free market using public means - something the whole regulating of state aid is set up to avoid.

So what you're saying is that for ACL to make a good profit, they were obliged to take the cheapest form of restructuring? Did CCC provide the loan or arrange the loan?
 

lewys33

Well-Known Member
So when does the judge throw all the papers on the floor shouting "fuck this shit" and demand Joy lead the routine to a new harlem shake video?
 

Sub

Well-Known Member
The venue for this week's grudge match...

JS39033068-Medium.jpg
The Priory Courts, Bull Street, Birmingham

Perfect street name for this case !!!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top