Judicial Review thread (2 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

A supporter told me last week, his thinking was SISU got us relagated to distress ACL.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

 

---

[Rob S]

Does this even matter now? Why don't we try and get CCFC back to the Ricoh not dwell on how much the rent was even if it was based on a national stadium. Yes, it was too much but don't buy a football club if you can't afford the terms from day 1.Also what you are offering up here is spin and hearsay and not concrete? Why bother.

As we are nearly 500 posts deep into a thread about the judicial review you're going to find a lot of dwelling on things pertaining to the whole history of the arena. If you want the brave new world of a resolution to this saga then you'll best be served in other threads on this forum.

I don't think the potential origin of the costs of the Ricoh is spin as such and I was quite clear to qualify that it was something I'd heard and will look to be backing up at a later date. It's purely offered for discussion – e.g. other people might have heard different or could corroborate.

If you're pissed off about people discussing arcane minutiae of this case then you're in the wrong place.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

@TheSimonGilbert: Sisu QC claims Sisu was strung along while council negotiated secret deal for ACL bank debt. Similar argument was dismissed in Higgs case.

I'm not being funny; but is this it? I mean seriously; is this it? This was already declared and dismissed last time.

Whatever your feelings with regards culpability, even those who oppose the council's stance in this, must have expected more of a 'smoking gun' barrage of revelations given it's SISU QC who's opening, and giving it everything he can.

Is this really why we are playing football in Northampton?

The least I would have hoped for was something stupid from Mutton - which I wouldn't be surprised at. But this? It just makes me sad more than anything else...

 

[rupert_bear]

They certainly didn't a lot to keep us up !

 

[Sky Blues]

Keith Perry on the CT live coverage:

Joy Seppala had made it clear her continuing funding of the club was based on the prospect of gaining an interest in the Ricoh Arena. Sisu QC arguing the council were deceiving Sisu. He said: “The council played Sisu along so Sisu would fund the club even though the council were not committed.”

Interesting one to digest for those who criticise the council and praise Sisu for keeping the club alive by funding it. Are Sisu suggesting they would have pulled the plug on CCFC a long time ago if it wasn't for the pesky council?!!

 

[Rob S]

@TheSimonGilbert: Sisu QC claims Sisu was strung along while council negotiated secret deal for ACL bank debt. Similar argument was dismissed in Higgs case.

WRONG! Did not dismiss a similar argument. Judge dismissed the claim that Higgs was obliged (through agreed terms) not to negotiate with other parties and that the prospective deal had likely fallen apart by Aug 2012 for several reasons inc. council vetoing any deal on Higgs share of ACL.

 

[shmmeee]

Wait, so Sisu are simultaneously arguing that the council strung them along to keep as owners when they would've left and also that the council plotted to remove them as owners?

 

[Rob S]

So, other than RobS showing his true colours, has anything actually come out so far?

I can never follow from tweets.

I'll take this in the Cyndi Lauper sense but unfortunately cannot reciprocate.

 

[rupert_bear]

I'm not being funny; but is this it? I mean seriously; is this it? This was already declared and dismissed last time.

Whatever your feelings with regards culpability, even those who oppose the council's stance in this, must have expected more of a 'smoking gun' barrage of revelations given it's SISU QC who's opening, and giving it everything he can.

Is this really why we are playing football in Northampton?

The least I would have hoped for was something stupid from Mutton - which I wouldn't be surprised at. But this? It just makes me sad more than anything else...

Unfortunately probably is. Just what is the sisu bottom line in all this nonsense is a mystery, they lose this JR so what ! they win it so what ! Meanwhile our football team is playing 35 miles away, selling the best players, buying no-one of any significance and for what ? What is Sepella's end game ?

 

[sky blue john]

I'm struggling at the moment to see how this has even got to court !!
All this has done is delay negotiations for a year...

 

[Nick]

Keith Perry on the CT live coverage:


Interesting one to digest for those who criticise the council and praise Sisu for keeping the club alive by funding it. Are Sisu suggesting they would have pulled the plug on CCFC a long time ago if it wasn't for the pesky council?!!

That doesn't make sense at all to go with their argument?

 

[shmmeee]

I'll take this in the Cyndi Lauper sense but unfortunately cannot reciprocate.

You've taken some cheap shots today my man, thought I'd take one back

 

[Rob S]

Wait, so Sisu are simultaneously arguing that the council strung them along to keep as owners when they would've left and also that the council plotted to remove them as owners?

I think the angle is that the council wanted Sisu to carry on funding the club until such time that the 'new ownership project' could be fully activated. Allegedly. Is anyone reporting any evidence being read into court?

 

[Monners]

Unfortunately probably is. Just what the sisu bottom line in all this nonsense is a mystery, they lose this JR so what! they win it so what! Meanwhile our football team is playing 35 miles away, selling the best players, buying no-one of any significance and for what ? What is Sepella's end game ?

My thoughts exactly.

 

[No future with SISU]

91% then is it?! Just my opinion Nick. I don't post often but won't attend a match until SISU are gone. So many feel this way.

It is more than 91%.

 

[stupot07]

@TheSimonGilbert: Rent was five per cent of the club's turnover at the time of 2012 negotiations court hears from same memo.

I smell BS, that would make turnover £25m. Must have based that on the old PL days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Dhinsa's_Millions]

As we are nearly 500 posts deep into a thread about the judicial review you're going to find a lot of dwelling on things pertaining to the whole history of the arena. If you want the brave new world of a resolution to this saga then you'll best be served in other threads on this forum.

I don't think the potential origin of the costs of the Ricoh is spin as such and I was quite clear to qualify that it was something I'd heard and will look to be backing up at a later date. It's purely offered for discussion – e.g. other people might have heard different or could corroborate.

If you're pissed off about people discussing arcane minutiae of this case then you're in the wrong place.

We await your bullshit post with baited breath then.

 

[Sky Blues]

That doesn't make sense at all to go with their argument?

:Thinking about: - or whatever the code is for that rubbing chin smiley.

 

[Sky Blue Dal]

I'm not being funny; but is this it? I mean seriously; is this it? This was already declared and dismissed last time.

I believe this was dismissed as it had no relevance in the Higgs and SISU case as the CCC were a third party but it would be of relevance in this case as it involves SISU vs CCC. I maybe wrong but I don't think the judge will dismiss it this time round and keep it in.

 

[duffer]

WRONG! Did not dismiss a similar argument. Judge dismissed the claim that Higgs was obliged (through agreed terms) not to negotiate with other parties and that the prospective deal had likely fallen apart by Aug 2012 for several reasons inc. council vetoing any deal on Higgs share of ACL.

Erm... at what point did the council veto the deal?

What I took from the Higgs case transcripts is that the deal fell apart because SISU offered £5m on buy-now, pay-later terms without any security that Higgs could accept. I didn't see any evidence of the Council shooting down the deal, in fact there can't be any because no agreement between Higgs and SISU was ever struck - in essence then, no deal to veto.

 

[shmmeee]

I think the angle is that the council wanted Sisu to carry on funding the club until such time that the 'new ownership project' could be fully activated. Allegedly. Is anyone reporting any evidence being read into court?

So what's the supposed point this new ownership project kicked off? And again, how could any of it go ahead without Sisus approval as owners?

It just doesn't stack up. Why was all the PR at the time about the rent rather than this devious plot to remove them? If you were tricked into not paying rent why not go public? If you did it willingly why not stop the admin process?

 

[Kingokings204]

I'm waiting for the sisu qc to say pkwh tied balloons to fishers car Hahahahaha (not joking really)

Really is a pathetic showing from sisu. Is this how they batter people is court? Pricks. Don't think they actually have won one as this is their home fixture.

 

[oldskyblue58]

I smell BS, that would make turnover £25m. Must have based that on the old PL days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Was thinking that those figures didn't make sense too stupot. Turnover for 2012 and 2013 were 10.8m and 6.6m respectively and rents paid (was it all at Ricoh?) 1.7m and 1.2m respectively.

 

[sky blue john]

Was this at the time Joy was unaware of the rent strike ?

 

[shmmeee]

I smell BS, that would make turnover £25m. Must have based that on the old PL days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

That seemed funny to me. Why would Sisu downplay the level of rent? (This was a Sisu argument right?)

 

[oldskyblue58]

What the Judge said on the Higgs case

“On the facts, as I perceive them, by the time the trustees entered into an agreement to vary the joint venture agreement on 14 January 2013, the transaction contemplated by the term sheet had already fallen apart or fallen away, to use Miss Deering's expressions this morning, long before that. It follows that the criticisms made of the trustees by SISU as to the propriety of their conduct in December or January and the arguments made about them undermining the bargain by their actions at that time seem to me to be misplaced and it is unfortunate that allegations were made in some of the terms which have been put forward by SISU in these proceedings. I have come to the conclusion, however, that in circumstances where the transaction fell apart or fell away in August 2012, effectively because neither party wished to pursue the transaction contained in the term sheet, that is not a circumstance in which the trustees are entitled to recover their wasted costs.” MR JUSTICE LEGGATT

 

[Rob S]

So what's the supposed point this new ownership project kicked off? And again, how could any of it go ahead without Sisus approval as owners?

It just doesn't stack up. Why was all the PR at the time about the rent rather than this devious plot to remove them? If you were tricked into not paying rent why not go public? If you did it willingly why not stop the admin process?

This all has to be answered as part of Sisu's case. I'm not giving their argument any support or credence, just explaining what I think it is. TBH, the only way to really find out is to be in the court and pore over the papers afterwards.

(Thankfully my suitcase has returned so I may yet get to do just that.)

 

[shmmeee]

This all has to be answered as part of Sisu's case. I'm not giving their argument any support or credence, just explaining what I think it is. TBH, the only way to really find out is to be in the court and pore over the papers afterwards.

(Thankfully my suitcase has returned so I may yet get to do just that.)

No I get that. I was just shaking my fists at clouds, not you personally.

 

[The Reverend Skyblue]

Be aware OSB , your point isn't acceptable to some because you might be in the labour party

 

[duffer]

So what's the supposed point this new ownership project kicked off? And again, how could any of it go ahead without Sisus approval as owners?

It just doesn't stack up. Why was all the PR at the time about the rent rather than this devious plot to remove them? If you were tricked into not paying rent why not go public? If you did it willingly why not stop the admin process?

Quite. If the rent's paid, or even a lower rent agreed (as was, supposedly, being negotiated), then there's simply no way to replace SISU as owners unless they chose to sell. You can't force someone into selling the club, even via admin, unless they refuse to pay their bills.

 

[shmmeee]

If anyone cares I think I'm still in the Lib Dems, I keep getting emails from Nick Clegg and I don't know how to make them stop.

I imagine its it's the only thing I've got in common with David Cameron.

 

[oldskyblue58]

power to the people Rev power to the people !:laugh:

 

[sky blue john]

I can't see this going the distance the Sisu qc sounds like he is getting a kicking from the judge.

 

[stupot07]

That seemed funny to me. Why would Sisu downplay the level of rent? (This was a Sisu argument right?)

I might be wrong but I think it's from a higgs memo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

Rob has made several major mistakes since joining:

1. Criticising the council
2. Criticising OSB

Big no no's.

Re point 2, I think there is a difference between criticising and mud slinging.