Judicial Review thread (2 Viewers)

[martcov]

Sisu have had a very productive day today. I expect the judges words may have caused some to feel positive, however he made it clear the issue here is whether the council used public moneys unlawfully. the rest of the evidence is purely theater and background, if SISU look bad it will make no difference to the outcome, so forget the comments on non payment of rent.

If you look at the law on the use of public monies in private business there are two elements the judge is going to find in the favor of SISU.

First the council must hold public open meetings and inform the public of the intention to put the money into the private business - giving the people the opportunity to object (that would have prolonged the issue and protracted the situation for ACL so you can see why they kept it all secret)
secondly, the money must be accountable, in other words used in a correct and moral basis, ACL were on the ropes, (yes by SISUs actions) but that's business, SISU took action to make a hostile takeover of ACL, council funds -peoples taxes are not used morally simply to prop up a business the council has an interest in

public expenses are not the same as private money and therefore the rules on it are stringent.

My guess is the outcome will be a win for SISU, only because the judge has his hands tied by the law. He has to arrive at the conclusion the council acted unlawfully. He will slate SISU for their aggressive tactics in bringing down ACL by not paying rent, but essentially at the end of the day SISU are looking strong to win, on the information available in the past however long this saga has been going on.

The evidence about Anne Lucas (if accepted as true by the court) is very damning evidence it really is, Mutton said the same thing openly. That showed the council had no intention of allowing the club to by into the stadium... hence the council had an ulterior motive to use public funds - without the public knowledge. The emails prove the matter was kept secret..

all in all a bad day for the council

1. there was a unaminous full council vote

2. people's monies can be used to protect council's assets

3. an email from someone called Ann is not proof that it came from Anne Lucas

4. the council would be obliged to sell the asset to the highest bidder if it came to a sale. If they sold to someone for less they would be in trouble. The stadium freehold is not for sale anyway.

Without the transcripts I cannot guess who will win, but nothing spectacular has been reported.

You seem to be better informed than most. How and why?

 

---

[skybluetony176]

You'll have to take a cheeky peek at tim fishers or mark labovitchs phone and see if they're on sky blue talk tomorrow.....

using it for research by the sound of it.

 

[Jack Griffin]

I don't think there will be any bomb shell tomorrow.

It seems that the most important information sisu QC has presented today (without having read court transcripts!) is the fact the YB was willing to keep loaning ACL (providing they restructured the long lease).
This means there was at least one private bank who would loan ACL the money - so there was no grounds for state aid.
The point about CCC could have just pulled the plug on ACL and start a fresh also tries to prove there were different options.

All the replay stuff from Higgs vs sisu could be more about potential damages.

You are simply reporting the offer & ignoring the financials here.. if the offer from YB was unsustainable then CCC would have lost the asset, so they refinanced at much better terms.

 

[Jack Griffin]

I have a different take on the state aid bit. We will wait and see.

Also I don't see the Anne Lucas comment as that key at all, one comment one piece of rhetoric, a flippant comment. Have they hinged a whole case on that?

Surly you could pick a few doozies from the utterances of Mr Fisher, it doesn't mean they ever became club policy or were actually .

Anyway since when has it become an offense for a politician to hold an opinion? After all we know their class can pick & discard them like flowers as it suits.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Anyway since when has it become an offense for a politician to hold an opinion? After all we know their class can pick & discard them like flowers as it suits.

Robinson's continued presence is a fine argument against your second point...

 

[SkyblueBazza]

I have a different take on the state aid bit. We will wait and see.

Also I don't see the Anne Lucas comment as that key at all, one comment one piece of rhetoric, a flippant comment. Have they hinged a whole case on that?

Otherwise maybe the TF statement to the effect that they've no interest in returning to the Ricoh must also be key...they've moved on. Hence we're enduring the JR..!


PUSB

 

[bigfatronssba]

Sisu have had a very productive day today. I expect the judges words may have caused some to feel positive, however he made it clear the issue here is whether the council used public moneys unlawfully. the rest of the evidence is purely theater and background, if SISU look bad it will make no difference to the outcome, so forget the comments on non payment of rent.

If you look at the law on the use of public monies in private business there are two elements the judge is going to find in the favor of SISU.

First the council must hold public open meetings and inform the public of the intention to put the money into the private business - giving the people the opportunity to object (that would have prolonged the issue and protracted the situation for ACL so you can see why they kept it all secret)
secondly, the money must be accountable, in other words used in a correct and moral basis, ACL were on the ropes, (yes by SISUs actions) but that's business, SISU took action to make a hostile takeover of ACL, council funds -peoples taxes are not used morally simply to prop up a business the council has an interest in

public expenses are not the same as private money and therefore the rules on it are stringent.

My guess is the outcome will be a win for SISU, only because the judge has his hands tied by the law. He has to arrive at the conclusion the council acted unlawfully. He will slate SISU for their aggressive tactics in bringing down ACL by not paying rent, but essentially at the end of the day SISU are looking strong to win, on the information available in the past however long this saga has been going on.

The evidence about Anne Lucas (if accepted as true by the court) is very damning evidence it really is, Mutton said the same thing openly. That showed the council had no intention of allowing the club to by into the stadium... hence the council had an ulterior motive to use public funds - without the public knowledge. The emails prove the matter was kept secret..

all in all a bad day for the council

Even if that is true, it is irrelevant.

The council are free to sell or not sell, to whoever they wish.

If they feel Sisu are unsuitable owners for the Ricoh (and I must say I would agree with them), then they are free to say it. Absolutely nothing illegal in that.

Some of you really fail to grasp the fact that just because sisu wanted the stadium doesn't mean the council had to sell

 

[Hobo]

I don't think there will be any bomb shell tomorrow.

It seems that the most important information sisu QC has presented today (without having read court transcripts!) is the fact the YB was willing to keep loaning ACL (providing they restructured the long lease).
This means there was at least one private bank who would loan ACL the money - so there was no grounds for state aid.
The point about CCC could have just pulled the plug on ACL and start a fresh also tries to prove there were different options.

All the replay stuff from Higgs vs sisu could be more about potential damages.

I won't go overboard on the significance of any evidence yet as we haven't heard it all and therefore cannot put it fully into context yet.

One alternative offer doesn't mean they can't look at alternative funding re financing for the benefit of a project, which is actually a smaller part of a larger funded regeneration programme.

You have also skipped over the fact that the refinancing issue was brought about by illegal breaking of contracts.

 

[TheOldFive]

Your Dad? I genuinely didn't know. If that I was my dad I would be very proud of his achievements and rightly so. Seriously.
Not sure it makes you the most impartial of observers though and I thought your attack on Rob was a bit mean spirited, needlessly personal and a bit beneath your usual intelligent approach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's Father's Day this weekend he could get him summat nice like a season ticket.

 

[Jack Griffin]

I won't go overboard on the significance of any evidence yet as we haven't heard it all and therefore cannot put it fully into context yet.

One alternative offer doesn't mean they can't look at alternative funding re financing for the benefit of a project, which is actually a smaller part of a larger funded regeneration programme.

You have also skipped over the fact that the refinancing issue was brought about by illegal breaking of contracts.

Yes the one thing that was certainly illegal in this pantomime was SISU withholding the rent..

In response to claims from Sisu's QC, Justice Hickinbottom said that ACL was "in a commercial mess because the football club had not been paying the rent and licence fees it was bound legally to pay."

 

[SkyblueBazza]

As a general principle, when did we get to the stage where state aid was deemed unlawful anyway?!?

What's wrong with state aid! I'd have a specific issue if it was used to prop up a stadium management company ahead of the football club that played in it... but the general idea that the state can't aid business seems bizarre to me.

Up the workers!

Of course it's illegal otherwise countries would be doing all sorts to protect their businesses from foreign takeover or ruin. I mean where would we be if the There were subsidies for farmers &...erm...oh...hang-on


PUSB

 

[dancers lance]

Sisu have had a very productive day today. I expect the judges words may have caused some to feel positive, however he made it clear the issue here is whether the council used public moneys unlawfully. the rest of the evidence is purely theater and background, if SISU look bad it will make no difference to the outcome, so forget the comments on non payment of rent.

If you look at the law on the use of public monies in private business there are two elements the judge is going to find in the favor of SISU.

First the council must hold public open meetings and inform the public of the intention to put the money into the private business - giving the people the opportunity to object (that would have prolonged the issue and protracted the situation for ACL so you can see why they kept it all secret)
secondly, the money must be accountable, in other words used in a correct and moral basis, ACL were on the ropes, (yes by SISUs actions) but that's business, SISU took action to make a hostile takeover of ACL, council funds -peoples taxes are not used morally simply to prop up a business the council has an interest in

public expenses are not the same as private money and therefore the rules on it are stringent.

My guess is the outcome will be a win for SISU, only because the judge has his hands tied by the law. He has to arrive at the conclusion the council acted unlawfully. He will slate SISU for their aggressive tactics in bringing down ACL by not paying rent, but essentially at the end of the day SISU are looking strong to win, on the information available in the past however long this saga has been going on.

The evidence about Anne Lucas (if accepted as true by the court) is very damning evidence it really is, Mutton said the same thing openly. That showed the council had no intention of allowing the club to by into the stadium... hence the council had an ulterior motive to use public funds - without the public knowledge. The emails prove the matter was kept secret..

all in all a bad day for the council

Utter nonsense, what you refer to as 'public monies' would that be the money that the council invested into the 'Ricoh project' 9, 10, 11 years ago? ...........or is it just 'the monies' they used to restructure a debt? a debt that's interest rate was high and would, if defaulted on, not have seen as single penny returned to the people of Coventry?

The first JR was dismissed with haste, this one will drag on a bit longer (for big cocks and peacock feathers) in a highly polished, English Oak courtroom........but the outcome will be the same.

Expect more appeals.......................and pain.

 

[Astute]

Sisu have had a very productive day today. I expect the judges words may have caused some to feel positive, however he made it clear the issue here is whether the council used public moneys unlawfully. the rest of the evidence is purely theater and background, if SISU look bad it will make no difference to the outcome, so forget the comments on non payment of rent.

If you look at the law on the use of public monies in private business there are two elements the judge is going to find in the favor of SISU.

First the council must hold public open meetings and inform the public of the intention to put the money into the private business - giving the people the opportunity to object (that would have prolonged the issue and protracted the situation for ACL so you can see why they kept it all secret)
secondly, the money must be accountable, in other words used in a correct and moral basis, ACL were on the ropes, (yes by SISUs actions) but that's business, SISU took action to make a hostile takeover of ACL, council funds -peoples taxes are not used morally simply to prop up a business the council has an interest in

public expenses are not the same as private money and therefore the rules on it are stringent.

My guess is the outcome will be a win for SISU, only because the judge has his hands tied by the law. He has to arrive at the conclusion the council acted unlawfully. He will slate SISU for their aggressive tactics in bringing down ACL by not paying rent, but essentially at the end of the day SISU are looking strong to win, on the information available in the past however long this saga has been going on.

The evidence about Anne Lucas (if accepted as true by the court) is very damning evidence it really is, Mutton said the same thing openly. That showed the council had no intention of allowing the club to by into the stadium... hence the council had an ulterior motive to use public funds - without the public knowledge. The emails prove the matter was kept secret..

all in all a bad day for the council

What a cracking first ever post :facepalm:

 

[RegTheDonk]

I have a different take on the state aid bit. We will wait and see.

Also I don't see the Anne Lucas comment as that key at all, one comment one piece of rhetoric, a flippant comment. Have they hinged a whole case on that?

Agreed. One person's comment out of a chamber of how many councilors? It would be like Nick saying he wouldn't shop in Tescos so the rest of us follow him to Aldi.

 

[RPHunt]

What a cracking first ever post :facepalm:

And from someone whose username is an anagram of @lesreidp(olitic)s - funny that.

 

[ccfcway]

Yes the one thing that was certainly illegal in this pantomime was SISU withholding the rent..

It was CCFC who withheld the rent, not SISU

 

[Astute]

What a cracking first ever post :facepalm:

So what have we learned today?

Rob S having a personal go at a poster on here that has more knowledge than anyone else on what is going on.

SISU are happy to say that they wanted Higgs to end up with nothing so CCC could start with a clean slate and give SISU more.

The big bombshell that SISU had was a firework that refuses to go off.

Or do we look at the offal......
SISU QC said that, while there was insufficient evidence to show that the Cllrs as a collective group had acted with an improper purpose, CCFC SISU strongly suspected that CCC officers and leadership, along with ACL, had hoped the CCC decision would drive SISU out of Coventry via an administration process for the Club and result in its sale to a new owner.

So we knew it was nothing to do with CCFC today in court. It is a SISU case. CCFC will not financially benefit. But they call themselves CCFC SISU

 

[Kingokings204]

And from someone whose username is an anagram of @lesreidp(olitic)s - funny that.

It obviously is someone who is either a sisu worker or a sisu fan using another username. Don't they realise that we are smarter than average bears.

Bloke signs up writes a massive long post about sisu winning and in a strong position and his username is an anagram of other users.

Probably the same chap who posted the leaked email to/from Jan and then never heard off his again.

How about they actually try and bring us home instead of messing about in court and on this forum.

 

[AndreasB]

And from someone whose username is an anagram of @lesreidp(olitic)s - funny that.

Your name is also NEARLY an anagram


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[stupot07]

So what have we learned today?

Rob S having a personal go at a poster on here that has more knowledge than anyone else on what is going on.

SISU are happy to say that they wanted Higgs to end up with nothing so CCC could start with a clean slate and give SISU more.

The big bombshell that SISU had was a firework that refuses to go off.

Or do we look at the offal......
SISU QC said that, while there was insufficient evidence to show that the Cllrs as a collective group had acted with an improper purpose, CCFC SISU strongly suspected that CCC officers and leadership, along with ACL, had hoped the CCC decision would drive SISU out of Coventry via an administration process for the Club and result in its sale to a new owner.

So we knew it was nothing to do with CCFC today in court. It is a SISU case. CCFC will not financially benefit. But they call themselves CCFC SISU

We also learned that ACL was only sustainable if CCFC kept paying huge rent which was unsustainable for the club.

 

[bigfatronssba]

We also learned that ACL was only sustainable if CCFC kept paying huge rent which was unsustainable for the club.

Despite the fact that it was claimed today that the rent was a small part of the clubs turnover?

 

[Astute]

Your name is also NEARLY an anagram


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes Andrea

 

[Kingokings204]

So what have we learned today?

Rob S having a personal go at a poster on here that has more knowledge than anyone else on what is going on.

SISU are happy to say that they wanted Higgs to end up with nothing so CCC could start with a clean slate and give SISU more.

The big bombshell that SISU had was a firework that refuses to go off.

Or do we look at the offal......
SISU QC said that, while there was insufficient evidence to show that the Cllrs as a collective group had acted with an improper purpose, CCFC SISU strongly suspected that CCC officers and leadership, along with ACL, had hoped the CCC decision would drive SISU out of Coventry via an administration process for the Club and result in its sale to a new owner.

So we knew it was nothing to do with CCFC today in court. It is a SISU case. CCFC will not financially benefit. But they call themselves CCFC SISU

Always been about money and never for fans. This is about sisu and investors not for us lemons just sitting here writing about it.

I am still laughing at sisu illegally withholding rent and having the Balls to bring up the bailout with YB 8 months after withholding rent. I mean seriously.

I don't pay my landlord the rent on my house for 8 months and then he finds a new tennant and then I take him to court for kicking me out and finding someone else.

I still can't believe all this. No wonder the first judge threw out this pathetic case and the next one only agreed because it's common to do so.

The judge has probably gone home pissed himself with laughter and told the lads down the club. Hopefully he will tell them all to go and play sandcastles and leave the law system well alone.

 

[Jack Griffin]

We also learned that ACL was only sustainable if CCFC kept paying huge rent which was unsustainable for the club.

No he didn't say that, he said it was sustainable with the rent, he did not speculate at what point a lesser rent it would became unsustainable for ACL or sustainable for the club.
However I'd be willing to bet that a middle ground now exists where both club & ACL could co exist, but I'd also be willing to bet that neither party will accept that compromise.

 

[Astute]

We also learned that ACL was only sustainable if CCFC kept paying huge rent which was unsustainable for the club.

Not sustainable. The higher the rent the more valuable. And rent not paid to make ACL worth more than Deering tried to say in the case against Higgs. And this came from SISU

 

[Jack Griffin]

Yes Andrea

Wot a sand bear?

 

[AndreasB]

Yes Andrea

Wow, clever boy, worked out my name and everything. I would give you a big kiss but apparently you are going to punch my head in or something.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[AndreasB]

Wot a sand bear?

Cheeky.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 5849]

No he didn't say that, he said it was sustainable with the rent, he did not speculate at what point a lesser rent it would became unsustainable for ACL or sustainable for the club.
However I'd be willing to bet that a middle ground now exists where both club & ACL could co exist, but I'd also be willing to bet that neither party will accept that compromise.

Outside of all this particular nonsense, that's hardly surprising either really.

It's why the whole setup's stupid, two businesses obliged to try and be as efficient as possible and do as well as possible... but the only way they can do that is by costing the other one some of their own potential savings/profit.

Doomed to fail really, isn't it. Something to be said that if it's not resolved properly now, it just comes bak to haunt in a few years time one way or another.

 

[wingy]

But we were heading for the Kibosh anyway ,she was duped into contiuing funding the Club by the CCC duplicity .

 

[dongonzalos]

The discretionary nature of the remedies means that even if a court finds a public body has acted wrongly, it does not have to grant any remedy. Examples of where discretion will be exercised against an applicant may include where the applicant’s own conduct has been unmeritorious or unreasonable, for example where the applicant has unreasonably delayed in applying for judicial review, where the applicant has not acted in good faith, where a remedy would impede an authority’s ability to deliver fair administration, or where the judge considers that an alternative remedy could have been pursued.

 

[martcov]

Outside of all this particular nonsense, that's hardly surprising either really.

It's why the whole setup's stupid, two businesses obliged to try and be as efficient as possible and do as well as possible... but the only way they can do that is by costing the other one some of their own potential savings/profit.

Doomed to fail really, isn't it. Something to be said that if it's not resolved properly now, it just comes bak to haunt in a few years time one way or another.

Yes. It was only supposed to temporary until CCFC used their option to buy the Higgs share. Higgs has to go and then CCFC and CCC will be together as ACL. This is the main problem caused by SISU not purchasing the Higgs share. City would still be at the Ricoh if they had of. SISU would be in a position to negotiate the purchase of the CCC Share - assuming they were working well with the council at ACL in this scenario.

 

[TheRoyalScam]

I've just got in from work expecting to read the court transcripts on the offal - as CCFC state 'The Judicial Review is expected to last three days and the club will publish court transcripts and the key points from the case at the end of each day.

These transcripts, which will include the arguments from both the club and the council, will be un-edited in order for fans to get a clear understanding of the facts which will be presented throughout the Judicial Review.


The transcripts will be available on the official website




How frustrating (and typical of CCFC) that what we get instead is 'Key points from Day 1' 'written' by a CCFC journalist....

And we get a very pro-SISU/anti-CCC poster who decided to join SBT in June (so within the last 10 days) making his/her first post......

Among many inaccuracies in it is the claim that 'peoples taxes' (sic) were used to refinance the Acl/YB mortgage.

Out of interest 'Ladespiser' is an anagram of Piss Dealer - sounds appropriate to me

 

[Godiva]

The key thing I would say that stands out, is that the judge felt the decision was taken because SISU withheld the legally owed debt.
That makes SISU's conduct conducive to the decision they dispute.
That now gives the judge an option to not apply a remedy if he finds in SISU's favour.

Maybe, but potentially (if the bail out is found illegal state aid) ACL could be forced to repay the money and look for a new (private sector) lender.
That may be very difficult without the main tenant - ACL could potentially go bust.

 

[stupot07]

Despite the fact that it was claimed today that the rent was a small part of the clubs turnover?

Yeah, the clubs turnover really is £24-25m..........

.....those figures are a load of tosh. Turnover was £10.8m 2012/13, £6.6m last year.