James Smith
Well-Known Member
Read the court happenings this morning here http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-owners-back-high-6351066
Judicial Review (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Tonylinc
- Start date
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Could you put the article up on here please James?
James Smith
Well-Known Member
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-owners-back-high-6351066©Coventry Telegraph & Les Reid said:
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Top man, Thanks
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I can see both cases here. Is there the possibility of an adjournment today?
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
Is there anything new from the written statement to the oral statement. If not, then it should be thrown out.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
Decision to be given by judge tomorrow morning
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
The big weakness I see in SISUs arguement is that none of this would have happened had they not gone on rent strike. There would have been no issues with Yorkshire Bank as ACL were meeting their repayment schedule, indeed I think they were making regular overpayments. Same with the administration of CCFC and the claim that CCC are trying to force SISU out, if the rent had been paid there would have been no way the club would have gone into administration. Does CCC wanting to get rid of SISU even have any bearing on the JR if the complaint is about CCC making a loan to ACL?
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
Is this bit here not irrelevant?
Mr Thompson alleged the council was “riding two horses” by negotiating with Sisu while “behind their backs” the council was seeking a deal with the bank to buy out the mortgage itself.
Unless some sort of exclusivity agreement had been signed then I don't understand why they are bringing that up.
Mr Thompson alleged the council was “riding two horses” by negotiating with Sisu while “behind their backs” the council was seeking a deal with the bank to buy out the mortgage itself.
Unless some sort of exclusivity agreement had been signed then I don't understand why they are bringing that up.
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
Of course this will leave the Judge to comment of the proceeding of all this, which will be intriguing.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
good point, it's not uncommon practice in business to be pursuing 2 options so as you say unless exclusivity had been agreed there's no arguement to make there.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
It does appear that CCC had very little to say, whilst SISU said quite a lot.
I wonder if that's what actually happened....
I wonder if that's what actually happened....
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Sisu have no choice, the JR application has been throw out once and Sisu are desperate.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Sorry to repeat this I put it on the wrong thread:
One thing against SISU is they had a chance to buy a share in the stadium and didn't take it. It is not like the council have always refused to sell to them?
They are claiming dirty tactics by CCC when their own dirty tactics didn't work. It's a bit like claiming someone dived for a penalty after their leg has been put in plaster!
One thing against SISU is they had a chance to buy a share in the stadium and didn't take it. It is not like the council have always refused to sell to them?
They are claiming dirty tactics by CCC when their own dirty tactics didn't work. It's a bit like claiming someone dived for a penalty after their leg has been put in plaster!
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
That can be said for the whole case. That CCC were just securing the asset from YB, allowing Sisu to buy ACL at a later date. I've seen nothing that proves the council loan prevented Sisu from buying ACL.
Depending on its context, the comment about "Hell freezing over before selling the Ricoh to Sisu" can be easily defended as meaning the Freehold.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
I do HATE the selective use of the term the "Club"...passionately hate it...SISU owned companies dragging our name through the mud...I HATE IT & wish they'd stop it. They're doing all this in the name of SISU & for the love of money - NOT for OUR CLUB!!!
There are some good funnies in there though:-
1. Rhodri Thompson, QC for the Sisu companies, told the judge the loan’s real purpose was part of a “secret plan to drive us out of Coventry”.
2. Mr Thompson claimed the entire plan was concocted “months before”.
3. The “state aid” interfered with fair competition between international businesses operating sporting and entertainment venues
4. Chris West later said in a minuted meeting that “hell would freeze over” before the Ricoh was sold to Sisu.
I wonder if that last bit they conveniently missed off the actual quote 'before the Ricoh is sold to SISU at anything other the true market value'?
There are some good funnies in there though:-
1. Rhodri Thompson, QC for the Sisu companies, told the judge the loan’s real purpose was part of a “secret plan to drive us out of Coventry”.
2. Mr Thompson claimed the entire plan was concocted “months before”.
3. The “state aid” interfered with fair competition between international businesses operating sporting and entertainment venues
4. Chris West later said in a minuted meeting that “hell would freeze over” before the Ricoh was sold to Sisu.
I wonder if that last bit they conveniently missed off the actual quote 'before the Ricoh is sold to SISU at anything other the true market value'?
According to SISU's QC "the loan’s real purpose was part of a “secret plan to drive us out of Coventry”.
This sounds like the standard tactic when all else has failed: "we are the victims of a conspiracy".
Are there any more ways in which SISU can make themselves a complete laughing stock in public?
This sounds like the standard tactic when all else has failed: "we are the victims of a conspiracy".
Are there any more ways in which SISU can make themselves a complete laughing stock in public?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Because it demonstrates that the council were seeking to distort the market.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Exactly...you present yourself with as many options as you can before having to decide what you do. SISU know this...that's why they've set up so many companies operating & non-operating - to provide more options for themselves.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
So what should they have done?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Let the market operate. SISU were also guilty of distorting the market but in their world they're allowed to do that. Councils are not supposed to intervene.
I am not taking sides here I'm just stating what I think SISU's argument is. It's an odd position as ACL are a private company that aren't a private company really.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
And SISU don't? Players contracts? share to play in League? How much debt? No published accounts?
Contradicting statements from board members?
tisza
Well-Known Member
Doesn't it make the overall thing more confusing?
Why was Joy prepared to make an offer for 50% of the ACL back then but now it's the freehold or nothing?
The financial argument put forward (since the rent strike and moving to Northampton) about needing to control all income streams and having to own everything doesn't seem to tally with their actions described by their QC.
The rhetoric about trying to drive them out of Coventry doesn't seem to bode well for any future talks if SISU don't win their case tomorrow and even then it's only about whether there's a case to answer. If SISU win this first stage then things could drag on even longer with no sign of a return to the Ricoh or moves to actually building a new stadium.
Almost need SISU to lose in order for progress to be made.
Why was Joy prepared to make an offer for 50% of the ACL back then but now it's the freehold or nothing?
The financial argument put forward (since the rent strike and moving to Northampton) about needing to control all income streams and having to own everything doesn't seem to tally with their actions described by their QC.
The rhetoric about trying to drive them out of Coventry doesn't seem to bode well for any future talks if SISU don't win their case tomorrow and even then it's only about whether there's a case to answer. If SISU win this first stage then things could drag on even longer with no sign of a return to the Ricoh or moves to actually building a new stadium.
Almost need SISU to lose in order for progress to be made.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Did the council make a deal with the bank to buy out the mortgage? That says to me the council were speaking directly with Yorkshire Bank and made a deal to buy the mortgage off the bank for a certain % of the total amount owed. Essentially in the hope YB would sell it for that % as they feared ACL would default.
Is that was actually happened? Or did the council make a loan to ACL which ACL then used to pay off their outstanding debt to the bank?
They are 2 very different scenarios.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
My understanding was CCC bought the mortgage out so ACL got a better rate, protecting the Ricoh as a facility for the people of Coventry. That meant CCC would get the money back with interest.
Potentially the reduced rate could benefit ACL and SISU and them.
Seems good business.
I stress it is my understanding not saying it is fact.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
What market is that distorting and how much state support I they using to distort it?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
In which case the question would be did the pay off the loan in full or buy it off Yorkshire bank ata discounted rate.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
It distorted a legal process.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
I may be missing something here. Would you mind explaining the difference and your take on the two scenarios?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I thought the loan was paid down from council reserves and the council then used their access to 'prudential borrowing' to borrow the money at a better rate which they then passed on to ACL.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
1. The council pay off the loan in full and then borrow money to lend to ACL
2. The council renegotiates the terms with Yorkshire Bank
Hobo
Well-Known Member
I thought CCC borrowed money to buy the mortgage and then ACL were paying the mortgage to them at a preferential rate to what they had with the Yorkshire Bank?
Which is different to your two options?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
You've just said it yourself.
'In their world'.......nail hit on head. They think they can steamroller over everyone and are used to winning. The only reason they are hanging around at CCFC is to try and prove once again that they are unbeatable and in that scenario I cannot help but want them put to the sword ! Morally and ethically the whole hedge fund ethos stands for all that is wrong with the world.