skybluefred
New Member
To quote Fisher--Because we batter people in court.
They were talking about the multi million dollars case in Germany concerning Bernie Eccleston on the radio this morning. His legal team consists of two. Using this as an example can you explain why sisu needed seven for a £290, 000 counter claim?
If all profit is reinvested into Ricoh complex why would SISU want to buy them? That doesn't seem to add up.
I personally couldn't care less if ACL failed.
As you've just admitted that sisu have no interest in reinvesting in what should be a community asset why would you want them to buy it?
Well they kind of did know they would get something, as they purchased half of ACL which we know meant they were entitled to revenues from stadium complex.
.
yep. Also, news on the ML promised forum, thats going to happen, but we dont know when or where
That's not what I said at all is it. If their are profits to be made from ACL, SISU would inject them into CCFC.. not a stadium that they would not have owned.
Also... the Ricoh is not a community asset.. it does fuck all for the community.
How do you know that SISU would invest into CCFC? They have a lot of lost money to recover first. The visitors to events at the Ricoh bring business to the city - hardly "fuck all for the community".
Sisu didn't choose them you ballbag, they contacted Nick, who contacted several posters with differing opinions on the situation. If you going to go sisu bashing at least get your facts straight moron.Or who the sisu chosen few who can attend are.
Sisu didn't choose them you ballbag, they contacted Nick, who contacted several posters with differing opinions on the situation. If you going to go sisu bashing at least get your facts straight moron.
Sisu didn't choose them you ballbag, they contacted Nick, who contacted several posters with differing opinions on the situation. If you going to go sisu bashing at least get your facts straight moron.
If that's the case, Nick is bias against ACL anyway so how can a fair choice be made? Might as well let TF choose who goes for all we know.
That's not what I said at all is it. If their are profits to be made from ACL, SISU would inject them into CCFC.. not a stadium that they would not have owned.
Also... the Ricoh is not a community asset.. it does fuck all for the community.
Off course they would. In fact I'm sure their investors would insist on this. Infact I'm sure they don't even want their initial investment back. In fact I recon ARVO will also cancel all the debt sisu have built up in the clubs name. That's exactly what hedge funds, their private banks and investors do, I'm actually surprised they're all not registered charities. Wake up!
And the ricoh is a community asset. It's created jobs and income, bought outside money into the area and redeveloped a waste land. Explain to me how that hasn't been an asset to the community and city of Coventry.
An interesting statement. Perhaps it helps balance out some of the things that have been said or made public as "fact" recently. We are after all looking for a kind of balance in order to get to a solution are we not? But we all have our own view point on all this. My comments based on the statement are .....
As I understand it and as stated by Justice Leggatt the recent action ended in a nil all draw. From what was said in the court transcripts and the Judgement it would seem that the SISU claim was thrown out because it had no basis in law and the Charity case failed because the wording in the clause relied on failed to cover the situation that occurred.
I think that people miss the significance of the judgement. It isn't that the Charity didn't win £29k or that SISU didn't get their £290k or that each side paid their own costs (something that Leggatt said would have been the case what ever claimed or gracious acts). The key point being that it has been decided by a Judge having been presented with the facts that there was no prospect of any deal past 31/08/12 and that the Trustees of the Charity had acted in good faith. His comments were clear.
If there was no deal with the charity because both sides had let it die........
1) then there was little prospect of successful talks in November/December with CCC as that depended on the charity deal.
2) If no prospect of a deal then how is there a conspiracy between CCC and Charity to stop the deal?
3) There was no duty of care owed by the Trustees to SISU past 31/07/12, so how can SISU claim there was such a duty by late 2012?
4) It is stated by the Judge that the Trustees had acted properly and in good faith, that's not a "maybe" that's a clear statement, going to be hard to shake that.
So we are left with the state aid and European competition law part of the Judicial Review then aren't we. Even if SISU win that it does not necessarily mean that the ACL loan is called in. It doesn't necessarily mean administration for ACL either. One solution could be that the Judge simply orders CCC to revisit the process and dot the right i's and cross the right t's. He could order the repayment but from what I have read it is not an immediate process and ACL could have a year to refinance. Under European competition Law then the Council could face a penalty if they lose outright - but that money doesn't go to SISU. So does that get SISU any closer to owning the Ricoh? probably not and quite likely they would be last in line for any possible suitors because of it (they might be the only one interested but I suspect that wont be the case). CCC will still own the encumbered freehold.
The Judge at the Judicial Review in much the same way as Justice Leggatt (who made the point several times) will be concerned with the facts and clarifying points of law. He will seek to cut through the opinion, the intentions, the favourable portrayals etc. It could be there are many further facts to come out, equally we may already know the important ones. If there is something equivalent to a silver bullet then why have we not yet seen it. If criminal acts have occurred (and I am not saying there have) then surely the professionals involved have a legal duty to report that to the authorities (Police etc).
The statement of facts is agreed by both sides, as I understand it, but is a skeleton statement of what went on, the process and what is disputed, it should not be legal argument but a clever lawyer will seek to use it to imply things about a case. As such it is not the sum of all the facts - but a summary of selected ones and a timeline. A judge will use it as a guide but will seek to get to the facts and only the facts then apply the law to those facts. It doesn't matter how often or loudly "facts" are said in public, or peoples ethics, probity or character attacked the Judge will not be swayed by such things ..... only the facts presented in court and the law that applies counts
There seems to be more mention of "SISU is finished funding the club" At some point these threats might well become more than that. It would be interesting to see what the net funding (including share conversion)from SISU & ARVO now stands at compared to 31/05/13, will it have greatly increased and is that increase actually rolled up interest? Personally I do not see how the finances stack up at Sixfields or with a new stadium. I am certainly concerned about what might result from all this
You get the impression that the value of ACL investment in ACL to the Charity is much more than £2m offered in a casual meeting in October 2012. There does not appear to be a need for the Charity to sell, other projects are on going are being financed and require no public donation to do so. That doesn't mean that the Charity see themselves as ACL shareholders for ever more just that they wont be pressured in to selling under the value the Charity feels is right for them. Bridges have been and continue to be burnt in this fractious dispute, but that is what happens when disputes go to legals.
ACL current turnover. Well if the lady says current (ie 2014) turnover is £14m without the club then there is no evidence that she is wrong or mistaken. That is £14m without CCFC or the Olympics. Have profits been hit well yes but 2013 was a year of reconstruction and cost savings had not kicked in but equally there was the costs of the dispute to factor in as will be the case in 2014. Profit levels will depend on that and whether margins achieved are greater with or without CCFC. But keep in mind many believe SISU still want it so there must be good financials reasons for that and in my opinion that is not primarily about CCFC
The use of PR agencies. Interesting that the Charity at one time used the same one CCFC still use. I think the statement is pretty clear the Charity at least does not have big PR bills and rarely but no longer use Weber Shandwick. The Charity will do its own PR and for the most part stay quiet
I welcome another viewpoint. It will be interesting to see how this all pans out. It is frightening to see how much damage has been done to CCFC, for me it is hard to see where the Trustees of the Charity are responsible for that and should be held to account. Seems to me they have been doing the "right thing" with in the powers that they have......
This statement by Mrs Knatchbull-Hugessen at least gives us plenty of background to the Charity, clears a fair few misconceptions about its activities, gives their view point of what is going on. Is there much that can be disputed in terms of any facts presented - I would think not. I can not see that SISU etc will like reading it however
To be honest this emotive bullshit is wearing thin.
This woman, just like ACL,CCC and SISU don't give a fuck about CCFC. When push comes to shove they care more about their bottom line than they do about the city, or the football club.
I'm bored of everyone pretending they care, and making out through their various media outlets that they feel passionately about the situation. If they all felt that passionately we wouldn't have got to this point.
This woman is a fan of the club just like you or me.
This woman is a fan of the club just like you or me.
If that's the case, Nick is bias against ACL anyway so how can a fair choice be made? Might as well let TF choose who goes for all we know.
This woman is a fan of the club just like you or me.
Ahh this old shit. Do you know who was chosen or just talking bollocks again?
Yes she is... but if you or I had been in her position of influence, would you have allowed the situation to have got to this point if you could have in someway intervened?
How do you know that SISU would invest into CCFC? They have a lot of lost money to recover first. The visitors to events at the Ricoh bring business to the city - hardly "fuck all for the community".
Yes she is... but if you or I had been in her position of influence, would you have allowed the situation to have got to this point if you could have in someway intervened?
SISU want to recap as much investment as they can in the long term. The quickest (and best) way is through CCFC being successful. So if they did have these profits then they would probably invest in the team, better players increases chances of promotion, promotion means better revenues and the cycle continues. They will want the club to get to the PL, as this is where the real money is.
A community asset is an asset belonging to the community. If it brings in business, it is of benefit to the community it belongs to. Please answer my first question.
What exactly could she have done that would have taken the club of the path sisu have put them on?
There's only one woman who has the influence to change the path the clubs on and her name is Joy. I would suggest that the club is exactly on the path she wants, regardless of what we want.
SISU want to recap as much investment as they can in the long term. The quickest (and best) way is through CCFC being successful. So if they did have these profits then they would probably invest in the team, better players increases chances of promotion, promotion means better revenues and the cycle continues. They will want the club to get to the PL, as this is where the real money is.
Theoretically .... Yes. But, that means investing even more capital in addition to any pie money etc., and there is no guarantee of success. That was the original plan ( getting to the premiere ) and now look at us. The trouble is their track record of running a soccer team. They probably won't get any more backing as they have shown they are not up to it. I think they will grab what they can and run.
It does not benefit the community of Coventry one iota. That's like saying the people of the UK benefited from the Government buying out Lloyds TSB and RBS.
Yes she is... but if you or I had been in her position of influence, would you have allowed the situation to have got to this point if you could have in someway intervened?
What about the 4 year period before SISU even arrived? Was there nothing that could have been done then?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?