letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Right or wrong come on Nick you are on about politicians and hedgefund owners here.
Surely its about right or wrong? Whether the government or council have to pay.
Will you be spinning it as a good thing then so other councils know for the future?
Yes SISU are to mostly to blame for this whole situation in my opinion. The JR at this stage is purely about whether the council can use the money in the way they did or not. They were having to do what they did because of the actions of SISU.
So the blame side of it for JR court case for me personally isn't massively important. The three Lords kept stopping all the evidence about each side doing bad stuff and wanted to stay on "can the money be used in this way or not. "
So for me if it can't then the council and all councils in the future will know you can't ( this been the first case of it's kind it setting a precedent)
However if it's council money that compensates SISU I would prefer if they didn't win.
If it's Government money I am not so sure. It's puts a different slant on it for me. Maybe them winning could be a good thing.
Surely its about right or wrong? Whether the government or council have to pay.
Will you be spinning it as a good thing then so other councils know for the future?
Well if you don't know that by nowWhy did the council HAVE to bail out a private company at all?
Personally whether the government or Coventry pay id rather the actual outcome wether they have done anything wrong or not. Whether that's it being thrown out or sisu winning, either way.You can spin it all you like.
I will stick with what I am saying for me personally if I know the Government will be paying out not the Council I may strangely find myself wanting SISU to win. Only if it allows them to sell up and go or manage the club properly like they didn't when we were in the championship when they took over
Why did the council HAVE to bail out a private company at all?
Personally whether the government or Coventry pay id rather the actual outcome wether they have done anything wrong or not. Whether that's it being thrown out or sisu winning, either way.
Surely you would only want sisu to win if that's what actually happened and it was wrong? Rather than just because the government would have to pay?
You don't seem to understand what I am saying. Whoever wins is correct either the council can use the money in that way or they can't.
If the compo in such circumstances is to be paid by the council I hope the judges find in their favour.
If it's the Government who have to pay up. I may actually finding myself wanting the judges to find in SISU's favour.
Not sure what you don't understand about what I am saying.
You don't seem to understand what I am saying. Whoever wins is correct either the council can use the money in that way or they can't.
If the compo in such circumstances is to be paid by the council I hope the judges find in their favour.
If it's the Government who have to pay up. I may actually finding myself wanting the judges to find in SISU's favour.
Not sure what you don't understand about what I am saying.
It's strange, as if it's anything as long as the council don't look bad.So you don't really give a shit about who is right or wrong... only who pays the compo.
It's strange, as if it's anything as long as the council don't look bad.
Or is it as long as Sisu don't look bad?It's strange, as if it's anything as long as the council don't look bad.
Surely you want the judges to find the truth and if it was actually right or wrong no matter who has to pay?
You are right though, I don't understand. It's like you want somebody to be judged based on the punishment rather then if they actually did something wrong or not.
What they decide will be the truth.
I am telling you what I hope they decide. Depending on what happens afterwards.
You probably won't admit this but I think you hope they find is SISU's favour. However if they find in the council's favour you will accept that.
I hoped they would find in the council's favour. However if they decide the council can't use the money in that way and the Government will pay up. If I could know that it will pan out that way ( which I can't) I may find myself hoping they find in SISU's favour
What they decide will be the truth.
I am telling you what I hope they decide. Depending on what happens afterwards.
You probably won't admit this but I think you hope they find is SISU's favour. However if they find in the council's favour you will accept that.
I hoped they would find in the council's favour. However if they decide the council can't use the money in that way and the Government will pay up. If I could know that it will pan out that way ( which I can't) I may find myself hoping they find in SISU's favour
Is anybody saying that?Or is it as long as Sisu don't look bad?
So you don't really give a shit about who is right or wrong... only who pays the compo.
Is anybody saying that?
It's strange, as if it's anything as long as the council don't look bad.
I'm not an expert on state aid so I can't say wether it is or isn't. I haven't commented on wether they are right or wrong about state aid because I don't know. I can still say I think the council have done wrong in regards to the club, wasps etc from things that have come out during it though.It depends if someone wants to spin everything you say to make it seem like that's what your saying.
At least have the balls to admit you would like the three lords to say the council provided state aid. As you say if they say it, it will be truth but you can't tell me that you don't have a preference over what they decide
It depends if someone wants to spin everything you say to make it seem like that's what your saying.
At least have the balls to admit you would like the three lords to say the council provided state aid. As you say if they say it, it will be truth but you can't tell me that you don't have a preference over what they decide
Well they clearly did and in most circumstances they would have an issue.
However the company bringing the case contributed to the decision to provide the aid.
That has always been the problem here.
Grow a pair of bollocks man and decide who you think is RIGHT, regardless of the consequences.
So big Balls who do you think was RIGHT?Grow a pair of bollocks man and decide who you think is RIGHT, regardless of the consequences.
Nick they don't need to say anything.Is anybody saying that?
If it comes out of the local council funds then either way it would be down to the council wouldn't it? If they lose the goverment millions of tax payers money, it would also be down to the council?
I am not sure when they band about 10's of millions in compo. Surely they have to prove they lost 10's of millions in the first place?
I guess not only would they have to prove that they lost millions but also that it was the fault of the council. I don't think they're going to find it easy to prove that they were forced to move us to Sixfields which would I suspect be a large part of a claim. I would be surprised if they could prove that they had no lower offers from ACL to stay at the Ricoh. I'm sure that offers will have been made and the council would just produce them if needed.
That then heads into would we have been better off financially accepting an offer and staying at the Ricoh. If we would have been better off at the Ricoh from a money point of view can they really argue convincingly that any losses weren't self inflicted? Financial projections for our stay at Sixfields proved to be a bit optimistic didn't they? There was the (much ridiculed) likely attendance in the thousands claimed by Tim at the hotel meetings. In reality we know that the gate didn't reach his lower estimate which must have put a dent in the bank balance.
I suppose they might claim that they didn't feel comfortable with staying in the Ricoh but again that still might look like their choice.
Their argument is going to be based on CCC propping up a company (ACL) that would have had to go into Liquidation/Administration - and Sisu would have been the ones in the driving seat to take over - this is probably where JR2 comes in as well.
I think any claims that the points deduction cost them anything are spurious at best given that even with the 10 points back we wouldn't have got in the playoffs either year...
Very good question you know the answer to, because they and a local charity bailed out the football club in the first place.
Didn't the judge question in the JR the fact that CCC didn't "pay" anything for ACL - Yes we know there was a shortfall from the project costs which were cleared by selling the lease to ACL for 21m. The council then lending back 14.4m to repay the mortgage... before taking 13m+ from Wasps, plus another 2.7m + 1m. Seems to me the council has done rather well out of this whole regeneration project.... Only the charity has actually lost money in ACL...
Problem there is that history has proven that to be incorrect. They clearly weren't in the driving seat and there was more than one driving seat. Plus through their own actions SISU's vehicle was stuck in reverse. Everything they done took them further away from the Ricoh both metaphorically and in reality.
Win or lose I can't see them getting anything out of this and JR2 sounds like CCC would be better off saving the cost of lawyers and not fighting it because the recompense for them is getting more interest on the loan and central government picking up any costs (just the cost of legal representation would be my guess) SISU successfully claim.
Nick they don't need to say anything.
Funny but the ones that believe Sisu are right are to ashamed to admit it.
Why is that?
I thought the Council were right, and yes I maybe wrong but at least I stand by what I think.
Won't be the first time I have been wrong.
Others just can't stand the thought that they have backed the wrong horse,
Will I feel bad if I am wrong.
Well truthfully NO.
Their argument is going to be based on CCC propping up a company (ACL) that would have had to go into Liquidation/Administration - and Sisu would have been the ones in the driving seat to take over - this is probably where JR2 comes in as well.
I think any claims that the points deduction cost them anything are spurious at best given that even with the 10 points back we wouldn't have got in the playoffs either year...
I knew I had something wrong with my thinking. Anyway there's Port Vale to think about today rather than this courtroom rubbish.
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?