Mean while back in court (4 Viewers)

[torchomatic]

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.

Well there's no need for you to be shy.
Name and shame those whom you say think SISU are right. I don't think there are any.

However there are some who think both sides are to blame for this sorry state.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

---

[hill83]

I couldn't give a fuck who wins to be honest. I just want what is best for Coventry City Football Club. I don't even care who was right or wrong. And I care even less who is right or wrong on here.

 

[Otis]

It's looking awfully quiet at Vale Park... there's nobody here.......

Well the game doesn't kick off until 3. I should just hang around for a few hours if I was you. See if anyone else turns up.

 

[Nick]

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.

Backed the wrong horse? I dont think many have ever said sisu are innocent in everything like people have jumped in to say about the council. No threads on here saying how proud they are of sisu.

I might think the council or sisu were wrong about one decision, but right about another.

All the judges are judging is wether it is state aid or not, they aren't judging on whether the council have lied to tax payers and been morally wrong too. If it's just the council were ok to loan the money, it doesn't mean they havent done anything wrong in other aspects morally and ethically. Likewise if it's found they weren't allowed to give the loan, it doesn't mean sisu have never done anything wrong.

 

[Specs WT-R75]

Well the game doesn't kick off until 3. I should just hang around for a few hours if I was you. See if anyone else turns up.

Nice one... cheers. It's pissing down with rain.

 

[Specs WT-R75]

Backed the wrong horse? I dont think many have ever said sisu are innocent in everything like people have jumped in to say about the council. No threads on here saying how proud they are of sisu.

All the judges are judging is wether it is state aid or not, they aren't judging on whether the council have lied to tax payers and been morally wrong too. If it's just the council were ok to loan the money, it doesn't mean they havent done anything wrong in other aspects morally and ethically. Likewise if it's found they weren't allowed to give the loan, it doesn't mean sisu have never done anything wrong.

sisu are no angels, but a council is supposed to be above that sort of shit and held to higher standards. I want those bastards exposed in the same light as sisu have been. No doubt a majority of people will still be fine with this as Sisu end up screwed, failing to see the bigger picture that it has caused untold damage to the club.... but lets not worry we have wasps in the city now so its all good....:facepalm:

 

[Nick]

sisu are no angels, but a council is supposed to be above that sort of shit and held to higher standards. I want those bastards exposed in the same light as sisu have been. No doubt a majority of people will still be fine with this as Sisu end up screwed, failing to see the bigger picture that it has caused untold damage to the club.... but lets not worry we have wasps in the city now so its all good....:facepalm:

You could say that, sisu are full of shit with no morals and ethics. They don't run our city though.

You will see people slate the council more, that's because there are people on here and in general who refuse to accept they have done anything wrong at all. There are none who think that about sisu.

 

[James Smith]

It's looking awfully quiet at Vale Park... there's nobody here.......

Yeah my phone calendar hasn't been updated take account of the fact we're playing tomorrow - whoops.

 

[steveecov]

So you don't really give a shit about who is right or wrong... only who pays the compo.

I think that this is SISU's only point in using the legal system. Unfortunately, win or lose, CCFC will not benefit I sadly feel.

 

[skybluetony176]

sisu are no angels, but a council is supposed to be above that sort of shit and held to higher standards. I want those bastards exposed in the same light as sisu have been. No doubt a majority of people will still be fine with this as Sisu end up screwed, failing to see the bigger picture that it has caused untold damage to the club.... but lets not worry we have wasps in the city now so its all good....:facepalm:

In the same way that if CCC lose and have to shell out a load of the local taxpayer's money (although that looks unlikely that it's going to cost the local taxpayer now) it would be CCC's fault for their actions and not SISU's fault for taking them to court. If SISU do get screwed they've brought it upon themselves just like CCC have with their own actions.

There's a lot of double standards here on this one. The truth is whichever party here get screwed they've brought it upon themselves by the course of action and deserve whatever penalty they have to take for that action. Personally I'm OK with that either way. It's called justice and that's what courts are for. Some posters on here are clearly going to have an issue if at the end of all this (and we could be a long way off yet) CCC are found to have acted in the best interests of the local taxpayer and done no wrong they clearly won't accept it. Some have their excuses already out in the open. Some posters clearly don't want justice and truth they just want the council to be blamed for everything.

 

[chiefdave]

They _would_ have been in the driving seat if there was a Liquidation/Administration event...there wouldn't have been enough time for Wasps to get their deal together, and even if they did if it was a straight up bidding war between CCFC and Wasps I can't imagine there being ANY support for Wasps either in the city or from their own fans.

Spot on, if ACL went bust then the lease would have to be resold. This would be public knowledge and I can't imagine much support for selling it to Wasps over CCFC.

There's a reason the Wasps deal was done it secret and its not commercial reasons. They even went to the trouble of doing a deal with the CT to keep thing quiet!

 

[skybluetony176]

Spot on, if ACL went bust then the lease would have to be resold. This would be public knowledge and I can't imagine much support for selling it to Wasps over CCFC.

There's a reason the Wasps deal was done it secret and its not commercial reasons. They even went to the trouble of doing a deal with the CT to keep thing quiet!

I think you're making the mistake that the administrator/liquidator would be there to serve CCFC. They're there to serve the creditors and them alone.

If Wasps were waiting in the wings as suggested they would have been ready with a deal surely?

You've fooled yourself into believing that SISU are the only show in town again. Doing the same thing expecting different results. There's a saying about that isn't there?

 

[Samo]

In the same way that if CCC lose and have to shell out a load of the local taxpayer's money (although that looks unlikely that it's going to cost the local taxpayer now) it would be CCC's fault for their actions and not SISU's fault for taking them to court. If SISU do get screwed they've brought it upon themselves just like CCC have with their own actions.

There's a lot of double standards here on this one. The truth is whichever party here get screwed they've brought it upon themselves by the course of action and deserve whatever penalty they have to take for that action. Personally I'm OK with that either way. It's called justice and that's what courts are for. Some posters on here are clearly going to have an issue if at the end of all this (and we could be a long way off yet) CCC are found to have acted in the best interests of the local taxpayer and done no wrong they clearly won't accept it. Some have their excuses already out in the open. Some posters clearly don't want justice and truth they just want the council to be blamed for everything.

Yes whoever loses has to some extent brought it on themselves but that certainly doesn't mean that whoever wins is absolved from blame.

 

[Nick]

In the same way that if CCC lose and have to shell out a load of the local taxpayer's money (although that looks unlikely that it's going to cost the local taxpayer now) it would be CCC's fault for their actions and not SISU's fault for taking them to court. If SISU do get screwed they've brought it upon themselves just like CCC have with their own actions.

There's a lot of double standards here on this one. The truth is whichever party here get screwed they've brought it upon themselves by the course of action and deserve whatever penalty they have to take for that action. Personally I'm OK with that either way. It's called justice and that's what courts are for. Some posters on here are clearly going to have an issue if at the end of all this (and we could be a long way off yet) CCC are found to have acted in the best interests of the local taxpayer and done no wrong they clearly won't accept it. Some have their excuses already out in the open. Some posters clearly don't want justice and truth they just want the council to be blamed for everything.

But they are only being judged on of it is state aid aren't they?

Who has said they don't want truths?

 

[ccfc92]

So what was the outcome of this hearing? Haven't seen or heard a conclusion?

 

[Sick Boy]

Haha even if the council were shown to have done wrong, there would be plenty on here refusing to accept it.

 

[Nick]

Yes whoever loses has to some extent brought it on themselves but that certainly doesn't mean that whoever wins is absolved from blame.

Exactly, some seem to think it's a judgement of the whole situation. Where if the council aren't found in the wrong for state aid they have done nothing wrong ever.

Does that mean if sisu won they have never done anything wrong?

The judgement is only on whether it was state aid or not.

 

[chiefdave]

I think you're making the mistake that the administrator/liquidator would be there to serve CCFC. They're there to serve the creditors and them alone.

If Wasps were waiting in the wings as suggested they would have been ready with a deal surely?

You've fooled yourself into believing that SISU are the only show in town again. Doing the same thing expecting different results. There's a saying about that isn't there?

Not at all. The administrator will need to do exactly what the council should have done with the sale of ACL and achieve the best possible price. The way to achieve that is to properly market the sale to attract as many bids as possible not do a deal in secret working with the local media to keep things quiet.

 

[Samo]

Exactly, some seem to think it's a judgement of the whole situation. Where if the council aren't found in the wrong for state aid they have done nothing wrong ever.

Does that mean if sisu won they have never done anything wrong?

The judgement is only on whether it was state aid or not.

And yet Tony seems to think that if it goes in favour of the council they will have 'done no wrong.' Amazing.

 

[skybluetony176]

Not at all. The administrator will need to do exactly what the council should have done with the sale of ACL and achieve the best possible price. The way to achieve that is to properly market the sale to attract as many bids as possible not do a deal in secret working with the local media to keep things quiet.

So SISU wouldn't be in the driving seat then. So when you told a poster who said they were spot on for saying so adding that there wouldn't be much support for selling to wasps you were talking bollocks. The administrator as you now say only job is to achieve the best price and considering JS's right hand woman stood up in a court of law and said ACL was worthless but they recognised that Higgs was a charity so were willing to offer £2 for their share it don't sound like SISU would be in any driving seat.

 

[Nick]

And yet Tony seems to think that if it goes in favour of the council they will have 'done no wrong.' Amazing.

If it goes against them, all it proves legally is they went against state aid laws to lend the money.

Nothing about morals, ethics or other actions. Just that one decision.

Will be interesting to see if they lose if sisu are innocent of everything ever too.

It doesn't need a judge to see about lying to tax payers etc.

 

[skybluetony176]

But they are only being judged on of it is state aid aren't they?

Who has said they don't want truths?

Someone has made out on this very thread that SISU wouldn't win because they've been complicit in putting CCC in the position when they decided to take over the loan. Which is of course bollocks. If it's illegal state aid it's illegal state aid and will be found to be illegal state aid. The journey to the decision of CCC to take over the loan is largely irrelevant and background noise. It may have brought CCC to a crossroads but it's not the journey to the crossroads that's being judged it's the direction (choice) they took once they were there.

 

[skybluetony176]

But they are only being judged on of it is state aid aren't they?

Who has said they don't want truths?

Yes. You're right there. What it will do though or should do is define cause and effect. Both parties have made horrendously bad decisions in this whole saga but ultimately one party is going to carry the majority of the blame when all this is over.

 

[Astute]

Someone has made out on this very thread that SISU wouldn't win because they've been complicit in putting CCC in the position when they decided to take over the loan. Which is of course bollocks. If it's illegal state aid it's illegal state aid and will be found to be illegal state aid. The journey to the decision of CCC to take over the loan is largely irrelevant and background noise. It may have brought CCC to a crossroads but it's not the journey to the crossroads that's being judged it's the direction (choice) they took once they were there.

The word illegal is a bit strong. It would mean that a crime has been committed. And If a crime has been committed someone should be at risk of a prison sentence.

 

[Nick]

Yes. You're right there. What it will do though or should do is define cause and effect. Both parties have made horrendously bad decisions in this whole saga but ultimately one party is going to carry the majority of the blame when all this is over.

What the course cases have done is also bring out other truths. Media wars, links with local media, wasps here a couple of years in advance etc. They will all get ignored.

The council won't be held to account for bullshitting tax payers, not just with ccfc and the ricoh but it seems like other situations too.

 

[skybluetony176]

And yet Tony seems to think that if it goes in favour of the council they will have 'done no wrong.' Amazing.

Done no wrong in taking over the ACL loan. Unless you think they're in court for more than that?

 

[stupot07]

The word illegal is a bit strong. It would mean that a crime has been committed. And If a crime has been committed someone should be at risk of a prison sentence.

People use "illegal" about the club withholding rent. Seems acceptable then.


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

 

[skybluetony176]

What the course cases have done is also bring out other truths. Media wars, links with local media, wasps here a couple of years in advance etc. They will all get ignored.

The council won't be held to account for bullshitting tax payers, not just with ccfc and the ricoh but it seems like other situations too.

It hasn't brought out all the truths though and never will as only one parties specific action is being judged here. You should probably try being mindful of that when judging all parties. One party is never going to be held to account in open court. SISU's meetings, memo's and what was said behind closed doors is never going to see the light of day in an open court.

Also the council do get held to account. It's called elections. Another way SISU will never be held to account. Luckily for them.

 

[Nick]

It hasn't brought out all the truths though and never will as only one parties specific action is being judged here. You should probably try being mindful of that when judging all parties. One party is never going to be held to account in open court. SISU's meetings, memo's and what was said behind closed doors is never going to see the light of day in an open court.

But even then it doesn't make sisu innocent of anything because only facts about ccc come out.

It has quashed the theory about wasps moving here because they had no choice for a start.

The court has had to expose ccc lies, because the press are only focusing on sisus.

It does show that one party is answerable to the tax payer though so you would think they set the example against a shady hedge fund.

 

[skybluetony176]

But even then it doesn't make sisu innocent of anything because only facts about ccc come out.

It has quashed the theory about wasps moving here because they had no choice for a start.

It does show that one party is answerable to the tax payer though so you would think they set the example against a shady hedge fund.

If the council were found to have done no wrong in taking over the loan and it served in the best interests of the taxpayer doesn't that mean that they have set the example against a "shady hedge fund" (your words)?

 

[Nick]

If the council were found to have done no wrong in taking over the loan and it served in the best interests of the taxpayer doesn't that mean that they have set the example against a "shady hedge fund" (your words)?

Not really, because it isn't judging them about the lies etc is it? It isn't judging to see about if the tax payer covered the bill for a media war, it isn't judging them to see if they were making agreements with local news paper.

It is only judging them on the one decision, not the morals and ethics they have used and shown also in other individual bits the way through.

But then because they have been dodgy in other aspects it doesn't make them guilty in others.

It isn't as simple as one right or wrong is it?

 

[Samo]

Done no wrong in taking over the ACL loan. Unless you think they're in court for more than that?

But that's not what you said is it, you said 'done no wrong'

 

[skybluetony176]

But that's not what you said is it, you said 'done no wrong'

What's the thread about?

 

[hill83]

What's the thread about?

About 15 pages

 

[chiefdave]

So SISU wouldn't be in the driving seat then. So when you told a poster who said they were spot on for saying so adding that there wouldn't be much support for selling to wasps you were talking bollocks. The administrator as you now say only job is to achieve the best price and considering JS's right hand woman stood up in a court of law and said ACL was worthless but they recognised that Higgs was a charity so were willing to offer £2 for their share it don't sound like SISU would be in any driving seat.

No I believe SISU would be in the driving seat. If we're really going to dissect this then look at the process that would take place. First and foremost there is some doubt as to where the lease would sit should ACL have gone into administration. Would it revert to CCC or not?

If it reverts to CCC they it would most likely be put up for sale again. That would mean the lease CCFC held with ACL would no longer exist. That gives CCFC a certain amount of leverage. They can make a convincing case that a sale to anyone other than CCFC places the future of the club at the Ricoh in doubt. In that scenario I believe there would be a great deal of pressure on CCC to sell to CCFC at a 'fair' price. I find it hard to believe the people of Coventry would support selling to a rugby club to London, jeopardising the future of CCFC in the city.

If it is sat with an administrator while they would look to get best price to repay creditors there is also a requirement for them to sell the business as a going concern. I believe this again puts CCFC in the driving seat. The lease with ACL, at £1.2m a year, would still be in place. I don't think there's anyone who still believes that was affordable therefore CCFC could make a convincing argument that a sale to CCFC best secures the future of ACL as it is the only option that would give CCFC control of their own destiny.