Astute
Well-Known Member
By the look of it some think it is OK for a hedge fund to play with the law and everyone else play by the letter of the law. In other words one law for one and another for everyone else.
And is that wrong?
SISU are not innocent in all of this. They kept forcing the issue using unethical methods. So now they are after recompense because their unethical methods failed. And they are after compensation off CCC. If they succeed and damages are awarded against CCC where does the money come from?
So yes I will be angry if the people who need services have cuts to pay for faceless Investors who have played a part in all of this.
Hedge funds should be more accountable & held to higher standards, don't you agree?
Of course hedge funds play, why do you think they bank in the Caymen Islands!
Two wrongs dont make a right.
Sisu are shits of the highest order, I dont think that needs discussing further, but if the council have done wrong then that is the Councils responsibility and no one elses no one made them do it, well unless someone held that cliched smoking gun to their heads.
CCC did do wrong. And having the latest court case go their way will not change this.
They had supporters direct working with their pr company, think that's quite telling.
Who has said that? Aren't there different laws and rules for councils?By the look of it some think it is OK for a hedge fund to play with the law and everyone else play by the letter of the law. In other words one law for one and another for everyone else.
Who has said that? Aren't there different laws and rules for councils?
You said it is one rule for one and the other. In this case it actually is as one is a council.Are you saying that you are happy with the way that SISU have done things because they have different laws and rules to councils? I'm not. But you keep pulling me up because of it.
You said it is one rule for one and the other. In this case it actually is as one is a council.
If sisu have broken rules I want them up in court to be judged too.
It's a good job neither are judged on morals.
If they are found to be in the wrong for state aid it is entirely their fault isn't it? the state aid entirely their fault, before anybody twist it.
That's the point I was trying to make, but it seems to be getting a bit lost.
My point is angry for what, you can't be outraged at sisu if it is state aid surely? The same as you can't be outraged at the council for Madison being sold.So why can't I be angry with both of them whatever the judges decide?
My point is angry for what, you can't be outraged at sisu if it is state aid surely? The same as you can't be outraged at the council for Madison being sold.
It started years before sisu were even here, surely you judge each action?Where do you want me to start? Their actions caused all of this.
Where do you want me to start? Their actions caused all of this.
I see the line you added
It's bizarre that no one appears to be concerned that the council have now got into bed with hedge funds twice?
If hedge funds are so dodgy then why are no questions as to why sisu were ccc's prefered bidder? Then now they've done business with a Maltese hedge fund.
This second to deal do the council have anything to do with them now.
It started years before sisu were even here, surely you judge each action?
Sisu have no control over whether the x council gave state aid or not. Unless we start getting angry at the council for silly rent prices forcing us to sell Madison?
Do you think the council knew they were doing wrong (if they have) when they did it?
Do you think the council knew they were doing wrong (if they have) when they did it?
Yes of course.
Do you think the council knew they were doing wrong (if they have) when they did it?
Did they get independent advice to double check?
Whether they thought it was right or wrong, if it is judged to be wrong it is wrong isn't it?
Legally or morally? I would say if the council were doing everything above board there wouldn't be a need for secret deals with the local media to suppress their reporting.
That didn't answer my question
Do you think they knew it is wrong (if it is) when they did it?
I have no idea do I?
Do you?
Is this not a test case? If so that would suggest the council might not know, as there was no legal president.
Did they get independent advice to double check?
Whether they thought it was right or wrong, if it is judged to be wrong it is wrong isn't it?
Have you read the regulations? They are totally unclear. They say you should take advice if you are unsure? What if you are not unsure but wrong?
I wish that the rest of us could get away with the same excuse!!
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.
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?
Do you mean look for a house you would like that somebody has a mortgage on and try and negotiate with the mortgage lender at a much lower amount so you can take over ownership of the house without the legal home owners permission?
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?