Mean while back in court (2 Viewers)

duffer · May 13, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
The only thing it wont reveal is why didn't SISU bid when invited to. Let's face it, that is really the only outstanding question in the whole sorry Ricoh affair. We already know EVERYONE is dickheads, we really don't need JR2 to tell us that. What I want to know is why our owners who can spank what must be multi millions of pounds now on fruitless courtcases couldn't table a bid for a tangable asset that would have been in the best interest of the club. Everything else is just a load of playground he said she said nonsense.

Nope, the outstanding questions are:

How did ACL go from being profitable when the council wanted to support it (and not sell to SISU), to being unprofitable when the council wanted to sell it (to Wasps)?
Why was public debate regarding the council loan subverted and bypassed?
Why weren't the club given the opportunity to build trust, and then talk about ownership of the Ricoh as the council promised?
Why weren't the club given the opportunity to buy the Ricoh on the same terms as Wasps?
How can people support the permanent moving of one team 85 miles, whilst simultaneously being outraged about the temporary relocation of another by 35 miles?

The last one, in fairness, isn't for the courts. Some people can look in the mirror and ask themselves that.

ccfcway · May 13, 2016

ccfcway said:
My predications for today are.....

1. Council cleared of any wrong doing
2. SISU look to appeal to 4 senior judges
3. Telegraph to run with "5 things we didn't know about a judges wig"
4. And we do it all again in the Autumn

Just need the wig article for a full house now

italiahorse · May 13, 2016

torchomatic said:
If it doesn't affect the club or the clubs budget then I can't see what the issue is. Let them appeal and throw their money away.

It does effect the club though, particularly if we take on Wasps in JR2.

Ownership of the Ricoh won't change so we need to start putting roots down with Wasps.
The chance of any long term deal is nil as court action continues.

I personally want to make the best of where we are and start rebuilding.

torchomatic · May 13, 2016

Bollocks.

italiahorse said:
It does effect the club though, particularly if we take on Wasps in JR2.

Ownership of the Ricoh won't change so we need to start putting roots down with Wasps.
The chance of any long term deal is nil as court action continues.

I personally want to make the best of where we are and start rebuilding.

oldskyblue58 · May 13, 2016

duffer said:
Nope, the outstanding questions are:

How did ACL go from being profitable when the council wanted to support it (and not sell to SISU), to being unprofitable when the council wanted to sell it (to Wasps)? Did ACL have to absorb some of the costs of the dispute, were there additional costs due to reorganisation? But JR1 argued over valued and JR 2 undervalued which is it because it was the same circumstances (generally) for the same company
Why was public debate regarding the council loan subverted and bypassed? was there a requirement for such debate legally - morally would seem so but that's not the challenge is it
Why weren't the club given the opportunity to build trust, and then talk about ownership of the Ricoh as the council promised? two way thing trust from what I saw at the time CCFC were not working that hard at building any at senior levels
Why weren't the club given the opportunity to buy the Ricoh on the same terms as Wasps? is there any legal requirement that they should ?
How can people support the permanent moving of one team 85 miles, whilst simultaneously being outraged about the temporary relocation of another by 35 miles? as you say not part of the legal challenge but a valid question

The last one, in fairness, isn't for the courts. Some people can look in the mirror and ask themselves that.

Just thoughts really not answers, all (generally) from a legal not moral view point

italiahorse · May 13, 2016

torchomatic said:
Bollocks.

So a long term deal is expected anytime ?

oldskyblue58 · May 13, 2016

torchomatic said:
If it doesn't affect the club or the clubs budget then I can't see what the issue is. Let them appeal and throw their money away.

what it will do is affect the long term security and planning for CCFC though.

The club may want to stay at Ricoh and have a better deal I would be surprised if Wasps are going to change the nature of rent deals for CCFC whilst this is going on and Wasps are included in these actions. I wouldn't in their shoes and CCFC have nowhere else to go. The deals and this one runs out in two years will remain restricted and short term. So continuing the legals you could argue affects the top and bottom line of the CCFC financials and restricts our ability to compete

Brylowes · May 13, 2016

oldskyblue58 said:
SISU RESPONSE

We are obviously disappointed by the Court of Appeal’s decision. This is the first time that this legal principle has been considered by the superior courts and, whilst we respect the views of their Lordships, this judgment conflicts with guidance given by both the UK Government and the EU Commission.

Government bodies should not use access to public funds to further political and policy objectives in a way that adversely impacts competition between local businesses. There are significant public policy reasons why this matter should be reviewed by the Supreme Court. A reference of certain aspects of the matter to the European Commission is also under consideration. In the meantime, the owners remain fully committed to the success of the Club and this judgment does not affect that resolve in any way.

SISU’S LAWYER, ALEX CARTER-SILK: “The judgement on JR1 does not affect the legal position on JR2.”

And so it goes on. Whatever they say this will hold the club back.

Don't usually resort to this but

I wish they would stop all this crap and fuck off

:claping hands::claping hands::claping hands::claping hands::claping hands::claping hands::claping hands::claping hands:

skybluetony176 · May 13, 2016

duffer said:
Nope, the outstanding questions are:

How did ACL go from being profitable when the council wanted to support it (and not sell to SISU), to being unprofitable when the council wanted to sell it (to Wasps)?
Why was public debate regarding the council loan subverted and bypassed?
Why weren't the club given the opportunity to build trust, and then talk about ownership of the Ricoh as the council promised?
Why weren't the club given the opportunity to buy the Ricoh on the same terms as Wasps?
How can people support the permanent moving of one team 85 miles, whilst simultaneously being outraged about the temporary relocation of another by 35 miles?

The last one, in fairness, isn't for the courts. Some people can look in the mirror and ask themselves that.

Because the anchor Tennant went on rent strike, into administration and then abandoned the site in that order. Did you really miss that?

Do you really want to go to the polls everytime a decision needs making by a local council because that's what you seem to be suggesting? At the end of the day there's no indication that that had to happen at any stage regardless of whether you think it should have or not so why would it even be mentioned in JR2?

Because this is the real world not a fantasy land where everyone has to pander to the needs of SISU. The simple fact is that there was a confidentiality clause between Wasps and CCC as I suspect there would have been between SISU and CCC if SISU had have chosen to enter into serious negotiations for ACL. I hate to utter the words but its standard business practice. Which brings me back to my question. Why didn't SISU bid when invited to?

skyblueinBaku · May 13, 2016

I'm sick of the whole affair. This is now just a battle of egos and I don't care who wins. Both sides have shafted the club. Neither side gives a damn about the club or its fans. We are just the poor dumb souls who have to suffer the collateral damage.

italiahorse · May 13, 2016

oldskyblue58 said:
what it will do is affect the long term security and planning for CCFC though.

The club may want to stay at Ricoh and have a better deal I would be surprised if Wasps are going to change the nature of rent deals for CCFC whilst this is going on and Wasps are included in these actions. I wouldn't in their shoes and CCFC have nowhere else to go. The deals and this one runs out in two years will remain restricted and short term. So continuing the legals you could argue affects the top and bottom line of the CCFC financials and restricts our ability to compete

Torch ??

italiahorse · May 13, 2016

skyblueindorset said:
I'm sick of the whole affair. This is now just a battle of egos and I don't care who wins. Both sides have shafted the club. Neither side gives a damn about the club or its fans. We are just the poor dumb souls who have to suffer the collateral damage.

Agree

Sisu have shafted the club in their chase for profits (or to regain losses as it turned out).
CCC shafted the club because Sisu were in charge.

Skyblueweeman · May 13, 2016

italiahorse said:
Agree

Sisu have shafted the club in their chase for profits (or to regain losses as it turned out).
CCC shafted the club because Sisu were in charge.

So it's SISUs fault in both cases then??

italiahorse · May 13, 2016

Skyblueweeman said:
So it's SISUs fault in both cases then??

Depends on whether you believe the council should have waited for Sisu to go before releasing the stadium to the club?
Depends whether the council could see Sisu ever leaving without playing on for the stadium once Wasps went elsewhere ?

fernandopartridge · May 13, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Because the anchor Tennant went on rent strike, into administration and then abandoned the site in that order. Did you really miss that?

Tony - the council justified its loan on the basis of supposed (present and future) profitability of ACL (remember all the washing its face crap). It was some time after and nothing to do with the rent strike, it was in 2014 whilst the club were playing in Northampton. This was shown to be either incredibly naive or a deliberate attempt to mislead.

The talk of 'standard business' practice goes out of the window when you're talking about the sale of public assets. Yes, the commercial confidentiality of a private entity has to be protected, but, the council as a public authority has to be open and transparent and demonstrate that it is achieving best value for the taxpayer. It hasn't managed to do that yet.

Hobo · May 13, 2016

Chris West was always adamant it was not state aid from the beginning. A succession of judges have agreed with him. The only person who doesn't appears to be Joy.
we can argue about morals and who should have done what, but both sides have have failed to forge a relationship.

It is time this was put to bed. We should now concentrate on trying to move the club forward.

Silence_Is_The_Enemy · May 13, 2016

italiahorse said:
Depends on whether you believe the council should have waited for Sisu to go before releasing the stadium to the club?
Depends whether the council could see Sisu ever leaving without playing on for the stadium once Wasps went elsewhere ?

selling the stadium to wasps was the most secure way of making sure sisu never got their hands on it. even if sisu won their court cases they still couldnt get the stadium as the council no longer owned it.

oldskyblue58 · May 13, 2016

fernandopartridge said:
Tony - the council justified its loan on the basis of supposed (present and future) profitability of ACL (remember all the washing its face crap). It was some time after and nothing to do with the rent strike, it was in 2014 whilst the club were playing in Northampton. This was shown to be either incredibly naive or a deliberate attempt to mislead.

The talk of 'standard business' practice goes out of the window when you're talking about the sale of public assets. Yes, the commercial confidentiality of a private entity has to be protected, but, the council as a public authority has to be open and transparent and demonstrate that it is achieving best value for the taxpayer. It hasn't managed to do that yet.

There are some interesting comments in todays judgement regarding budgets, profitability and valuation

From what I can see legal opinion is that the public tendering etc applies to land and property (ie not shares) and that councils are able to dispose in any manner they see fit

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/...l-duties&catid=58:property-articles&Itemid=26

italiahorse · May 13, 2016

Silence_Is_The_Enemy said:
selling the stadium to wasps was the most secure way of making sure sisu never got their hands on it. even if sisu won their court cases they still couldnt get the stadium as the council no longer owned it.

In theory the stadium freehold is owned by CCC and if Wasps go broke that's where it should return too.
In practice the long lease means Wasps own it while they are solvent.

oldskyblue58 · May 13, 2016

Hobo said:
but both sides have failed to forge a relationship.

It is time this was put to bed. We should now concentrate on trying to move the club forward.

...............this

skybluetony176 · May 13, 2016

oldskyblue58 said:
There are some interesting comments in todays judgement regarding budgets, profitability and valuation

From what I can see legal opinion is that the public tendering etc applies to land and property (ie not shares) and that councils are able to dispose in any manner they see fit

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/...l-duties&catid=58:property-articles&Itemid=26

Was just about to make the same point. It's a discussion me and chief Dave had a few months ago. Dave referenced a piece of legislation but when you read it it is specifically about the freehold disposal of land IIRC. Nothing to do with shares in companies.

Chipfat · May 13, 2016

This has just made Sisu dig in more and try to find another route to seek compo, it brings no closure or security to our club just brings more questions about the future. Sisu are not walking away they are now running at full speed towards multiple court dates, with more attention to detail paid towards legal papers then club budgets. I bet JS didn't misread how much the lawyer's costs would be as much as she did gates to be sustainable.

It a mess i just hope to wake up one day seeing the headline Sisu have decided to pack up and leave. We also have to make sure if the future the CCC have nothing to do with the running or future of the club in any way shape or form.

Nick · May 13, 2016

Chipfat said:
This has just made Sisu dig in more and try to find another route to seek compo, it brings no closure or security to our club just brings more questions about the future. Sisu are not walking away they are now running at full speed towards multiple court dates, with more attention to detail paid towards legal papers then club budgets. I bet JS didn't misread how much the lawyer's costs would be as much as she did gates to be sustainable.

It a mess i just hope to wake up one day seeing the headline Sisu have decided to pack up and leave. We also have to make sure if the future the CCC have nothing to do with the running or future of the club in any way shape or form.

That's the thing, even when SISU go the council will still in some way have things to do with the club.

skybluetony176 · May 13, 2016

Nick said:
That's the thing, even when SISU go the council will still in some way have things to do with the club.

To be fair though Nick all businesses have to pay business rates. Even Wasps

fernandopartridge · May 13, 2016

oldskyblue58 said:
There are some interesting comments in todays judgement regarding budgets, profitability and valuation

From what I can see legal opinion is that the public tendering etc applies to land and property (ie not shares) and that councils are able to dispose in any manner they see fit

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/...l-duties&catid=58:property-articles&Itemid=26

Fair enough.....although it seems to sort of contradict the idea that the council then HAD to loan money to ACL to protect its investment in shares, if it ultimately could dispose of those shares for nothing, if it liked....

Never mind, it's pointless going on about it now. The argument for JR2 seems even more abstract than that for JR1, to the extent that it feels like a waste of time.

Hobo · May 13, 2016

Nick said:
That's the thing, even when SISU go the council will still in some way have things to do with the club.

At the moment they have nothing to do with the club. Who is to say new owners couldn't have a good relationship with CCC. Lots of businesses do.

lamtara2006 · May 13, 2016

Does anybody - whatever your view of the rights and wrongs, legally or morally - see any merit in Sisu continuing with further legal action? And yet it appears that there is more to come.

It seems to me that Monty Python's Black Knight is alive and well, disguised as Joy Seppala! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

Chipfat · May 13, 2016

I think the only one who see's the merit to doing this is JS, but im not sure they have any other rd to go down. I don't think they need the club for any other reason then to get into court and seek some reward for a failed investment. Sadly we as fans are not even in JS mind, thoughts or future, we like the club is being used a vehicle until the bitter end.

Ashdown · May 13, 2016

torchomatic said:
Bollocks.

How can you say that is bollocks ? You don't think dragging the bloody rugby club through the courts isn't going to create a lot of friction ? I doubt they'd want to but they could just tell us to do one and where do you think we might play this time...............in SISU's never never land fairytale stadium in La la land ?

Skyblueweeman · May 13, 2016

fernandopartridge said:
The argument for JR2 seems even more abstract than that for JR1, to the extent that it feels like a waste of time.

I'm sure SISU won't let rationality get in the way of another day in court.

torchomatic · May 13, 2016

Bit drastic. He has his opinion and I have mine.

italiahorse said:
Torch ??

torchomatic · May 13, 2016

Bollocks to Wasps taking us over.

Ashdown said:
How can you say that is bollocks ? You don't think dragging the bloody rugby club through the courts isn't going to create a lot of friction ? I doubt they'd want to but they could just tell us to do one and where do you think we might play this time...............in SISU's never never land fairytale stadium in La la land ?

Ashdown · May 13, 2016

torchomatic said:
Bollocks to Wasps taking us over.

Quite, well I agree with that but like it or lump it we will have to work with them now and not deliberately wind them up..........................well you would if you were interested in the future of the football club at all {to SISU not you }

letsallsingtogether · May 13, 2016

torchomatic said:
Bollocks to Wasps taking us over.

Would you stay away if they did?

We could then play in Brazil's colours rather than Argentina's

Brylowes · May 13, 2016

lamtara2006 said:
Does anybody - whatever your view of the rights and wrongs, legally or morally - see any merit in Sisu continuing with further legal action? And yet it appears that there is more to come.

It seems to me that Monty Python's Black Knight is alive and well, disguised as Joy Seppala! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

Come back you yella b'stard, it's just a flesh wound.

Mean while back in court (2 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency