dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I did not quote it as the solution.
Someone said it was niave not to have asked for a sliding scale rent.
I said the club were offered one and said no because they expected to be promoted.
I suppose my point is, you're quoting the sliding scale rent offer as something that would have solved all of our problems. It wouldn't have because £1.3m was far too high in the championship and we don't know how much it would have been in league one and two. For all we know it could have still been unaffordable.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
The perfect summing up I agree - from a council whore who has zero interest in the football club.
We have to see that other parasite GPE soon.
Hmm, what's more weird is someone leaving the football clubs forum, then showing up whenever there's a court case approaching.Weirdo
Hmm, what's more weird is someone leaving the football clubs forum, then showing up whenever there's a court case approaching.
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
Yes I'm a plant I work for the council, I dig up time capsules and plant CCFC memorabilia in them.
I am going to deal with the CET today because Simon Gilbert is in my pocket and he did a headline that favourable to SISU. Then again no one believes what's written in the CET as its all lies so I suppose that headline will be ignored.
Get a life not everything is a conspiracy
I reckon those who say that everything isn't a conspiracy are part of the conspiracy to cover up the fact that everything is indeed a conspiracy.
If you were part of a conspiracy you don't want anyone to know it's a conspiracy do you, so that is exactly what a conspirator would say.
Well done Don't for dropping yourself right in it!
Think its a fairly key point. A rent holiday would be agreed by both sides. Puts the clubs action in a very different light.
But Justice Tomlinson interrupted the Sisu QC and said the reason for withholding rent was “irrelevant”.
Apparently it isn't relevant in law, so Mr Rhodri Thompson is just blowing hot air..
Surely the reason for doing something is relevant?
IF ACL were also behind the stopping of the payment of rent for their benefit it is a different situation entirely to SISU saying "you can fuck off if you think we are paying".
Sorry Mr Nick, you have failed GCSE law.
'Don't' should be his username.
Surely the reason for doing something is relevant?
IF ACL were also behind the stopping of the payment of rent for their benefit it is a different situation entirely to SISU saying "you can fuck off if you think we are paying".
Seems what SISU are claiming is that it was a rent holiday that ACL were happy with as it would drive down the value which they wanted to do in order to get the loan off Yorkshire Bank cheap.
There was a few points today where the SISU chap was talking about how the language from the council suddenly changed, this was one of his example. According to him it was a sudden switch from rent holiday to rent strike. Think that's something they need to get to the bottom of as they are two very different things.
I think the Lords are saying that that is not relevant to whether the council is providing state aid or not.
I think the Lords are trying to cut through the crap or "he said she said"
I assume they are letting the QC know that that won't influence them and they will stick to the black and white is it state aid or not to buy the loan.
I think the Lords are saying that that is not relevant to whether the council is providing state aid or not.
I think the Lords are trying to cut through the crap or "he said she said"
I assume they are letting the QC know that that won't influence them and they will stick to the black and white is it state aid or not to buy the loan.
But if ACL (and particularly council employees within ACL) had been behind the rent strike which had then needed the bailout. It looks a bit dodgy if they had actively told / agreed with CCFC not to pay rent doesn't it?
OSB could you tell me why the admin charges in 2013 were twice 2012?
Are they admitting to a criminal conspiracy and trying to blame another party for it? Highly ethical that!
Surely the reason for doing something is relevant?
IF ACL were also behind the stopping of the payment of rent for their benefit it is a different situation entirely to SISU saying "you can fuck off if you think we are paying".
But if ACL (and particularly council employees within ACL) had been behind the rent strike which had then needed the bailout. It looks a bit dodgy if they had actively told / agreed with CCFC not to pay rent doesn't it?
I think the judges are being quite focussed on what they are looking at. Namely did the act of providing the loan contravene state aid rules. Much of what was said was just background and a good chunk not really relevant to the CCC decision, it just explains why they got to a point where they needed to make a decision
There's not too much love for CCFC on here is there?
My only thought IF ACL were involved in the rent strike stuff was if they did say to CCFC not to pay the rent, it goes pear shaped. Maybe that could have influenced the Council Loan stuff?*
*No expert and probably miles out.
wouldn't it be more likely that they would say pay us a small rent just to keep our cashflow within bounds and get this done quickly. Not sure why AEHC & CCC would put the money they had invested are complete risk on the back of a basically insolvent football club. Even the SISU QC said that ACL/AEHC/PWKH were looking at things in a "beady eyed" commercial way.
But we are both guessing.
I suspect both sides will paint a picture in court based on carefully selected facts that ignore other equally pertinent ones. End of the day the three judges know that and will look at all the facts they consider relevant to the decision. They will cut through the "background"
But surely if SISU / their lawyer are basically bullshitting in court they should go straight to jail without passing go? (That's if ACL didn't agree to it etc)
The first thing I was taught at Law School was not to lie in court, else you go to jail
It seems that going over the background takes away from the main point, in that the council provided state aid to a private limited company. The focus should be on why it did that and whether it was absolutely necessary or the only option to protect the council's investment.
It seems that going over the background takes away from the main point, in that did the council provide state aid to a private limited company? . The focus should be on why it did that and whether it was absolutely necessary or the only option to protect the council's investment.
The barrister isn't lying Nick, he is interpreting the facts he has at his disposal or wants to use, for the benefit of his client. Painting a picture to persuade the judges that's what they should accept. He is saying that's what his client understood or believed. But in any case it is still background to what is actually being judged
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?