NTFC Official Statement re:ACL (4 Viewers)

[jimmyhillsfanclub]

Having thought about it, I've probably actually seen Cole, Terry & Gerrard playing as youngsters against City while we were still in the top tier.....


...golden generation....my arse!


EDIT: fernandopartridge has a better memory/quicker brain than me.

 

---

[fernandopartridge]

My builders would probably be delighted to give them a quote and then take ages before they actually start to do anything after it's accepted.

I reckon even though most honest builder would wince and suck his teeth for a good 6 months before considering such a job.

 

[valiant15]

Having thought about it, I've probably actually seen Cole, Terry & Gerrard playing as youngsters against City while we were still in the top tier.....


...golden generation....my arse!


EDIT: fernandopartridge has a better memory/quicker brain than me.

Likewise. City aren't coming back anytime soon,so ive decided to do more internationals.

 

[covcity4life]

i love cov AND england:claping hands:

valiant..oh my...no season ticket is gonna make you a fan in anyones eyes again

 

[fernandopartridge]

Likewise. City aren't coming back anytime soon,soive decided to do more internationals.

Agreed mate, don't embrace the awful corporate game it is now. Go to Wembley to watch England.

 

[James Smith]

That's if you believe the line about the court action being in the interests of bringing City back to the Ricoh.

For me it could have been about demonstrating a breach of the lease by CCFC ahead of a re-run of the administration process, the idea being that the administration process would show ACL as being the biggest creditor by using the remaining term of the lease as the value of the monies owed rather than just the outstanding monies from the rent strike.

Even if you ignore the legal action, as OSB58 says they won't sit around forever waiting on the off chance that CCFC are going to return and will do something else. That will make our return harder and it'll be worse if they do decide they don't need the pitch space as a pitch.

 

[James Smith]

I reckon even though most honest builder would wince and suck his teeth for a good 6 months before considering such a job.

Mine did it on rebuilding a garden wall, hardly a roof on the ricoh.

 

[Covstu]

Very patriotic. Enjoy your 3rd division shitfest.

wow! This is really coming from a city fan, nah surely not!

 

[covcity4life]

You always have a pop at osb, just wondered why that is pal. Plenty of posters spout crap, don't think osb falls into this category. Tbf I understand a lot more about our situation because of his contribution on this site.
Just curious

because he is a longtime poster and we have had our "debates" since 606 days

however like alot of things surrounding ccfc he has become corrupted and is as pro acl as it gets imo

still like the guy.

 

[valiant15]

wow! This is really coming from a city fan, nah surely not!

It just doesn't feel like city anymore.Ive totally lost interest.I hate everything about the club at the moment.

Like ive already said,sisu have killed it.Give it another couple of years in exile and the fanbase will be even more pathetic.

 

[duffer]

NTFC will apply to court for their costs to be paid by ACL. They will enter a claim that includes every related cost they can think of, (as would anyone else, so no wrong doing implied by that). The court will then via a process called "taxing" decide what is and what is not payable to NTFC in respect of what it has cost them to defend. I would have thought that very little legal argument has gone on and if you throw in a few Barristers costs on the NTFC side that the claim would be less than £20k. Any compensation for lost business or hurt feelings is entirely seperate and extremely difficult to prove because from the start hardly anyone took ACL's claim to be likely to succeed

Straight question OSB, under what law could NTFC claim damages or costs from ACL? The case hasn't actually gone to court, has it - it's been withdrawn.

Not having a go here, but I've never heard of anyone being able to raise a claim for hurt feelings, and there's no lost business here that I can think of.

But really, I simply don't understand where there's a requirement in law for ACL to pay the other sides costs, when the case has been pulled before coming to court.

I'm happy to be advised if there is something, but I'm damned if I can find any examples of this happening in real life, and Grendel hasn't been able to provide a link to the story he mentioned of ACL offering partial costs to NTFC.

I'm confused.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Straight question OSB, under what law could NTFC claim damages or costs from ACL? The case hasn't actually gone to court, has it - it's been withdrawn.

Not having a go here, but I've never heard of anyone being able to raise a claim for hurt feelings, and there's no lost business here that I can think of.

But really, I simply don't understand where there's a requirement in law for ACL to pay the other sides costs, when the case has been pulled before coming to court.

I'm happy to be advised if there is something, but I'm damned if I can find any examples of this happening in real life, and Grendel hasn't been able to provide a link to the story he mentioned of ACL offering partial costs to NTFC.

I'm confused.

Libel or slander? Can a company make such a claim or must it be a person?

 

[Godiva]

Got to ask that question of both sides in fairness havent you? (ACL & SISU)

Legal & PR costs for ACL could have been better spent on the arena etc

Legal & PR costs for SISU/CCFC could have been better spent on the club & team

only the lawyers and pr guys win it seems to me

True, but sisu have something to show for their money: They have broken the lease. How much is that worth?
And their investors will not really ask too many questions anyway.
ACL is a different case.

 

[Godiva]

probably but if it is paid out of cashflow is taxpayers money involved? So long as CCC are not paying the costs then the costs fall to be funded by ACL only. Do the legal and PR costs affect the value of the ACL company ? if not then what is the loss to the taxpayer? Have ACL set aside a fighting fund out of accumulated cashflow and stuck to a budget? We just dont know but I dont think CCC are funding the costs unless someone shows me differently.

No matter how you look at it - at the end of the day any money gained or spend, 50% is taxpayers money. Money spent decreases the overall value - money earned increases the value.
It doesn't matter if the money was allocated before any actions were taken - if they are spent they have in fact decreased the overall value.
If money were allocated - then the decrease in value happened at time of allocation. If they were not allocated the value decreases as they are spent.
Or do I have to go back and re-read my financial studies?

 

[James Smith]

Libel or slander? Can a company make such a claim or must it be a person?

Perfectly possible for an organisation to sue for defamation, a past example is the McLibel trial www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/story.html‎ & en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case

 

[James Smith]

Straight question OSB, under what law could NTFC claim damages or costs from ACL? The case hasn't actually gone to court, has it - it's been withdrawn.

Not having a go here, but I've never heard of anyone being able to raise a claim for hurt feelings, and there's no lost business here that I can think of.

But really, I simply don't understand where there's a requirement in law for ACL to pay the other sides costs, when the case has been pulled before coming to court.

I'm happy to be advised if there is something, but I'm damned if I can find any examples of this happening in real life, and Grendel hasn't been able to provide a link to the story he mentioned of ACL offering partial costs to NTFC.

I'm confused.

I'm unsure as to what exactly ACL sent to NTFC and without seeing the entire thing it's a bit difficult to comment - and I'm not a lawyer and this needs a real live one to comment.

 

[oldskyblue58]

No matter how you look at it - at the end of the day any money gained or spend, 50% is taxpayers money. Money spent decreases the overall value - money earned increases the value.
It doesn't matter if the money was allocated before any actions were taken - if they are spent they have in fact decreased the overall value.
If money were allocated - then the decrease in value happened at time of allocation. If they were not allocated the value decreases as they are spent.
Or do I have to go back and re-read my financial studies?

going to depend on how you value the company though doesnt it ...... would you value it on a straight balance sheet basis?..... or on a net profits basis .......or the lease and associated incomes ..... or potential future incomes ......or security of the lease ........ or a mix of all which dilute the effect of any depression of profits by exceptional costs. Some bases would not reflect the monies spent at all.

what if the current value is higher than the original investment...... is there a loss at all?........ what if the outcome is actually a more profitable business wihout ccfc.........

all conjecture really as to whether there is a loss to the taxpayer at all ........ there may be but no one actually knows

 

[oldskyblue58]

Straight question OSB, under what law could NTFC claim damages or costs from ACL? The case hasn't actually gone to court, has it - it's been withdrawn.

Not having a go here, but I've never heard of anyone being able to raise a claim for hurt feelings, and there's no lost business here that I can think of.

But really, I simply don't understand where there's a requirement in law for ACL to pay the other sides costs, when the case has been pulled before coming to court.

I'm happy to be advised if there is something, but I'm damned if I can find any examples of this happening in real life, and Grendel hasn't been able to provide a link to the story he mentioned of ACL offering partial costs to NTFC.

I'm confused.

NTFC could try to sue ACL for vexacious or frivolous use of the law in making their claim. They have forced NTFC to incur costs to protect their name that NTFC would not have had to do. That claim is straight forward. ACL have had to negotiate a settlement in order to avoid further lengthy legal cases, that settlement will be put to the court in the application to withdraw the case. It isnt about wrong or right it is more a question of making things go away as cheap as possible

What Cardoza intimated in the article is that they had been in some way upset or damaged trade - they could try to make a claim. Does that have have any legal merits most probably not but it doesnt mean it isnt an option. They could for example try to prove that the action taken by ACL had put off say a sponsor..... they would have to prove it of course..... and prove they couldnt get an alternative. In that case it wouldnt have had to go to court because the damage was done in the articles made public in the media. Is it likely to happen I would not have thought so

 

[Godiva]

going to depend on how you value the company though doesnt it ...... would you value it on a straight balance sheet basis?..... or on a net profits basis .......or the lease and associated incomes ..... or potential future incomes ......or security of the lease ........ or a mix of all which dilute the effect of any depression of profits by exceptional costs. Some bases would not reflect the monies spent at all.

what if the current value is higher than the original investment...... is there a loss at all?........ what if the outcome is actually a more profitable business wihout ccfc.........

all conjecture really as to whether there is a loss to the taxpayer at all ........ there may be but no one actually knows

For the first paragraph I suspect it depends on the accounting and the auditor ... there's a lot of flexibility to paint the picture you want.

But the second paragraph is where I agree totally. If it turns out that the outcome of all this is a company more profitable than before - then it's been money well spent.
If it's not more profitable, then I would say the money was poorly spent and both directly and indirectly decreased the overall value.

We won't know for a few years though. The impact will take some time to filter through to the published accounts.

 

[njdlawyer]

The "winning" side in a piece of litigation will generally get their legal costs re-imbursed after a process of "taxation" ie assessment and as per OSB's post above. There is no provision for payment for hurt feelings etc

The matter never went to court as ACL withdrew but that does not stop the issue of costs being a live one. At any point a party can withdraw from litigation but when doing so they will usually try to do so after reaching agreement with the other side as to costs ie both parties pay their own or they are limited to a certain figure or they are submitted to the taxation process. If there is no such agreement then the successful litigant is entitled to pursue their costs through the court

Yes a corporate organisation can sue for libel in it's own name just as an organisation can be a libel defendant but that won't happen here

Finally it now appears to be 1-1 on the "ill-founded claims about litigation front" as I was present at a forum when TF made grandiose statements about the legal advice that they had received about the JR proceedings - words like cast-iron, and 100% certain were bandied around

As many of my previous posts show (and say) I blame SISU virtually 100% for our predicament but I have to say that at times (and this ridiculous piece of legal posturing is one of them) ACL seem hell-bent on simply following SISU's lead and replicating their bloody awful mistakes

 

[njdlawyer]

PS Just to be clear, OSB was wrong about one thing, the winning side in litigation can only recover their legal costs not "every related" cost just those pertaining to the action itself

 

[oldskyblue58]

happy to be corrected njdlawyer

 

[torchomatic]

Cardoza was pretty scathing wasn't he in the interview when he said he looked forward to talking to the real decision makers and not ACL. Ouch.

 

[RPHunt]

NTFC could try to sue ACL for vexacious or frivolous use of the law in making their claim.

I think to be designated as vexatious, the claim would have to be one of many. To be frivoulous, the claim by ACL would need to be shown as completely without merit, either legally or factually.

Doubtful if NTFC have any grounds for a case and they would be well advised not to listen to anyone from SISU telling them differently.

 

[Godiva]

Cardoza was pretty scathing wasn't he in the interview when he said he looked forward to talking to the real decision makers and not ACL. Ouch.

Do you mean that ACL have shadow directors??? Surely NOT!

 

[njdlawyer]

I think to be designated as vexatious, the claim would have to be one of many. To be frivoulous, the claim by ACL would need to be shown as completely without merit, either legally or factually.

Doubtful if NTFC have any grounds for a case and they would be well advised not to listen to anyone from SISU telling them differently.

Claiming that an action is "frivolous and vexatious" is a mechanism for getting that action struck out. It does not exist as a claim in its own right

 

[James Smith]

Do you mean that ACL have shadow directors??? Surely NOT!

That's a step too far in copying A.N.Other firm surely