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.
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,soive decided to do more internationals.
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.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.
I reckon even though most honest builder would wince and suck his teeth for a good 6 months before considering such a job.
Very patriotic. Enjoy your 3rd division shitfest.
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
wow! This is really coming from a city fan, nah surely not!
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.
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
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.
Libel or slander? Can a company make such a claim or must it be a person?
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.
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?
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.
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
NTFC could try to sue ACL for vexacious or frivolous use of the law in making their claim.
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.
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.
Do you mean that ACL have shadow directors??? Surely NOT!
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?