ccfcway
Well-Known Member
general consensus is that they wouldnt, but puts more pressure on ACL as a business
Not saying its right, just what i understand from those on here
Perhaps someone could help me out a little here but assuming SISU win the JR, how does that then translate to them getting the freehold? Why would ACLU not just pay back the loan through a refinance agreement elsewhere? I thought their books were better post CCFC leaving?
general consensus is that they wouldnt, but puts more pressure on ACL as a business
Not saying its right, just what i understand from those on here
Well if that's it I don't know why we're all getting our knickers in a twist, just another abysmal tactic in their long game to distress ACL? Not likely to have much of an effect and certainly not the pivotal move in resolving this saga imho.
Well if that's it I don't know why we're all getting our knickers in a twist, just another abysmal tactic in their long game to distress ACL? Not likely to have much of an effect and certainly not the pivotal move in resolving this saga imho.
Mr Labovitch said on CWR that the JR wouldn't affect the club and I assumed he was talking financially. Whether you believe him or not is a different matter.
There is I suppose a possibility that evidence is allowed in the JR that sisu can then use to commence proceedings in another court on another day.
There is I suppose a possibility that evidence is allowed in the JR that CCC can use to commence proceedings against sisu in another court
on another day.
There is I suppose a possibility that evidence is allowed in the JR that CCC can use to commence proceedings against sisu in another court
on another day.
There is no possibility of that.
Well at all the meetings I have been to with various directors non directors owners etc of CCFC they seem to feel that they have it all sewn up.
They said they have offered CCC a deal not to go to court as the only winners are the lawyers is that really the only reason they have offered this deal?
After all we only have one side to this story. If the other bits I have heard from the other side are true and they come out at the JR hold on to your hats we are in for one real big bump.
He who speaks loudest does not always tell the truth beware the quiet man........
It's CCFC Vs CCC.
What do you really think ?
Who is the company/or who are the companies listed as taking out or starting the JR?
What do I really think will happen, one of the outcomes in the post I made earlier - I haven't seen any of the evidence and just wish they'd get this over and done with.
I don't think the JR will be the end of it.
I believe SISU case will be thrown out and they will keep appealing until they get a judge that agrees with them.
Any sensible suggestions?
So you think there will be no appeal ?
So you think there will be no appeal ?[/QUOTE
If they are allowed to appeal, they won't be 'appealing until they get a judge that agrees with them', that's just a bit silly!
So you think there will be no appeal ?[/QUOTE
If they are allowed to appeal, they won't be 'appealing until they get a judge that agrees with them', that's just a bit silly!
It's already happened. The original JR request was thrown out.
We are here on appeal.
Well at all the meetings I have been to with various directors non directors owners etc of CCFC they seem to feel that they have it all sewn up.
They said they have offered CCC a deal not to go to court as the only winners are the lawyers is that really the only reason they have offered this deal?
After all we only have one side to this story. If the other bits I have heard from the other side are true and they come out at the JR hold on to your hats we are in for one real big bump.
He who speaks loudest does not always tell the truth beware the quiet man........
It's already happened. The original JR request was thrown out.
We are here on appeal.
Has it? So SISU 'appealed until they got a judge that agreed with them'? When did this happen? Or are you, as I say, being a bit silly?
Any sensible suggestions?
Read this a few times. Genuine question, whio is it that is "speaking the loudest", as i cant work it out. Is it SISU or CCC ?
Yes, Sisu drop the appeal. Take a short term rental agreement with a proviso to take of buying into the Ricoh. All parties come out and apologise and say they all want what is best for the club and it's fans. Sisu declare exactly what their plans are for CCFC and ACL, CCC and Sisu/Otium all commit to it with a view to making it happen.
Well at all the meetings I have been to with various directors non directors owners etc of CCFC they seem to feel that they have it all sewn up.
They said they have offered CCC a deal not to go to court as the only winners are the lawyers is that really the only reason they have offered this deal?
After all we only have one side to this story. If the other bits I have heard from the other side are true and they come out at the JR hold on to your hats we are in for one real big bump.
He who speaks loudest does not always tell the truth beware the quiet man........
You can't appeal a JR unless there is new evidence that comes along. What new evidence could come out when all it is about is was the loan lawful at the time it was taken out? Was the loan the best thing to do at the time it was taken out?
The old gasworks area was counted as a regeneration area. CCC were given a grant towards the costs from the European regional development fund. Part of the funding was a 21m loan. This is the loan that was refinanced. The question being asked is that although the original loan was lawful could the refinancing of the loan be unlawful?
ACL were given the choice. 1.9m rent a year or 21m down payment. The 21m option was taken. So how can it go from lawful to unlawful? The whole process was overseen by the EU commission. If anything was wrong the grant from them wouldn't have been paid. And as said only anything done at the time to secure the future of a regeneration site can be taken into context. This is why everything was thrown out by the judge that Joy brought forward in her statement and other arguments. It is nothing to do with anything anyone said.
Nothing can come from rights to the venue either as when SISU stopped paying the rent and moved out they lost all rights to agreements in place. This includes the rights to the Higgs share. I can't see how there is any more points to take litigation further with a chance of getting anywhere. And before I am asked yet again I am not a barrister. I have never said I am. I will never say I am. I do have an idea of the way the law works. Nothing else. I was just a boy who grew up in the more 'select' areas of Coventry where you were better off having an understanding of the law
Will we be coming home after this process? I would say we will. All sides, including ourselves, will be better off. CCFC coming home will make the naming rights be worth more. This would wipe out the majority of the loan on the arena. So a very low rent can be offered. This would give our club the money to go forwards and get promoted. But it will only happen once SISU stop the litigation. No more comments like CCC have been made an offer but won't talk? Why not just tell us what the offer was? We can then see for ourselves if it was a proper offer and not something like the unencumbered freehold for a fiver
The biggest worry I have is that after the JR CCC will be free to talk. Lucas said ages ago that we will find everything out once it is done. I just hope it don't cause nothing but mudslinging and more litigation for defamation or similar. But it will be good for the truth to come out. If it don't I will be outside the offices to demonstrate until we get it.
That's a good call. I've been thinking this for a long time but as it's drawn nearer and nearer it seems less likely.
Great post Astute. I agree, there seems to be very little that SISU can hang their hat for litigation if the ruling goes against them.
I'd suggest that CCC have been told to stay quiet until the JR is over and not to talk to anyone including SISU. Whatever 'offer' SISU have made, I wouldn't respond it either - while SISU have brought the JR case. Case dropped or case finished would be the only time I would answer.
Any offer seems to indicate that SISU want the Ricoh and don't want to build. If the council decide to sell ACL it should be under a covenant that ACL and the stadium remain under the club and not in the hands of separate 'investors'. Any sale of the club to be approved by CCC and must include the club and stadium combined. This way the stadium isn't used by SISU for investor value - and we can see whether SISU value the income it creates for the club or just the opportunity it gives to investors.
The general view seems to be that CCC will probably win the JR ,of course they may prove to be wishful thinking, however most seem to think it won't prove a game changer for SISU. Similarly there doesn't seem any evidence that ACL are in any short/medium term danger. Indeed they are due a cash injection of £590,000 very shortly, ironically from SISU/Otium. A new stadium remains at best a distant dream, or to most fans an utter fantasy.You can't appeal a JR unless there is new evidence that comes along. What new evidence could come out when all it is about is was the loan lawful at the time it was taken out? Was the loan the best thing to do at the time it was taken out?
The old gasworks area was counted as a regeneration area. CCC were given a grant towards the costs from the European regional development fund. Part of the funding was a 21m loan. This is the loan that was refinanced. The question being asked is that although the original loan was lawful could the refinancing of the loan be unlawful?
ACL were given the choice. 1.9m rent a year or 21m down payment. The 21m option was taken. So how can it go from lawful to unlawful? The whole process was overseen by the EU commission. If anything was wrong the grant from them wouldn't have been paid. And as said only anything done at the time to secure the future of a regeneration site can be taken into context. This is why everything was thrown out by the judge that Joy brought forward in her statement and other arguments. It is nothing to do with anything anyone said.
Nothing can come from rights to the venue either as when SISU stopped paying the rent and moved out they lost all rights to agreements in place. This includes the rights to the Higgs share. I can't see how there is any more points to take litigation further with a chance of getting anywhere. And before I am asked yet again I am not a barrister. I have never said I am. I will never say I am. I do have an idea of the way the law works. Nothing else. I was just a boy who grew up in the more 'select' areas of Coventry where you were better off having an understanding of the law
Will we be coming home after this process? I would say we will. All sides, including ourselves, will be better off. CCFC coming home will make the naming rights be worth more. This would wipe out the majority of the loan on the arena. So a very low rent can be offered. This would give our club the money to go forwards and get promoted. But it will only happen once SISU stop the litigation. No more comments like CCC have been made an offer but won't talk? Why not just tell us what the offer was? We can then see for ourselves if it was a proper offer and not something like the unencumbered freehold for a fiver
The biggest worry I have is that after the JR CCC will be free to talk. Lucas said ages ago that we will find everything out once it is done. I just hope it don't cause nothing but mudslinging and more litigation for defamation or similar. But it will be good for the truth to come out. If it don't I will be outside the offices to demonstrate until we get it.
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?