Ricoh Arena to sue Northampton Town FC (1 Viewer)

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Think of it in another way if this goes to court who else will be dragged into it? Yes the good old we're for the fans custodians of the game blah blah blah Football League. They as the governing body gave Sisu a list of the grounds that they could groundshare at:thinking about:Therefore they have to support Northampton they could be called to supply evidence of why they allowed it. Their own rules would have to have been followed this is brilliant now we'll see what happens:claping hands::claping hands: :claping hands::claping hands::claping hands:If I were one of those who made the decision I would call for another meeting and examine the facts again same conclusion:thinking about:I think not

 

---

[torchomatic]

Club statement. "Northampton Town will not be bullied or threatened"

 

[I'mARealWizard]

haha i do though and i can assure you this action which is not litigation at all its pre action notice to Northampton will go nowhere at all. 100%

For someone who claims to work in a very formal environment where communication and grammar are paramount to promotion or ascension through the ranks, you are very quick to forget basics such as capitalization and paragraphs when posting here.

Once you learn these skills, it's very difficult to 'unlearn' them. And so my original perspective still holds true.

 

[James Smith]

Careful what you wish for. . . . without a ground to play at, what happens next?

If NTFC renege on their agreement (which our chairman won't do) then CCFC have no place to play, can't fulfil their fixtures, and should be expelled from the competition. :wave:

We do have a ground to play at, it's just our owners who are playing silly buggers by refusing to. Sorry NTFC have been dragged into this at all.

 

[Danceswithhorses]

N_E_Cobbler...i'm sorry you guys have got involved in this nightmare, but we did warn you not to get into bed with with SISU (the club owners)-all they will do is bring a big shower of shit over you and your club.
Most CCFC didnt want ntfc's 'benevolence' (£150k/year rent), as we dont want to move from our ground, or our city.
We have nothing against ntfc, but ACL and SISU have to fight it out amongst themselves, without outside 'generosity' (£150k/year rent)

 

[RPHunt]

Careful what you wish for. . . . without a ground to play at, what happens next?

NTFC have done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, and won't stand by and be threatened with legal action that has no basis in reality. The Football League are the ones in the wrong for ratifying this in the first place, but to sue NTFC for offering a place to play is, frankly, ridiculous.

CCFC supporters, you want to stop trying to bully NTFC, their supporters, and chairman, and concentrate on taking it up with the Football League. THEY are the ones who agreed to this shambolic arrangement, THEY are the ones who gave the go ahead to allow Coventry to play outside of Coventry. If NTFC renege on their agreement (which our chairman won't do) then CCFC have no place to play, can't fulfil their fixtures, and should be expelled from the competition. :wave:

I do agree NTFC should not be bullied. However, there is an old saying about having a long spoon if you are going to sup with the devil and your chairman should have been aware of the (unsavoury) company he was about to keep.

And there is a perfectly good ground in Coventry for the Sky Blues to play at, so no reason for us to be expelled from the League unless the aforementioned unsavoury company plunge the club into further recklessness.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Careful what you wish for. . . . without a ground to play at, what happens next?

NTFC have done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, and won't stand by and be threatened with legal action that has no basis in reality. The Football League are the ones in the wrong for ratifying this in the first place, but to sue NTFC for offering a place to play is, frankly, ridiculous.

CCFC supporters, you want to stop trying to bully NTFC, their supporters, and chairman, and concentrate on taking it up with the Football League. THEY are the ones who agreed to this shambolic arrangement, THEY are the ones who gave the go ahead to allow Coventry to play outside of Coventry. If NTFC renege on their agreement (which our chairman won't do) then CCFC have no place to play, can't fulfil their fixtures, and should be expelled from the competition. :wave:

I agree with you appart from the fact that you chairman was quite pleased with the money and the leader of your council was delighted with what he sees as extra revenue for what was it local pubs petrol stations etc

 

[torchomatic]

can't believe I'm saying this but I think I would take the risk. We could be back in the Ricoh by teatime if SISU stopped being so stubborn.

Careful what you wish for. . . . without a ground to play at, what happens next?

NTFC have done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, and won't stand by and be threatened with legal action that has no basis in reality. The Football League are the ones in the wrong for ratifying this in the first place, but to sue NTFC for offering a place to play is, frankly, ridiculous.

CCFC supporters, you want to stop trying to bully NTFC, their supporters, and chairman, and concentrate on taking it up with the Football League. THEY are the ones who agreed to this shambolic arrangement, THEY are the ones who gave the go ahead to allow Coventry to play outside of Coventry. If NTFC renege on their agreement (which our chairman won't do) then CCFC have no place to play, can't fulfil their fixtures, and should be expelled from the competition. :wave:

 

[shy_tall_knight]

NTFC deserve abuse and lots of it. Not their fans but their owners who are not act as benefactors but can see a commercial opportunity at a cost to the city of Coventry and the vast majority of sky blue fans. even if unsuccessful it may focus attention in the wider community as to NTFC's role and true motivation. I think NTFC have been rather naive and taken in by the smooth talking Mayfair boys.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Club statement. "Northampton Town will not be bullied or threatened"

Bloody hell Tims taken over already didn't take long did it

 

[duffer]

Careful what you wish for. . . . without a ground to play at, what happens next?

NTFC have done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, and won't stand by and be threatened with legal action that has no basis in reality. The Football League are the ones in the wrong for ratifying this in the first place, but to sue NTFC for offering a place to play is, frankly, ridiculous.

CCFC supporters, you want to stop trying to bully NTFC, their supporters, and chairman, and concentrate on taking it up with the Football League. THEY are the ones who agreed to this shambolic arrangement, THEY are the ones who gave the go ahead to allow Coventry to play outside of Coventry. If NTFC renege on their agreement (which our chairman won't do) then CCFC have no place to play, can't fulfil their fixtures, and should be expelled from the competition. :wave:

We've got a ground to play in mate, thanks. And at least at the moment, a legal obligation to play in it.

And you're getting the cart before the horse - if your money grabbing chairman doesn't get involved then the FL don't have any decision to make.

We're not bullying you - your club's actions are putting the future of our club, in our city, at substantial threat. We're defending ourselves.

If you could look beyond your own narrow perspective, you'd see it's in every true fan's interest to make sure that this sort of thing doesn't happen.

I hope for the ordinary, decent fans of NTFC that it never happens to your club, and if it does that no one offers you a similar 'rescue' to the one you've offered us.

 

[Astute]

Careful what you wish for. . . . without a ground to play at, what happens next?

NTFC have done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, and won't stand by and be threatened with legal action that has no basis in reality. The Football League are the ones in the wrong for ratifying this in the first place, but to sue NTFC for offering a place to play is, frankly, ridiculous.

CCFC supporters, you want to stop trying to bully NTFC, their supporters, and chairman, and concentrate on taking it up with the Football League. THEY are the ones who agreed to this shambolic arrangement, THEY are the ones who gave the go ahead to allow Coventry to play outside of Coventry. If NTFC renege on their agreement (which our chairman won't do) then CCFC have no place to play, can't fulfil their fixtures, and should be expelled from the competition. :wave:

Us supporters bullying you?

I hope for your sake that your chairman realises who he has got into bed with. Even the FL seem scared of them.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Careful what you wish for. . . . without a ground to play at, what happens next?

NTFC have done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, and won't stand by and be threatened with legal action that has no basis in reality. The Football League are the ones in the wrong for ratifying this in the first place, but to sue NTFC for offering a place to play is, frankly, ridiculous.

CCFC supporters, you want to stop trying to bully NTFC, their supporters, and chairman, and concentrate on taking it up with the Football League. THEY are the ones who agreed to this shambolic arrangement, THEY are the ones who gave the go ahead to allow Coventry to play outside of Coventry. If NTFC renege on their agreement (which our chairman won't do) then CCFC have no place to play, can't fulfil their fixtures, and should be expelled from the competition. :wave:

If taking a risk means we end up at the Ricoh against Bristol City on the 10th August (Then for the first time) I am behind ACL in getting us there, I have no ill feeling to NTFC or their fans however your chairman should have just said no, not thinking about the financial gain, after all other clubs did so i.e Walsall, Birmingham..

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

More Spaghetti Western for me.

80's platform computer game based on the film of the same name? Or, actually, one of those Western books we've got!

 

[ericagradus]

the legal chap speaking on behalf of ACL seemed to imply there was an argument to be had that the lease is tied to the golden share and even if SISU liquidate ltd with the lease in it ACL have a claim that it's still valid.

Cardoza might regret publicly saying SISU could afford ot pay the rent but chose not to. that comment alone will prevent him pleading ignorance of the situation.

The lease cannot be 'tied' to the golden share as such. The lease is only tied to the tenant and the guarantor (if there is one). As has been discussed, just because the tenant is in administration, does not mean that the Landlord (ACL) would have exercised their right to forfiet the lease. The fact that they have publlicly stated things such as, we did not ask the club to leave the ground, suggests that the lease has not been forfeited.

The information available on the net, appears to state that this is more of a contract/competition law point. And the point that NTFC are making is that, they are not responsible for 'poaching' any clients. The burden of proof would be on ACL to prove that NTFC approached the club and in all honesty, I cannot see there being any weight at all to this arguement.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Club statement. "Northampton Town will not be bullied or threatened"

They've chosen unfortunate bed-fellows, in that case..

 

[Cobblers36]

I think a lot of people are underestimating the Cardoza family in all of this.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

I think a lot of people are underestimating the Cardoza family in all of this.

Enlighten us Cobblers for those who aren't aware...

 

[true sky blue]

For someone who claims to work in a very formal environment where communication and grammar are paramount to promotion or ascension through the ranks, you are very quick to forget basics such as capitalization and paragraphs when posting here.

Once you learn these skills, it's very difficult to 'unlearn' them. And so my original perspective still holds true.

oh please - grow up

 

[hill83]

I think a lot of people are underestimating the Cardoza family in all of this.

Has he got a shooter?

 

[Nick]

Has he got a shooter?

Sounds like he is in the mafia though!

 

[mattylad]

All this talk of bullying makes me cringe, its balloons on cars and acting like a bufoon at forums.....can any of these people act like business men. That said Cardoza knows that he was taking the devils 30 pieces of silver and selling the soul of NTFC.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

Sounds like he is in the mafia though!

 

[wingy]

Has he got a shooter?

Clive Platt ?? ROD.....?

 

[hill83]

Clive Platt ?? ROD.....?

A resounding no then

 

[Samo]

I think a lot of people are underestimating the Cardoza family in all of this.

Will he make us sleep with the fishes?

 

[RPHunt]

The lease cannot be 'tied' to the golden share as such. The lease is only tied to the tenant and the guarantor (if there is one). As has been discussed, just because the tenant is in administration, does not mean that the Landlord (ACL) would have exercised their right to forfiet the lease. The fact that they have publlicly stated things such as, we did not ask the club to leave the ground, suggests that the lease has not been forfeited.

The information available on the net, appears to state that this is more of a contract/competition law point. And the point that NTFC are making is that, they are not responsible for 'poaching' any clients. The burden of proof would be on ACL to prove that NTFC approached the club and in all honesty, I cannot see there being any weight at all to this arguement.

I think the approach of ACL's lawyer is that a deal has been agreed between NTFC and Otium for the club, who are ACL's tenant, to break the lease and play at Sixfields. Since neither NTFC nor Otium have any rights, at the moment, to decide where the club play, then this could be construed as enticement for the club to break its lease with ACL.

Seems a sensible argument to me.

 

[duffer]

The lease cannot be 'tied' to the golden share as such. The lease is only tied to the tenant and the guarantor (if there is one). As has been discussed, just because the tenant is in administration, does not mean that the Landlord (ACL) would have exercised their right to forfiet the lease. The fact that they have publlicly stated things such as, we did not ask the club to leave the ground, suggests that the lease has not been forfeited.

The information available on the net, appears to state that this is more of a contract/competition law point. And the point that NTFC are making is that, they are not responsible for 'poaching' any clients. The burden of proof would be on ACL to prove that NTFC approached the club and in all honesty, I cannot see there being any weight at all to this arguement.

I've got to get on, but I think it's a bit more subtle than that. I think it's more along the lines that a third party, Otium, has negotiated with NTFC to offer CCFC Ltd a place to play, when both of those parties know that CCFC Ltd already has a contract for a place to play. In essence an inducement and/or interference causing CCFC Ltd to break their existing contract, which if proven might make NTFC responsible for damages.

That's just my guess from reading ACL's solicitor's statement, and I'm not saying it will come off - but I'd guess there's at least a possibliity it might. I'd fancy if the positions were reversed, it's the sort of legal machination that SISU might try.

(Edit: A bit like RPH said, about thirty seconds before me!)

 

[torchomatic]

The Legend of Cardoza's Gold by J.R. Ryder

The Otium Entity by Shaun Hutson (he always writes crap books)

80's platform computer game based on the film of the same name? Or, actually, one of those Western books we've got!

 

[RoboCCFC90]

I think a lot of people are underestimating the Cardoza family in all of this.

I know why NTFC fans are pissed with us...

It's because we took Chris Dunn..

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Will he make us sleep with the fishes?

"No, you've misunderstood, when they say that Troy McClure sleeps with the fishes..."

 

[Cobblers36]

I know why NTFC fans are pissed with us...

It's because we took Chris Dunn..

Still can't believe you gave us money for that clown.

 

[torchomatic]

Or: If you dance with the Devil, don't complain if he gets you pissed and tries to shag you.

They've chosen unfortunate bed-fellows, in that case..

 

[_brian_]

They've chosen unfortunate bed-fellows, in that case..

Haven't we all at some point in our life! LOL! They seemed a stunner in the disco after a few ales; you get them home and you can't believe what you're hearing - they want it from behind in the back door, so to speak; the lights stay off, it's all over in minutes and you both drift off to sleep; you wake up all clammy, still suffering from the effects of those 3 pints, so you go and open the window; but you look down at the woman lying naked beside you and a little bit of sick makes its way to the back of your throat as her flacid penis, trying to hide inside a thick, black bush of pubic hair, sits there staring at you; you let out an involuntary groan and begin to cry as you try to convince yourself that the night before never happened; you fail; you get therapy; you marry and have kids; you never mention the incident to anyone.

We've all been there, haven't we! LOL!!!

 

[torchomatic]

Well, NTFC have had most of our players so they may as well have the fans too.