Ricoh legal row costs city tax payers £500k (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
Hopefully it will be repaid when costs are awarded.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
M

Mr Creosote

New Member
Shouldn't ACL pay these fees? or at least contribute towards them? After all the judgement benefited ACL more than anyone else
 
Jim

Jim

Well-Known Member
Mr Creosote said:
Shouldn't ACL pay these fees? or at least contribute towards them? After all the judgement benefited ACL more than anyone else
Click to expand...

The judgement didn't benefit ACL in any way, it just wasn't detrimental....

It did however cause SISU a huge amount of damage and they will probably have to pay for the privilege as well....!
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
On the one hand hoping the Wilson money isn't swallowed up in legal fees while conversely hoping that SISU have to cover the council's costs.
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Mr Creosote said:
Shouldn't ACL pay these fees? or at least contribute towards them? After all the judgement benefited ACL more than anyone else
Click to expand...

The figures in the report are for CCC only. ACL had their own barristers and legal team so will be claiming the cost of that from SISU

The costs will have to "taxed" - which means the Court checks to see if the costs claimed are reasonable and relevant - so CCC/ACL might not get all their costs back.

The case gained nothing for either the CCC or ACL in monetary terms . Things were the same before and after the case. Indeed there may still be a cost

Adding up all the costs on both sides could easily be heading towards £2m
 
Last edited:
A

AndreasB

Well-Known Member
Sisu should pay up for being complete bellends bringing this case to court without any real grounds (There may be a story to air about Council/Charity shenanegans but SISU werent sharp enough to spot it).
Sadly, any costs they are forced to pay will probably be to the detriment of the footballing side of the club.
 
italiahorse

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
AndreasB said:
Sisu should pay up for being complete bellends bringing this case to court without any real grounds (There may be a story to air about Council/Charity shenanegans but SISU werent sharp enough to spot it).
Sadly, any costs they are forced to pay will probably be to the detriment of the footballing side of the club.
Click to expand...

I guess it was worth the risk of destroying a football club in the attempt to get some property.
Sisu will go, a lot of fans have already gone but a lot of people will be devastated when their main interest is no more.

Please go now and let us pick up the pieces.
 
ccfc92

ccfc92

Well-Known Member
The bit I laughed at was "groundbreaking scenario in law". Something to add to the sisu honors I guess. This is getting beyond a joke this scenario.
 
ccfc92

ccfc92

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
What's the split likely to be between then claimants? Surely the club shouldn't pay for ARVO and Holdings is dead. Maybe 50/50?
Click to expand...

I was merely quoting Fisher, who said the football club would not be effected by the legal battles. Just like they are not effected by the move away.

To answer your question, I have no idea. But ccfc should not have to pay anything. Sisu should.
 
Hobo

Hobo

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
Ooh hope so. I won't be able to sleep worrying about it.
Click to expand...

Don't fret Grendel I pay my Council Tax, I am sure RFC does too, despite buying all those away shirts and pies to keep the club going.
 
B

Buster

Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58 said:
The figures in the report are for CCC only. ACL had their own barristers and legal team so will be claiming the cost of that from SISU

The costs will have to "taxed" - which means the Court checks to see if the costs claimed are reasonable and relevant - so CCC/ACL might not get all their costs back.

The case gained nothing for either the CCC or ACL in monetary terms . Things were the same before and after the case. Indeed there may still be a cost

Adding up all the costs on both sides could easily be heading towards £2m
Click to expand...

Roll Up Roll Up!! To the most expensive side show in town!
Star Attraction The amazing Bullshitting man With the forked tongue
Catch them now before they leave the city to sell snake oil in leicester
 
Last edited:
Paxman II

Paxman II

Well-Known Member
Cost are not always gained back when awarded. I've been through similar processes in the past and have had cost awarded from the high court but when it all came down to it I got nowt! What I'm saying is cost can be awarded by the judge but does not automatically lead to being paid all those cost back if any.
What ever you think this has cost ACL/Council a lump of money and under appeal they will be forced to pay out even further.

If I were ACL I'd be getting this football club back to the Ricoh in any way I could, because without it they are doomed.

Just sayin'
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Paxman II said:
If I were ACL I'd be getting this football club back to the Ricoh in any way I could, because without it they are doomed.

Just sayin'
Click to expand...

I wish you were right. But it seems the council have absolutely no appetite to get rid and ACL doesn't look like defaulting any time soon (and even if they do it's the council they owe so they'd have to liquidate).

Guess we'd better hope for a mass outbreak of common sense then.
 
C

Cheshire Sky Blue

New Member
Paxman II said:
Cost are not always gained back when awarded. I've been through similar processes in the past and have had cost awarded from the high court but when it all came down to it I got nowt! What I'm saying is cost can be awarded by the judge but does not automatically lead to being paid all those cost back if any.
What ever you think this has cost ACL/Council a lump of money and under appeal they will be forced to pay out even further.

If I were ACL I'd be getting this football club back to the Ricoh in any way I could, because without it they are doomed.

Just sayin'
Click to expand...

I think that whilst you are right to be cautious with anything SISU related I think that they would be hard pressed to duck this one. The only real way would be to liquidate the companies who had costs awarded against them. But as in the case that would be easy for CCFC and even Sky Blue Sports & Leisure Ltd, it may not be that they can do it with ARVO Master fund. And as they were the 3 Claimants in the case I think that if the first 2 companies were liquidated the third picks up the tab. So it will cost Joy something. (Or have I missed something? I am sure OSB will inform us of the finer points)
 
letsallsingtogether

letsallsingtogether

Well-Known Member
To be Honest sisu knew they were in for a kicking, they were hoping the judge was as stupid as them.

So with Costs of around 2 million with losses of over that playing in Northampton, Why did they just not use that money and make a legitimate bid for the Ricoh?

So even if they do now ever get a share of the Ricoh it has cost them a lot more then they bargained for.

And some one here see them as a savvy financial institution?
TheParsonsHose said:
Yep we could re-invest the Wilson money.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top