SISU/ARVO appeal turned down (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Captain Dart
- Start date
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
Well I won't commit either way as I don't have proof either way I just have my reservations and suspect we are paying for the court cases one way or the other.
If you are right then more fool sisu and they are chucking away their own money on worthless court cases. A fool and their money are soon parted.
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Of course these court costs are paid by the football side of the sisu business, player sales, Hedge fund sisu have the football club running more or less self sufficient and every now and again players get sold and that contributes towards "other" costs, court costs being one that's why they'll continue with these actions. If the cost was coming out of the sisu purse directly itself this action would have ended ages ago.
Warwickhunt
Well-Known Member
That's if we don't vote for out in the referendum that is because if we do Europe will not have a say in it
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
This...........
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
Spot on.
Colin Steins Smile
Well-Known Member
Where can I buy shares in the law firm representing SISU? Never mind an ISA....this has to be a sound investment, as SISU love paying legal fees. The profit margins must be brilliant.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Incorrect.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
To be fair to SISU I think they said no money raised by the football club in player sales ect are used in the legal battle.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Exactly this. Could you suggest that money they may have put into investing in squad has gone to legal costs... Quite possibly.
There is no extraction of CCFC revenue out of the club to pay for court cases.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
There is absolutely no evidence in the accounts to suggest SISU are financing the court cases from CCFC.
If they wanted to extract funds from CCFC then they don't need to hide it they simply have to take the interest payments that are accruing. But in the 2015 accounts they paid in £1m in share issue, there were 2.7m in player sales and we were still cash flow negative as a club by £128k.
Oh and the interest that was accrued and owing 31/05/15 was over £2.7m - none had been physically paid over 2015 or 2014
Most likely funded by third party litigation funding
If they wanted to extract funds from CCFC then they don't need to hide it they simply have to take the interest payments that are accruing. But in the 2015 accounts they paid in £1m in share issue, there were 2.7m in player sales and we were still cash flow negative as a club by £128k.
Oh and the interest that was accrued and owing 31/05/15 was over £2.7m - none had been physically paid over 2015 or 2014
Most likely funded by third party litigation funding
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
There's doesn't need to be any actual evidence, it seems to be taken by a lot of people as fact now.
Nick
Administrator
I think if it is shouted enough people believe it, that rumour is certainly in overdrive.
ashbyjan
Well-Known Member
Just to expand on a comment by OSB above. There is absolutely no evidence in the accounts that CCFC through whatever company is funding SISU's legal cases, which conservatively must have costs of several million including what they are currently ordered to pay CCC but as mentioned there is a possibility/probability that SISU are using a scheme called "third party litigation funding" which is basically a sort of no win no fee arrangement. A third party agrees to cover the legal costs win or lose but if you win the third party will take back all their costs plus a large chunk of the award. So if this is the case SISU can simply keep moving up the court room ladder and even to Europe with no financial impediment. For the third party it might be a case of pulling the plug on it but maybe they are so far in and the promised rewards so high they are prepared to carry on funding. If this is the case SISU and the legal cases could be with us for many years to come and as long as CCFC is self funding that's not costing them either so they can continue their legal battles ad infinitum (and no that is not a rallying call to NOPM) just a depressing comment about the state of affairs.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
From experience there is usually an ongoing assessment of the percentage chance of winning. Once it drops below 50% the case is usually dropped. I assume Sisu percentage is 5% with battering the other 45% ?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
How much do you estimate the Sisu costs so far on this would be?
£10 M ?
CCFC could have benefited from that money, surely ?
In that respect it does have an effect on us.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I would say there is pretty much zero chance that money would have come in to CCFC if there had been no legal action.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It's already been pointed out on this thread it doesn't cost them anything.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Nick
Administrator
Surprised though, you go on like you are 100% certain that Mowbray is having to give SISU cash every month for court cases.
If in doubt, persistently say something you can't prove either until people believe it.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I think it's been suggested as a possibility not pointed out as a fact.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Although it makes a lot of sense and chimes with the noises made by the SISU brief. It's a point of law now rather than really about an individual case.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
It's my opinion that, indirectly the court battles are diverting cash away from CCFC.
Be it people not sponsoring the club or just simply not attending matches.
I would even bet that people are holding fire from buying season tickets as we speak.
Even you must be frustrated with the nonsense, surely ?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Surely the third party funding is only obtainable when there is far more chance of winning than losing.
I have never seen that to be the case with one
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
I don't think this is a general scheme, I suspect there are some high net worth interested parties behind this who stand to gain if the principle being fought over is established in European Law. So a few billionaires are taking a punt on making a few million by splashing out a few 100K each. On the other hand that could be a ridiculous and contrived conspiracy theory, but whenever has anything been straight forward in this mess. :banghead:
I agree this is likely
RegTheDonk
Well-Known Member
Lets hope for their sake it's not a no win, no fee deal
The DISTRACTION is much worse than this. Our owners simply do not have their eye on the ball and this filters through to everybody including managers and players.
The idea of a united club is essential for our success but all the while the background music is political and legal posturing we will never succeed as a sporting entity.
This is a cast iron fact and our history can be used as evidence.
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Agree with what you have said and that's why we as fans must stop getting at each other and concentrate on supporting the team after all they are our team. At the moment our biggest problem is the academy wish people would see that
RegTheDonk
Well-Known Member
Isn't this why Herman was brought in though? I'll give SISU their due on that, he is supposedly well respected throughout the footballing world, and his role is surely to make sure the club runs and prospers as well as it can. SISU have always maintained the legal biz was nothing to do with the club - if he's distracted by all this, he's obviously not the man they think he is.
Nick
Administrator
Agree, people should separate SISU and CCFC.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
They are different, which is exactly why you should question the motivation behind SISU/ARVO's legal & property actions and analyse their effect on the club long term.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
tbf, they never had their eye on the ball when they weren't engaged in legal cases...