James Smith
Well-Known Member
ACL did say in their statement in August that
So I suppose this shouldn't be a surprise really.ACL Statement said:
CCC and PWKH say ACL can survive financially without CCFC and a couple of days later Sisu take more expensive action in the courts. Coincidence?!
So I suppose this shouldn't be a surprise really.ACL Statement said:Mr Fisher has also now chosen to make factually inaccurate public statements relating to the meeting attended by Joy Seppala as well as ACL Board members on Thursday 25 July. It is interesting to note Mr Fisher’s failure to mention Ms Seppala’s verbal statement during this meeting, made in the presence of her own lawyers that the only circumstance in which the Club would return to the Ricoh would be upon SISU assuming full ownership of the venue without any negotiation on purchase price. Ms Seppala also stated at this meeting her intention to continue to threaten ACL and its shareholders with expensive litigation at every possible opportunity. Perhaps the fact that Mr Fisher was not himself present at this meeting has distorted his view of what was really discussed.
What I don't get is that surely they have decent lawyers, what makes them think they have a case? Why are they so determined if it is that clear cut?
ACL did say in their statement in August that
So I suppose this shouldn't be a surprise really.
I just emailed your estimate to my niece who is a barrister (I'm not going for 'I know important people' points, she's the only really clever person in our family). Her response: 'If his wife believes she is convicting 1 in a 100 wrongly why on earth is she doing the job? Very little hard research in this area, NZ leads the field - estimate 20 in 400,000 wrongful convictions (technically 'miscarriage of justice' and 'wrongful conviction' are different but the latter more prevalent)'
So the general consensus in this thread is that sisu are bad for taking legal action?
I see the trap you are trying to lay, no the response that ACL started legal action therefore they are bad won't wash!
The general consensus is that Anne Lucas offered an olive branch & Joy Seppala not only failed to grasp it but went straight to litigation thus rubbing salt into the wound.
I don't think either are bad, I think ask these legal action is petty from both sides but if it gets thrown out it shows sisu up and costs then money so surely it's a win for the nopm?
Did I say that my wife believes that? You must refer me to the post.
However, she does not have a great deal of faith in many of her fellow JPs or the time given to scrutinise cases or indeed 100% of the evidence of the boys (and girls) in blue.
Incidentally, if your clever niece is doing most of her barrister work in the magistrates' courts, she might need to think about raising her game....
Fun as this diversion is, I seem to recall that it started when you said that you couldn't understand (and I paraphrase) why a company would want to get rid of a pending court action unless they expected to lose.
Do you still struggle with this brain teaser?
I don't think either are bad, I think ask these legal action is petty from both sides but if it gets thrown out it shows sisu up and costs then money so surely it's a win for the nopm?
Seriously mate, what the fuck is your problem? I have no idea where my niece is doing her work, who mentioned magistrates courts? Why does she need to raise her game? Fuck you. I've tried to engage you in conversation, I asked a simple question and now you're having a pop at my niece and questioning my intelligence? Fuck right off.
That is a very narrow view that (deliberately?) ignores the bigger picture.
We had a glimmer of hope this week that there may be the first moves towards talks.
We could have had TF on CWR saying that he wanted to engage ACL in talks, instead we got more legal action.
Do you think that this improves or lessens the chances of reconciliation , or do you prefer to ignore that to make a comment about NOPM?
You could just have said that you didn't want to answer the question (again).
TF is a man reborn, become a man of the people. Chats t fans, waves t the crowd a real Jonny cum lately wanker
The first bit of this post is for Nick; don't just look at ACL v SISU look at how SISU operated before coming to Coventry they love court and don't always win. They have already withdrew one case in the CCFC wrangle and had another kicked out. They bully rather than negotiate, muddy the water.
The problem they have in the judicial review is they were illegally withholding rent, so it was them forcing the hand of ACL.
Regarding disclosure of documents, perhaps Seppala would like to disclose all email correspondence with Fisher and Appleton during the administration process. Just a thought.
Why don't you apply for a court order demanding its disclosure as an interested party or due to personal loss?
Why didn't ACL or Haskell do this?
I don't think I qualify as an interested party in the administration process. Being a fan doesn't directly involve me in it. What personal loss have I suffered?
Why don't you apply for a court order demanding its disclosure as an interested party or due to personal loss?
Why didn't ACL or Haskell do this?
Didn't acl make a false bid just so they could get info?
Thanks. Answered your own question.
I don't think I qualify as an interested party in the administration process. Being a fan doesn't directly involve me in it. What personal loss have I suffered?
The administration process may not be covered by disclosure rules like a court case?
According to his report, discussions that Appleton has had with parties regarding the ownership of assets will not be disclosed due to concerns of commercial confidentiality.
Would suggest that different rules to a court case.
Didn't acl make a false bid just so they could get info?
False bids to get info, there is an interesting concept. We may have seen before.....
They did though didn't they?
Eventually, but this is mostly about keeping CCC/ACL quiet, because when they speak they seem reasonable & that doesn't suit SISU, well that's my opinion.
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?