I don't see how you gain that implication from those words myself.A nice idea but from what I have been told the idea of moving out only came about as ACL refused to come to the table to negotiate a better deal for the club.
When I was told this I went back and looked carefully at PWKH's comments on here and he very pointedly always uses the phrase 'no formal discussions took place', of course at the time we all, myself included, lapped that up as evidence against SISU. With hindsight it seems it was a very deliberate phrasing, the implication being discussions were requested but didn't occur.
A ruling in favour of SISU would almost certainly lead to a claim for compensation.
Compensation based upon hearsay wouldn't pay much. They appear simply to be trying to prove a point. Once (IF) proven they would seek enormous compensation.There is no claim for compensation. It is not that type of court action.
it wouldn't. What loss did SISU suffer by the Council making a loan?
it wouldn't. What loss did SISU suffer by the Council making a loan?
it wouldn't. What loss did SISU suffer by the Council making a loan?
Its been discussed often on here the limited powers the judge in the JR actually has and that a victory for SISU would lead to a second case where they make an application for compensation.
If anything I would say the sale of ACL to Wasps has increased the amount they might try and claim. Previously they could only really claim losses for the year at Sixfields, now they could be looking at a lot more. Of course they have the slight problem of needing to win the JR first.
I don't see how you gain that implication from those words myself.
Look at the top right of your screen, there's a search bar. Use it as the issue of compensation and the validity of a SISU claim should there be a ruling in their favour has been discussed in detail more than once.
You have to wonder where we'd be if from day one they'd put the amount of effort they put into court cases into getting the club moving in the right direction.
Coincidence that the complaint is made on the day the the main claim under the judicial review collapses?
Reuniting the club with the stadium should have been a priority, what was Onye doing whilst he was here?
Italia, forget whether its true or not just say it is. Please.
They will probably try and claim loss of earnings for the year at Sixfields, by claiming the council forced them out of the Ricoh. I know that was what was being talked about before.
It is - so he won't.
If SISU had a compensatory claim they would have have made it by now I suspect. Don't forget the financial landscape didn't change, merely the provider of the facility.
Because its not a natural phrase. If someone asked if there had ever been a request to review the rent its a yes or no question. The repeated use of an unnatural phrase which is ambiguous implies to me that something is being hidden.
I'm probably a little naive but if Sisu showed ACL the true financial position of the club and where it was leading it could be scrutinised and sensible sliding scale of rentals could be worked on . Not submitting accounts could appear to be hiding them.
Technically, I think the main claim is that the loan consituted illegal state aid. One of the remedies, should that be found to be true, was that the loan should be repaid by Wasps to CCC.
That remedy is now off the table, but the claim itself remains. I'm honestly not sure if the point of the JR is ultimately to seek compensation, or if it is to show how badly SISU feel they have been treated by CCC, or both.
I'd certainly like all of the dealings of CCC with regards to ACL and Wasps put under the spotlight a bit more though, so I've got no issue with either the JR or the complaint to the LGO. Of the two, I suspect that the LGO complaint will be resolved the fastest and could make for some interesting reading. I'm not saying it's going to be successful by the way, I only know what's in the public domain, the same as everyone else here - but the council will have to respond to it.
Regardless, let's get it all out there and we can judge for ourselves whether the conduct of the council and individual councillors has been acceptable.
As for coincidence, I find it interesting that Wasps have acted so quickly to remove the obvious risk posed by SISU's JR. Do they know something we don't?
Technically, I think the main claim is that the loan consituted illegal state aid. One of the remedies, should that be found to be true, was that the loan should be repaid by Wasps to CCC.
That remedy is now off the table, but the claim itself remains. I'm honestly not sure if the point of the JR is ultimately to seek compensation, or if it is to show how badly SISU feel they have been treated by CCC, or both.
I'd certainly like all of the dealings of CCC with regards to ACL and Wasps put under the spotlight a bit more though, so I've got no issue with either the JR or the complaint to the LGO. Of the two, I suspect that the LGO complaint will be resolved the fastest and could make for some interesting reading. I'm not saying it's going to be successful by the way, I only know what's in the public domain, the same as everyone else here - but the council will have to respond to it.
Regardless, let's get it all out there and we can judge for ourselves whether the conduct of the council and individual councillors has been acceptable.
As for coincidence, I find it interesting that Wasps have acted so quickly to remove the obvious risk posed by SISU's JR. Do they know something we don't?
there is only one relief sought and able to be sought re the loan, repayment. No other remedy is sought or claimed. With the repayment that relief falls away.
the second claim was that Wasps got given a 250 year lease for nothing. That has also now been blown out of the water.
JR redundant. So let's complain to LGO. And then, SISU will stamp its foot.
Yay. Ccfc hedgefund 0 - 2 wasps hedgefund
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Yay. Ccfc hedgefund 0 - 2 wasps hedgefund
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
The repayment of the Wasps loan early could strengthen the SISU case. If Wasps could raise £35m then why didn't they do it at the outset?
I'm quite sure had it been available on the terms it was sold for they would of.
ccc were ripping this club off for as long as possible, which is confirmed by the huge drop in rent after they returned.
sisu will by all accounts lose the Jr but there is nothing i would like more than to see Lucas and Mutton answering searching questions on their conduct.
Isn't a JR up to a certain point in time? What happened after the Wasps deal was done is surely irrelevant if JR 2, J Harder get's the go ahead it's supposed to be about the takeover. The fact that they raised revenue after this point and paid off the loan early is surely about as relevant as whether they qualified for Europe or not?
Doesn't letting them finish the season of the rent strike and then offering repeatedly lower offers to first stay and then return with them ultimately returning dismiss a claim that they were forced out? Especially as they refused to respond to those offers?
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?