I'm sorry Rob, you're failing to grasp, or deal with some central points here.
Firstly, as requested, when can you point me to an occassion when Labovitch has done anything other than inflame any situation? Please point me there. In return, I will point you to 20 occassions when he's said the inflammatory, the unneeded, the hostile the crass and the ridiculous.
Secondly, and please think this through, rather than use emotional terms like 'bring us home'; what business, a matter if weeks from defending, not the claimant, but defending a case that threatens their very existence, would have agreed to this; even on a without prejudice basis? Why did the Higgs case take place? Costs were out of kilter with size of claim, no? Was it, therefore, more to do with gleaning information? Convince me otherwise. And as a function of that, and Labovitch's 'previous', that's why any meet wasn't ever going to happen.
Now, if the offer was to meet one week after the Judicial Review. Or the JR has been dropped, and candid talks entered into; I would be fully with you. But think. How much has the JR cost SISU to date? And all this because they care whether or not CCC followed EU notification law with regards a loan? They're that bothered about the semantics and minutiae of EU funding pots? They are picking at the tiniest extremes to get what they really want. You know it. I know it. Successive judges know it.
Drop the JR, drop the claims for unencumbered freehold and sit down wanting to do a deal that's right for the football club. Until then, I'm sorry, it's just posturing and one upmanship. And I'm not as ready to congratulate anyone for that as you. From either side