The spin continues (10 Viewers)

Kingokings204 · Jun 13, 2014

A good point to mention also is if ccc did engage in negotiations then it would not look good actually. It's obvious sisu are annoyed that ccc won't talk and give nothing away so for ccc it's perfect.

Think about this it actually can stop an appeal. If sisu did appeal then ccc can just shut up shop again and say nothing for another 6 months. That would annoy sisu further more.

sky blue john · Jun 13, 2014

Some people need to face up to the "fact"
that it is impossible for Sisu to return us to the Ricoh !!

fernandopartridge · Jun 13, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I'm sorry, but I should imagine the very strongest legal advice from their counsel. As defendant, they had everything to lose and nothing to gain.

Drop the imminent JR, then yes. With it imminent, come on, be realistic

Why should anything be conditional on dropping the JR?
What if the JR was dropped and the council adopted the same position as before (no suggestion that they won't)?

Houdi · Jun 13, 2014

AFCCOVENTRY said:
Mark L is an absolute tool. He really adds nothing to proceedings other than spin and to try muddy the waters.

Mark knows very well that the council are in a media blackout and also will not engage with any party until the JR is concluded. Let's remember sisu are the reason this 'sideshow' court appearance is taking place.

What I want to know as well is what is Byng's game here? On a number of times he has been seen warming up next to Fisher and co at games.

For all we know Mark might be telling fibs about trying to meet the council a few weeks prior to the JR. It's more spin to show they are trying to do what's best for the club.

Anyway Mark...if you are so keen to meet with the council to thrash out a deal then what's happening with the new stadium pal?

Sisu have to really stop thinking the fans are stupid.

In his interview immediately after the court hearing, he talks almost exclusively about the Ricoh, with not a single mention of the new supposed new stadium. It came across as an almost desperate request for more talks, claiming the JR was not really that relevant despite the big turn out of SISU representatives, and the huge cost of it all. Realising this major gaffe, a hurried new statement was subsequently rushed out, talking about the 'fantasy' new stadium. It is as though he had originally forgotten of the need to continue to peddle the fantasy.
If the JR was to go overwhelmingly in SISU's favour, I imagine nearly everyone would expect SISU to vigorously pursue further legal action. I imagine that nobody is more aware of this than CCC/ACL. However if CCC win the JR or at least don't lose it, then I imagine they will be in no mood to compromise with SISU. Why would they be keen to 'get back in bed', with an organisation they don't like or even trust.

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 13, 2014

Houdi said:
In his interview immediately after the court hearing, he talks almost exclusively about the Ricoh, with not a single mention of the new supposed new stadium.

Isn't that a good thing?

shmmeee · Jun 13, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
Isn't that a good thing?

It would be, if he didn't then immediately withdraw it and start saying we're never going back, we're building a new stadium.

Is it really too much to ask that the story stays the same for more than a few minutes at a time if they're asking for our trust?

dongonzalos · Jun 13, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
Isn't that a good thing?

It would be if he would just openly admit it all about the Ricoh and start making some offers.

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 13, 2014

shmmeee said:
It would be, if he didn't then immediately withdraw it and start saying we're never going back, we're building a new stadium.

He does, and that's a bad thing.

But the point I was making is it won't be helpful if he starts banging on about wanting talks over the Ricoh, and all he's met with is a 'ha! What about your new stadium sonny Mark?!?'

Houdi · Jun 13, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
Isn't that a good thing?

No a good thing would be a football club being totally honest with its supporters. Not to have people who seemingly delight in seeking to continually dissemble. We have moved on/not moved on, the new stadium is plan A, plan B back to plan A, no its now plan B ,blah blah blah. They continue to try and spin things, the trouble is they're not even any good at that.

dongonzalos · Jun 13, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
He does, and that's a bad thing.

But the point I was making is it won't be helpful if he starts banging on about wanting talks over the Ricoh, and all he's met with is a 'ha! What about your new stadium sonny Mark?!?'

He is a businessman not a four year old child

Jack Griffin · Jun 13, 2014

Houdi said:
No a good thing would be a football club being totally honest with its supporters. Not to have people who seemingly delight in seeking to continually dissemble. We have moved on/not moved on, the new stadium is plan A, plan B back to plan A, no its now plan B ,blah blah blah. They continue to try and spin things, the trouble is they're not even any good at that.

Yeah, how can you have any certainty if the plan continually changes.... it must be time for another picture of the new stadium.

dongonzalos · Jun 13, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I'm sorry, but I should imagine the very strongest legal advice from their counsel. As defendant, they had everything to lose and nothing to gain.

Drop the imminent JR, then yes. With it imminent, come on, be realistic

I assume their counsel feel they have a strong case. So why risk anything. I assume that's why they have been told keep your mouth shut and why SISU have been desperately trying to draw them out.

dongonzalos · Jun 13, 2014

...................

shmmeee · Jun 13, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
He does, and that's a bad thing.

But the point I was making is it won't be helpful if he starts banging on about wanting talks over the Ricoh, and all he's met with is a 'ha! What about your new stadium sonny Mark?!?'

That's my point. It's not us, it's him!

You can hardly blame the fans if one representative of Sisu can't keep his story straight for more than 20 minutes.

Can you honestly say you know what Labovitch's or Sisu's position on a return to the Ricoh is right now? Because I can't.

People don't trust what he says because he keeps proving not to be trustworthy. He hangs himself, he needs no help from us.

skybluetony176 · Jun 13, 2014

shmmeee said:
That's my point. It's not us, it's him!

You can hardly blame the fans if one representative of Sisu can't keep his story straight for more than 20 minutes.

Can you honestly say you know what Labovitch's or Sisu's position on a return to the Ricoh is right now? Because I can't.

People don't trust what he says because he keeps proving not to be trustworthy. He hangs himself, he needs no help from us.

ML is very good at saying a lot with out actually telling you anything. thats the only impression i've got of him when he's been on the radio. is it suprising he gets "misquoted"?

The Gentleman · Jun 13, 2014

shmmeee said:
That's my point. It's not us, it's him!

You can hardly blame the fans if one representative of Sisu can't keep his story straight for more than 20 minutes.

Can you honestly say you know what Labovitch's or Sisu's position on a return to the Ricoh is right now? Because I can't.

People don't trust what he says because he keeps proving not to be trustworthy. He hangs himself, he needs no help from us.

I don't think Labovitch knows what his position is to be honest. It is dickheads like him that need to keep their nose out of our business because all he does is create confusion, muddy waters and generally just be an arse. I cannot think of one thing he has done that deserves any money that he is being paid.

Astute · Jun 13, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
Why should anything be conditional on dropping the JR?
What if the JR was dropped and the council adopted the same position as before (no suggestion that they won't)?

Is that the position of keep offering SISU a return on better terms than offered the time before which was what SISU said they wanted?

The main point is that we will not be back until Joy wants us to be back. And as for the two different Labo comments that were close to each other whilst contradicting himself....could his first one have been changed after being spoken to by Joy? It is so easy to blame CCC for us being in Northampton. But they can't do much until Joy changes her tune. They can't just pay off all outstanding contracts just because Joy says so. They can't let the freehold go cheaply and to Joy just because Joy says so. Rules, regulations and the law must be kept to. Ask joy. She is prepared to go to court to try and find a technicality.

Astute · Jun 13, 2014

The Gentleman said:
I don't think Labovitch knows what his position is to be honest. It is dickheads like him that need to keep their nose out of our business because all he does is create confusion, muddy waters and generally just be an arse. I cannot think of one thing he has done that deserves any money that he is being paid.

He does know his position. It is as Joy's bitch who takes lots of shit for her.

RoboCCFC90 · Jun 13, 2014

Astute said:
We can agree to disagree on what sort of talks were offered by Labo. If it was a serious offer would Labo say yesterday that the stadium build is still on if they were willing to negotiate a return that didn't mean freehold or nothing?

Buying the freehold or leasehold would get them the same income. If there are any contracts they would stay in place. They are after the unencumbered freehold as they can do more with it. Unencumbered leasehold and unencumbered freehold has the same income.

Oh dear. Back to the SISU valuation of ACL being 0 that was picked up by the judge as being false. Just because SISU say something it doesn't mean it is true. We all know that. Yes this is the reason we are playing in Northampton. To try and devalue everything to do with the arena. And this can bring us back to point one. Why would Labo have looked at a rental agreement when they are trying to devalue ACL by playing elsewhere?

Yes and the reason is because Sisu would not to pin all their hopes on the Ricoh, a company like Sisu would want to show that there is always an alternative option so it heightens the pressure on the other party, yet in this situation many of us know the alternative option is more or less a fantasy.

It's not just a Sisu valuation is it? Even the Council said a few weeks ago that the 50% share that Higgs own is worth squat.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RoboCCFC90 · Jun 13, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
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

I would love to MMM however I have better things to do with my life like breathe.

Secondly in an ideal world I would like the JR to be dropped and discussions to begin but it's as likely as this whole situation being simple and that's not likely either..

Your second point is inept, "Why?" You ask, what reason is there not for CCC to hold discussions, a lot of Sisu's argument through this JR is that Sisu felt CCC wouldn't negotiate with them. Now what others feel about that is different, but for a moment that opportunity gives CCC a chance to put all of this bed. Especially when they have been willing to discuss this for months..

Like I said previously if I was to hazard a guess at why CCC didn't engage in discussions then it would be because of the JR but to give the reason that it's because CCC are the defendant, is an ill thought answer.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RoboCCFC90 · Jun 13, 2014

The Gentleman said:
How do you know that he has actually tried to bring these parties round the table? As others have said you have no clue whatsoever what the phone call entailed (even if there was one because we are talking about the '3 weeks' man here). You say the timing could have been better but he has said it exactly when he wanted to because it is spin and nothing else. Any sane person knows that CCC would not do anything 2 weeks before the JR based on a 'supposed call' made from the idiot Labovitch.

What he should have done is simply say that Sisu/Otium were willing to take the last offer that was on the table from ACL and would either drop the JR or say that straight after it lets get that offer in place.

How you cannot see that this is simply spin is beyond me but even worse you give the dickhead a pat on the back for it :facepalm:

You forget one important aspect of your argument Gent, this phone call also included input from Michael Byng (to what extent none of us know) now that being said are we going to also say this phone call never took place because Michael Byng was also involved?

In an ideal world that might have been the easiest way to solve it, however we both know that Labovich does not hold all the cards to make those kind of decisions and secondly how can anyone know with great certainty know what the last rent offer was to make that decision, you feel your way in before jumping into bed, but of course you wouldn't know anything about that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 13, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
You forget one important aspect of your argument Gent, this phone call also included input from Michael Byng (to what extent none of us know) now that being said are we going to also say this phone call never took place because Michael Byng was also involved?

tbf if he tried to use a mobile rather than a landline, his previous track record with technology suggests he was more likely to have ordered a pizza by accident.

RoboCCFC90 · Jun 13, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
tbf if he tried to use a mobile rather than a landline, his previous track record with technology suggests he was more likely to have ordered a pizza by accident.

That's even if Michael Byng knows how to work a mobile phone, bearing in mind he can't send an e-mail.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RPHunt · Jun 13, 2014

I think Byng, sadly, is just another example of SISU surrounding themselves with losers.

A reminder of his expulsion from the RICS in 2010 for various financial misdemeanours and at which time he claimed to be skint
http://www.rics.org/uk/regulation/d...s/mr-michael-byng-2-january--20-january-2010/

martcov · Jun 13, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
Yes and the reason is because Sisu would not to pin all their hopes on the Ricoh, a company like Sisu would want to show that there is always an alternative option so it heightens the pressure on the other party, yet in this situation many of us know the alternative option is more or less a fantasy.

It's not just a Sisu valuation is it? Even the Council said a few weeks ago that the 50% share that Higgs own is worth squat.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No the council didn't say that. They don't know what it is worth so in the balance it is nil because it's "worth" balances out against the loan as nil. "Worth ca 14m" - "Loan" ca 14m = Nil. That is only for the balance sheet - not a valuation.

SISU's historical valuation was quoted by Deering in the Higgs case, and contradicted by the QC at the JR. There is no current valuation and if there was, it would change dramatically if an anchor tenant turned up ( e.g. CCFC ).

Grendel · Jun 13, 2014

martcov said:
No the council didn't say that. They don't know what it is worth so in the balance it is nil because it's "worth" balances out against the loan as nil. "Worth ca 14m" - "Loan" ca 14m = Nil. That is only for the balance sheet - not a valuation.

SISU's historical valuation was quoted by Deering in the Higgs case, and contradicted by the QC at the JR. There is no current valuation and if there was, it would change dramatically if an anchor tenant turned up ( e.g. CCFC ).

Which is why the club should be given a share of the cake. The valuation goes up dramatically due to one tenant who has paid thfor e whole mortgage for years and receive a very poor deal.

The council and ACL are in la la land if they think anyone will return purely on a rental basis when the club will have a massive impact on the value of ACL.

skybluetony176 · Jun 13, 2014

martcov said:
No the council didn't say that. They don't know what it is worth so in the balance it is nil because it's "worth" balances out against the loan as nil. "Worth ca 14m" - "Loan" ca 14m = Nil. That is only for the balance sheet - not a valuation.

SISU's historical valuation was quoted by Deering in the Higgs case, and contradicted by the QC at the JR. There is no current valuation and if there was, it would change dramatically if an anchor tenant turned up ( e.g. CCFC ).

wasn't the independant valuation revealed on day 1 of the JR £6.4M - £ 19.6M depending on the tenancy arrangements at any given time. i would say that this means at the time sisu were "attempting" to purchase higgs share the value of the share would have been somewhere between £3.2M - £9.8M and possibly nearer the north end than the south. Certainly not worthless and certainly not the piss taking £2M charitable donation Joy was willing to make at the time. And people wonder why the other parties involved dont want to deal with sisu.

As for the current value of ACL you could take £6.4M as an indicator and if ACL is coping fine without the club as has been claimed you may well be able to argue that the value has increased as it has shown itself not to be dependent on any one tennant alone.

its a theory, anyway.

Grendel · Jun 13, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
wasn't the independant valuation revealed on day 1 of the JR £6.4M - £ 19.6M depending on the tenancy arrangements at any given time. i would say that this means at the time sisu were "attempting" to purchase higgs share the value of the share would have been somewhere between £3.2M - £9.8M and possibly nearer the north end than the south. Certainly not worthless and certainly not the piss taking £2M charitable donation Joy was willing to make at the time. And people wonder why the other parties involved dont want to deal with sisu.

As for the current value of ACL you could take £6.4M as an indicator and if ACL is coping fine without the club as has been claimed you may well be able to argue that the value has increased as it has shown itself not to be dependent on any one tennant alone.

its a theory, anyway.

So the council borrowed £14 million against a company valued less than half that? Not a great use of state aid is it?

skybluetony176 · Jun 13, 2014

Grendel said:
Which is why the club should be given a share of the cake. The valuation goes up dramatically due to one tenant who has paid thfor e whole mortgage for years and receive a very poor deal.

The council and ACL are in la la land if they think anyone will return purely on a rental basis when the club will have a massive impact on the value of ACL.

I guess that depends on what you consider a fair share of the cake. Personally a good rent deal including access to matchday revenues seems fair to me. sisu wanting the uncumbered lease hold is far more cloud cuckoo land than anything any other party has suggested.

skybluetony176 · Jun 13, 2014

Grendel said:
So the council borrowed £14 million against a company valued less than half that? Not a great use of state aid is it?

Aside from the fact £14M was borrowed at a time when the independant value would have been nearer the £19.6M than the £6.4M, again have you or anyone else seen the judges notes yet? Has it been ruled as state aid yet? Illegal or otherwise?

Sick Boy · Jun 13, 2014

I am intrigued to see the excuses and allegations that will be posted on this forum if CCC lose the JR.

lordsummerisle · Jun 13, 2014

Sick Boy said:
I am intrigued to see the excuses and allegations that will be posted on this forum if CCC lose the JR.

I'm already warming up Judge Prickinbotham.

RegTheDonk · Jun 13, 2014

Sick Boy said:
I am intrigued to see the excuses and allegations that will be posted on this forum if CCC lose the JR.

In fairness, if it happens, I think people would suggest/discuss reasons why CCC lost the JR. "Excuses" tends to imply someone who has an attachment to the council.

Grendel · Jun 13, 2014

Sick Boy said:
I am intrigued to see the excuses and allegations that will be posted on this forum if CCC lose the JR.

You will hear phrases like

"Techinically illegal"
"Illegal yes but morally the right thing to do"
"They did it to protect the taxpayer"
"The judge is a senile old bastard"

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 13, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
I'm already warming up Judge Prickinbotham.

...and the excuses?

The spin continues (10 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency