Astute
Well-Known Member
So you are ignoring the fact of the judge saying about the value at the time the loan was taken out and not whilst SISU were doing their best to devalue the arena? So even the judge is wrong now?
Would it be "stupidball" to take out a loan for $14million for something that they think themselves is pretty much valueless just to stick it up the City big boys?
Anybody could and can, most haven't actually bothered to read them though.
To be fair only just finished Day one, so didn't feel free to comment much before as not read it.
Doesn't stop many others though.
From reading what you have put on this thread you would think that all comments in the court were very good for SISU and ACL/CCC are to blame for everything. You haven't posted one single point that went against SISU if not pointed out to you. Anyone could do the same the other way round but why add to the shitfest?
I post my findings - you should post yours.
Then we can have a debate.
I post my findings - you should post yours.
Then we can have a debate.
I post my findings - you should post yours.
Then we can have a debate.
At the end of the day your "findings" mean shit, as would mine if I was to post them up here.
In the interest of harmony it would probably be a good idea for everyone to stop posting their "findings" and wait until the judge has decided what's fact and what's fiction, what's relevant and irrelevant. Only then will a balanced debate be able to start and then it should be about one subject only. How we fan's use the judge's rulings to put pressure on all parties to make happen what we and our club deserve, a return to the Ricoh for the start of next season.
If you're discussing anything else you're just pissing in the wind.
Absolutely, too many people inflating there own egos! A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Godiva won't get us back to the Ricoh or into a new stadium.
Until the judges report is out you don't even know what's fact. You may as well be debating who done more for the poor Robin Hood or Mother Theresa under the guise that they're both real historical figures. It's a pointless exercise.
In the interest of harmony it would probably be a good idea for everyone to stop posting their "findings" and wait until the judge has decided what's fact and what's fiction, what's relevant and irrelevant. Only then will a balanced debate be able to start and then it should be about one subject only. How we fan's use the judge's rulings to put pressure on all parties to make happen what we and our club deserve, a return to the Ricoh for the start of next season. If you're discussing anything else you're just pissing in the wind.
People are banding the term illegal state aid about, with no in depth knowledge. Someone posted the other day quoting half a legal definition.....ignoring a whole chunk of legislation!
That's before you take into consideration it is a test case!
I post my findings - you should post yours.
Then we can have a debate.
Hilarious as if that would ever happen, there are so many experts on this site who know it all.
It amazes me though that Godiva has bothered to read the report and post his interpretation, yet others haven't and decry what he has done. Wouldn't it be better if those people tried making the effort themselves and post their take on the issue, rather than pissing on Godiva's fire as he hasn't toed the party line.
Hilarious as if that would ever happen, there are so many experts on this site who know it all.
It amazes me though that Godiva has bothered to read the report and post his interpretation, yet others haven't and decry what he has done. Wouldn't it be better if those people tried making the effort themselves and post their take on the issue, rather than pissing on Godiva's fire as he hasn't toed the party line.
I have read it, plus a load of other legislation and resources. It is no good pretending it is simple legislation.
But let's face it, you stand a one in two chance of backing the right horse if you want to trap off.
But my legal experience says keep your money in your pocket if you genuinely want to guess the outcome.
He needs a post from OSB to tell him what's going on.
He needs a post from OSB to tell him what's going on.
To what end? The only purpose it would serve is to wind themselves up or supply ammunition to wind others up. Even then their "findings" could be so way of the mark they just end up looking stupid.
To what end? The only purpose it would serve is to wind themselves up or supply ammunition to wind others up. Even then their "findings" could be so way of the mark they just end up looking stupid.
So you know more than OSB? You can work this mess out better than OSB?
Or are you jealous so you just want to rip into OSB because he is much wiser and intelligent than yourself?
Tony, you wouldn't say that if OSB or PKH had posted, and yet as Godiva has given a contrary opinion so you tell him to stop. From someone who has given his opinion on many posts, as have I, I find the ironyometer went off the scale at your post.
Sorry Moff, I didn't realise that you're telepathic and know my every thought. Oh wait you don't. Godiva has given an opinion, no more and no less. Unfortunately his opinion is based on what he has decided is relevant and fact before it's been ruled to be either relevant or fact.
The judges ruling is probably the first time in years we have had the chance to make an informed opinion on fact yet some seem to want to bask in the glory of uncertainty and here say. Well more fool them.
I take it that if i look back on the 51, yes 51(and i'm set at 30 posts a page), pages across three threads concerning the JR last week that neither you, Hobo, nor Astute would have made any comment at all on it?
Expect you were all waiting for the judges verdict first?
I take it that if i look back on the 51, yes 51(and i'm set at 30 posts a page), pages across three threads concerning the JR last week that neither you, Hobo, nor Astute would have made any comment at all on it?
Expect you were all waiting for the judges verdict first?
So you're saying if the judge rules in favour of Sisu you're going to admit that you're a bit of a simpleton and was wrong about everything? Very Damoscene of you. Respect.
You won't need to admit you're a simpleton if the judge rules in favour of the council. You do it with every post you make.
So you know more than OSB? You can work this mess out better than OSB?
Or are you jealous so you just want to rip into OSB because he is much wiser and intelligent than yourself?
To what end? The only purpose it would serve is to wind themselves up or supply ammunition to wind others up. Even then their "findings" could be so way of the mark they just end up looking stupid.
So you're saying that you won't admit you're wrong? That's a bit off.
So you're saying if the judge rules in favour of Sisu you're going to admit that you're a bit of a simpleton and was wrong about everything? Very Damoscene of you. Respect.
If OSB had posted in detail like Godiva has but from his own angle you'd be drooling and swooning like you always do. However as its not OSB you dismiss the analysis even though it is equally as detailed and analytical.
You know I don't mind end up looking stupid. I do it all the time.
What I have extracted so far - and I am still not through day three - is more about the narratives both sides have presented and less about all the technical stuff like references to previous cases.
So far I believe the council when they argue the rent strike put ACL in distress. I believe the council when they say up till August all parties agreed and acted within the common plan - the roadmap. I believe the council when they argue the bank would never agree to sisu buying the loan at £2m-£5m.
Similary I believe sisu when they say they never went behind the councils back in an attempt to buy the loan. That makes no commercial sense as it would start a bidding war. I also believe sisu when they say they were completely unaware of the councils decision to leave the roadmap. Finally I find the councils argumentation for buying the loan to be flawed and based on false premises. Even the council QC made a flawed argument that the value of ACL at the point of deciding to buy the loan was not £6.4m as claimed by sisu but at least £10m. That argument is flawed as the loan then exceeded the perceived value of the company and thereby left the loan with not enough security.
It's funny you acuse me of purposely supply ammunition to wind others up. Isn't that what has happened in general from ACL (Weber Shandwick) since January 2013? The difference is that I at least try to back my arguments with the facts presented to the court in the hearing.
But I have to agree with posts in this thread saying that nothing said or argued here will have any bearings on the outcome of the JR. I never pretended it would.
You know I don't mind end up looking stupid. I do it all the time.
What I have extracted so far - and I am still not through day three - is more about the narratives both sides have presented and less about all the technical stuff like references to previous cases.
So far I believe the council when they argue the rent strike put ACL in distress. I believe the council when they say up till August all parties agreed and acted within the common plan - the roadmap. I believe the council when they argue the bank would never agree to sisu buying the loan at £2m-£5m.
Similary I believe sisu when they say they never went behind the councils back in an attempt to buy the loan. That makes no commercial sense as it would start a bidding war. I also believe sisu when they say they were completely unaware of the councils decision to leave the roadmap. Finally I find the councils argumentation for buying the loan to be flawed and based on false premises. Even the council QC made a flawed argument that the value of ACL at the point of deciding to buy the loan was not £6.4m as claimed by sisu but at least £10m. That argument is flawed as the loan then exceeded the perceived value of the company and thereby left the loan with not enough security.
It's funny you acuse me of purposely supply ammunition to wind others up. Isn't that what has happened in general from ACL (Weber Shandwick) since January 2013? The difference is that I at least try to back my arguments with the facts presented to the court in the hearing.
But I have to agree with posts in this thread saying that nothing said or argued here will have any bearings on the outcome of the JR. I never pretended it would.
Because he looks at both sides and not just looking for what could be bad news for one side. He breaks down the numbers so we can all understand them even if a few would like to twist them......or even try to say he is all one sided like you are.
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?