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.
Yeah, I stopped reading that as soon as you said "what I have extracted so far". You were starting to sound too much like Leonardo Decaprio in catch me who can when he's in court for the first time acting like the lawyers he's seen in TV drama's. I'm sure you'll get a like of grendull though.
Now... I don't like entering a debae and talking about people, as it seems unfair; especially when they are polite to other posters, and willing to take to them and discuss, even when holding a different opinion.
Thing is... both flag up it's opinion, not objectivity, more than most.
And both are unfailingly polite.
Unfair to tar one and not the other, when they are slightly different sides of the same coin.
Are you saying that OSB doesn't help us to understand what is going on with points of law and with the way numbers are twisted about?
Oh the old telepathic line, when you cant raise a legitimate point. I dont have to be telepathic to know, as I said, that if OSB or PKH had made a post you would be fawning all over it as fact. That you cant deny.
Oh and dont flatter yourself that I would want to know your every thought...hilarious.
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.
That's the thing, though. The supposed 'Sisu lovers' have always said that Sisu have been pretty shit. There's been a false dichotomy drawn, with those who think Sisu are solely to blame believing that those with a more measured view somehow absolve Sisu of all blame. Then it all goes down the route of 'Sisu are 90% to blame and all that bollocks. It's all a nonsense, and I'm certain that Weber Shandwick have earned their £600 per hour, with us lot paying the price in divisions.
Sorry, that should have said telepathetic.
So you're not going to argue any actual point then. Just dismiss them and ridicule the poster.
Are you having trouble reading?
I expected better Tony. As I said hilarious. Stick to your fawning you seem better equipped for that.
The judge pulled them up when they tried to say tyhat they could have bought the debt for much less than the loan was for. Was this supposed to have been done without trying?
And the part on the road map has already been said to be false in the court of law. That is why SISU didn't have to pay Higgs the 29k as neither side wanted to complete the road map idea.
No I am not. The point I made that has been ignored was that out of all the three days in court nothing that could be seen as not good news for SISU wasn't mentioned but if it could be made to sound good for SISU it was. He made some good points I agree. But to many these will be lost in what can easily be seen as being biased.
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.
I'm surprised you expected better. You're not very good at this reading minds lark are you?
Best leave that to the experts, a bit like the JR.
I dont profess to be able to read minds, I dont need to with you and just have to read the useless drivel you write to know you are a tool. I did expect better though as I didn't think anyone could be as cretinous as you. I stand corrected.
I am happy to leave the JR to the experts, unlike you did when it was in progress. Oh the irony yet again.
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.
If it wasn't I guess we'd still be in court!
No, both ACL and sisu agreed to make a joint approach to the bank.
I did say that I don't believe they could have gotten the price anywhere near £2m-£5m as sisu said.
It was a different case with a different objective. The judge found either party had no appetite to do a deal after the exclusitivity period had run out in August, but in the JR both QC's have argued negotiations did continue and only fell away in mid January 2013. The council QC even used the January talks about a new rent agreement of £400K as evidence both parties were still very much looking to find a solution.
It's just that sisu were still following the roadmap but ACL abandoned it a few days after they signed HoT.
Judges have the right to visit old cases to make a decision. The one that sat in the JR seems to be on the ball. So if something has been decided to be the truth how can SISU then say it is false after saying it is true?
Ha ha, you're funny. As the mind reading thing hasn't worked out you could always try stand up.
The saddest thing is I think you actually believe that. You'd be a double glazing sales persons dream.
You used to be good on here. Now you are down with the likes of Italia and sky blue kid. Why?
So the past does matter sometimes?
if not you can always catch me sometime for a coffee in the Clock Towers.
I don't think this changes my opinion on what needs to happen much, although I have far more doubts than I used to about the openess of the Council process when coming to the bailout decision. Ultimately though, the way forward will be to stop digging all this up at some point, and move on - imho.
And many of OSB's points are partial too.
Indeed, OSB always takes care to flag up they are just his opinion.
But because they coincide with your view you claim objective there, whilst Godiva (unfailingly polite, even if I may not often agree with where he comes from!) is condemned and slurred when he gives his reading of evidence.
RobS was rightly jumped on when he started doing the willy waving about who was the biggest plant; but it seems Godiva is fair game here.
For what? Giving his opinion, just his opinion.
Godiva adds more than many to this site because he makes you think.
Or he would, if we were thinking allowed.
Why? Do you work in the coffee shop on the corner opposite Wilco's?
Still on day 3.
The judge grills the sisu QC over the fact the club did not pay the rent it was legally obliged to.
Clearly the judge finds it very relevant that the by not paying rent the club placed ACL in distress which lead to the decision to use public money to buy the loan.
It will be interesting if this will influence his ruling and to what extent.
On this one bit, Godiva, there was evidence presented in the Higgs case that suggests you are incorrect. There was an email quoted from (as I recall) PKWH and someone at ACL the council saying that they were very unhappy to learn that SISU had approached YB unilaterally, not long after the Road Map had been presented.
I was surprised that this wasn't mentioned in the JR, but then in truth the JR was primarily about SISU presenting their case, with a considerable amount less time given to the Council and ACL QCs. I'm not grumbling about that, my understanding is that it is for SISU to prove their case, rather the Council needing to defend every line. If it wasn't I guess we'd still be in court!
I don't think this changes my opinion on what needs to happen much, although I have far more doubts than I used to about the openess of the Council process when coming to the bailout decision. Ultimately though, the way forward will be to stop digging all this up at some point, and move on - imho.
* and I've read it - all three days. It wasn't as much fun as the Higgs case. All in all I prefer Jack Reacher novels, written by a Cov lad y'know.
(Edit, fwiw: Higgs case - 1st day, page 27: Higgs QC, I think, making his case...
11 What was, however, abundantly clear is that ACL
12 shareholders, let alone its board of directors, had not
13 at this point sanctioned a direct approach by SISU to
14 Yorkshire Bank. Very shortly after this meeting, ACL
15 got wind of the fact that SISU had sought to initiate
16 a meeting with Yorkshire Bank itself, having, it is
17 believed, misrepresented their authority to do so. This
18 led to a sharp exchange by e-mail....)
MR JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM: SISU were talking to the bank.
MR THOMPSON: Yes, the bank and Deloittes approached SISU in mid-November. I took you through a great deal of detailed documentation showing what happened. As part of a consensual debate about how the bank deal would go forward, there were discussions, which Mr Goudie's clients were well aware of. What didn't happen, except for a very early stage when there was some contact directly with the bank, which Mr Knatchbull-Hugessen took strong exception to back in March, and it was a matter that was debated in the Higgs litigation, there wasn't any contact between my clients and the bank of the kind that we complain of in this respect. That's why we complain.
MR GOUDIE: My Lord, in any event, it was obvious that SISU had the option of approaching the bank directly and it was likely that they would do so, and in terms of protecting commercial interests that was something that had to be taken into account.
Keep on clutching at straws. The council now have a £14m debt as do ACL both of which accrue interest.Really? Refusing to be out of pocket is now "hardball"?
The rhetoric gets more ridiculous as we go on.
You ignore every fact that doesn't fit your paradigm. You're like Comical Ali.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?
Judges have the right to visit old cases to make a decision. The one that sat in the JR seems to be on the ball. So if something has been decided to be the truth how can SISU then say it is false after saying it is true?
However, to move on both 'sides' need to change their approach. If your doubts were valid, and if a future consequence were indeed more open decision making, in return for a less hardball stance from SISU, then that would surely help us move on as there'd be more likelihood of the two parties being able to actually, you know, talk?
It's the Jeremy Kyle approach, break everyone down then build up renewed and refreshed, with plenty of therapy thrown in!
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?