Higgs vs CCFC Court Row (2 Viewers)

[lordsummerisle]

Nice, is that because it's going to be a few years before we come home? Like it.

Soon to be followed with:
"Three weeks"
"Pie money" and "Standard business practice"

There you go, your very own mix and match ccfcway comment kit.

 

---

[dongonzalos]

sisu win and than show mercy to acl

thats nice...real nice.

ACL would be putting their hands in their pockets for 290k plus costs if SISU had won.
Their conspiracy case was kicked out in a couple of hours.

 

[Nick]

I think so because they have said they are not insignificant

Is that not the same as significant?

 

[olderskyblue]

Soon to be followed with:
"Three weeks"
"Pie money" and "Standard business practice"

There you go, your very own mix and match ccfcway comment kit.

That's good Lord, you should do a few more

 

[hill83]

There have been people maligning CCC and ACL all the time and gleefully waiting for the final proof that it is all their fault that CCFC is in the present position. Always seeking an alternative argument to the obvious point that SISU are in charge and that they carry the can. There are now more swear words coming from some posters and their attempts to turn everything against ACL and Higgs are becoming more desperate as the case goes on. I think it is clear that SISU will be shown the door again and then the bitching will really start on here. This is a shame as we all theoretically want CCFC to somehow survive this ignominous reign by SISU.

Sorry.

 

[dongonzalos]

Is that not the same as significant?

Yes but barristers like to use more words

 

[Nick]

Yes but barristers like to use more words

Which means a lot?

 

[dongonzalos]

Which means a lot?

They charge by the hour

 

[ccfcway]

Soon to be followed with:
"Three weeks"
"Pie money" and "Standard business practice"

There you go, your very own mix and match SISU comment kit.

I've edited it for you, your welcome.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Judge has obviously seen all the evidence and decided accordingly, we've only had tweets but thanks Simon and Rob for those they've been great.

Would be nice if we now got to see the evidence.

We got a taster. Whoever won or didn't win on costs from a fans perspective is irrelevant. What's interesting is how both sides will fare in the Judicial Review, and the evidence we've learned.

I would say that SISU need to keep Laura Deering in a box for the summer to stand a chance

 

[James Smith]

Which means a lot?

Which costs a lot (more)?

 

[hill83]

well, the right side of the fence will soon be confirmed by the judge !

To be fair, I really don't know how I feel about this. But purely from an internet forumming point of view, this is gold.

 

[Cheshire Sky Blue]

Exciting finish! Only winners are the lawyers. Shows considerable lack of judgement by both sides. Hopefully we as fans are a bit wiser as to what SISU's position is and what their aims are. Generally speaking I am not impressed with their business strategy. It all seems pretty desperate to me and they are not the "hard-nosed" business people that we may have thought, but a rather pathetic bunch of chancers.

Best description of SISU I have seen in ages.

 

[Nick]

This will be like a match thread when we win. (this is not me saying that "we" are SISU or saying it should be seen as a "win" but I mean it will be quieter)

 

[martcov]

Sorry.

I bet you are..... Late equalizer saved SISU's bacon. I agree with the judge though.

 

[fernandopartridge]

The conspiracy has to be after August 2012.

This is when he says both sides lost interest in the deal.

SISU claimed in this they lost interest because of the conspiracy (the same conspiracy that is the crux of the JR)

So I ask again can this case be used in evidence for the JR?

They're not trying to prove a conspiracy!

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Compare the football threads with the "legal / politics" threads and the posters. Even bloody BHSB and LAST are actually interested in the football and they are mental!

Oh no forgot to check my Sisu court fixture list:facepalm:

We're not mental rather Neanderthals and childish More on this to follow.

 

[covcity4life]

let this be a lesson to ACL too

dont be greedy

 

[skybluetony176]

ACL would be putting their hands in their pockets for 290k plus costs if SISU had won.
Their conspiracy case was kicked out in a couple of hours.

Wrong. Higgs would have been putting their hands in their pockets for £290k. But I know what you mean.

 

[martcov]

Who is greedy? Did ACL ask for 290000 or SISU?

 

[skybluetony176]

let this be a lesson to ACL too

dont be greedy

What's ACL got to do with it. Higgs sought the case.

 

[duffer]

That is a surprise. Makes you wonder how the HoT was worded then - because it seems clear that the deal wasn't completed within the six week exclusivity period.

Regardless, you've got to trust the judge to make the right decision in law, and I think he's probably right in saying that by August 2012, for whatever reasons, Higgs no longer wanted to deal with SISU.

Tricky to make a call on the costs thing - it could be that SISU know they won't get them so there's no point in pushing, or it could be a genuinely decent act. Maybe SISU are trying to improve their reputation.

As for the JR, is there anything here that helps SISU's case? If they can show that the council deceived the Higgs Trust, maybe that points to less than honest action with SISU too. I think the big problem here, for SISU, is that it's clear they threatened the well-being of ACL as far back as April 2012 and the Council will argue they had a right to protect their investment.

Interesting times ahead!

 

[play_in_skyblue_stripes]

We have to accept this judgement based on impartial knowledgeable judge.

Let's hope a deal can be struck somehow, war is over?

 

[Nick]

The thing is, if Higgs had taken them to court and didn't win (ie SISU weren't the ones taking to action), what chance would SISU have of claiming their legal bill for that? I guess the "counter claim" would have muddied it a bit.

 

[spider_ricoh]

in football terms we have seen the equivalent of a 0-0 draw with a stonewall penalty denied the home side in the final minute of stoppage time. two sent off for the visitors!

 

[fernandopartridge]

That is a surprise. Makes you wonder how the HoT was worded then - because it seems clear that the deal wasn't completed within the six week exclusivity period.

Regardless, you've got to trust the judge to make the right decision in law, and I think he's probably right in saying that by August 2012, for whatever reasons, Higgs no longer wanted to deal with SISU.

Tricky to make a call on the costs thing - it could be that SISU know they won't get them so there's no point in pushing, or it could be a genuinely decent act. Maybe SISU are trying to improve their reputation.

As for the JR, is there anything here that helps SISU's case? If they can show that the council deceived the Higgs Trust, maybe that points to less than honest action with SISU too. I think the big problem here, for SISU, is that it's clear they threatened the well-being of ACL as far back as April 2012 and the Council will argue they had a right to protect their investment.

Interesting times ahead!

The argument that the council is protecting their investment is not that strong. I am sure i read that the lease reverts to the council if the leaseholder is insolvent. What are they protecting?

 

[Nick]

in football terms we have seen the equivalent of a 0-0 draw with a stonewall penalty denied the home side in the final minute of stoppage time. two sent off for the visitors!

Is that implying a wrong judgement?

 

[dongonzalos]

They're not trying to prove a conspiracy!

They are

 

[Nick]

I thought the JR was proving that it was that the council were in the wrong by doing the deal because of legal aid and stuff?

 

[hill83]

Just got a feeling that this is the start of a quick resolution now.

 

[duffer]

The thing is, if Higgs had taken them to court and didn't win (ie SISU weren't the ones taking to action), what chance would SISU have of claiming their legal bill for that? I guess the "counter claim" would have muddied it a bit.

But Higgs did take them to court. In most cases like this I think the judge would have awarded costs to SISU, they were forced to offer at least a defence (though not a counter-claim) and that costs money. I'm surprised that SISU haven't asked for costs.

Both sides must have costs running into five figures here, possibly more.

 

[Grendel]

The conspiracy has to be after August 2012.

This is when he says both sides lost interest in the deal.

SISU claimed in this they lost interest because of the conspiracy (the same conspiracy that is the crux of the JR)

So I ask again can this case be used in evidence for the JR?

Another interesting fact is that Seppala actually valued the Higgs share in Acl as worthless!

So that's pretty much sisu demanding Higgs hand their share to them for nothing!

Sound familiar?

We won't buy Coventry unless all fans hand in their club shares.

ACL would be putting their hands in their pockets for 290k plus costs if SISU had won.
Their conspiracy case was kicked out in a couple of hours.

We got a taster. Whoever won or didn't win on costs from a fans perspective is irrelevant. What's interesting is how both sides will fare in the Judicial Review, and the evidence we've learned.

I would say that SISU need to keep Laura Deering in a box for the summer to stand a chance

Who is greedy? Did ACL ask for 290000 or SISU?

in football terms we have seen the equivalent of a 0-0 draw with a stonewall penalty denied the home side in the final minute of stoppage time. two sent off for the visitors!

Look like a lot of deflated baloons on display this evening. Still I am sure the same experts will judge that the Judicial Review will be lost as well.

This will have cost Higgs a pretty penny. Tut Tut should have done their due dillegence MMM?

 

[Nick]

But Higgs did take them to court. In most cases like this I think the judge would have awarded costs to SISU, they were forced to offer at least a defence (though not a counter-claim) and that costs money. I'm surprised that SISU haven't asked for costs.

Both sides must have costs running into five figures here, possibly more.

Thats what I mean, so it was quite likely sisu could have had them?

 

[duffer]

The argument that the council is protecting their investment is not that strong. I am sure i read that the lease reverts to the council if the leaseholder is insolvent. What are they protecting?

Their investment in ACL, which is more than a business simply holding a lease.

 

[dongonzalos]

I thought the JR was proving that it was that the council were in the wrong by doing the deal because of legal aid and stuff?

Part of proving that is that they claim the council used the money whilst conspiring with others to get new owners. That is was not just a use of legal aid to save their interests.