Search results

That is how a board of directors works though. Its a joint decision and you can be out voted. But how else were they going to fund the 10m operating loss before player sales in that year that the board of directors including Ranson had sanctioned?

Not unless they are going to pay me to google "Judicial review appeal time limits" ..... otherwise I am just happy to be ahead of the game again hahaha

Anyway back on track These are I think the rules for making an appeal to the Court of Appeal https://formfinder.hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/form-207-eng.pdf

Hard to disagree with CD Only comment I have is that the Dann & Fox sales were in the 2010 accounts. The following year (2011 accounts) the debt to SISU went up by £7.6m. Ranson resigned March 2011. So were they not prepared to fund further, it seems they did, or was it that Ranson expected too...

Not sure I buy in to the argument that they got the jitters due to the financial crisis. The financial crisis hit in 2007/08, at that time they bought CCFC and put in £2.6m according to the accounts in 2008/09 accounts it shows monies put by the owners of £12.36M 2009/10 accounts show 700k put...

Just for the record I remember Ricky Sbragia talking about retaining Jordan Henderson....... but I cant find the quote to post it. Do I believe a permanent deal was likely to bring him here sorry no.

Think you have to think of what "not being given the tools" actually means when it is given by Hoffman & Ranson as an excuse or justification. The only tools that SISU could provide was money. Ranson was the football man brought in to run the football business (as well as part owner). The tools...

Hardly the only promise or assurance broken though is it. As far as I can see you proved he said it Btw never took it as name calling just a discussion

Fair enough SBK, I stand corrected on that but on the basis of there being no clear plan or proper due diligence then it was a throw away comment that was ill founded. They and Ranson clearly had not understood the financial mess the club was in on and off the pitch so funds would have had to be...

Deficit in 2008 & 2009 under SISU was 7.5m per annum = £15m. From January 2008 to May 2009 the original set up and further loans were put in totalling 24m. There was a net spend on all assets including players of around 4.4m in total . So after financing the running of the club and buying the...

I agree a lot of parties played a part in this and contributed to the whole situation. We should never have got to the situation in 2007/08. That was not SISU's doing. That fault lies with previous owners and the likes of CCC Once there in 2007 early 2008 then it can only be the needs of those...

Can they persuade the appeal court that the judge got the law wrong ?

This judgement would seem to be pretty damning of the Sisu claim. The judge didn't say on balance his judgement was ..... he said there was no arguable case. That's in his judgement no case at all..... Not that there was an element of doubt.... no case. The day in court is a final part of a...

What the judge has ruled is that there are no arguable grounds that the rules or process have not been complied with. That the CCC process and decision was appropriate to this set of facts. Legal and above board be it viewed as long lease extension or equivalent freehold. That the requirements...

Have they settled the JR1 costs? Now they have to settle JR2 also Those that are liable are ARVO - not based in the UK CCFC holdings Ltd (wound up years ago) SBS&L - only "asset" is the shares in Otium Otium - essentially CCFC - only assets Ryton, the trademark, players .............. all...

very few options left for SISU and none are very palatable for them. The action they brought for JR2 missed the point of a judicial review, was poorly constructed and misunderstood the facts procedures and process. You cannot just throw reams of "evidence" around painting a half picture hoping...

no its an additional £30m in cost due to CCC plus damages due to SBS&L, ARVO & Otium

SISU lawyer spending a lot of time on it too...... does that make it a weakness on their part? If they fail to convince the judge they acted timely manner and the delays not their fault then barring an appeal that's it done

Going to depend how much reading the Judge has still to do of the written submissions he already has that accompany this day in court but I wouldn't expect a decision before Tuesday possibly not till end of next week. edit Decision today That just shows I can be wrong Lol

and bid a similar amount to Wasps for the Charity shares, and in doing so put forward their own valuation at the time of 50% of ACL including a lease valued at £18m and a loan at £14m didn't they? Now they argue it should have been more? Clearly they didn't think so at the time. The lease...