Search results

Surely evidence suggests that SISU weren't trying to take over the loan to support ACL. In fairness, if the 'bailout' is repaid at commercial rates then the Council actually makes a few quid. This will be a key part of the JR, I suspect, the council acting to protect their investment.

Absolutely. Why worry. They're only holding a mortgage for £15m on a property in which the primary tenant is withholding rent. It's why banks don't stress if you miss a couple of payments on your loans, cards or mortgages. Or reprice/reduce your lending based on amended risk profiles even if...

Good work Rob, many thanks. You may need to hand SISU's QC a share of your pie money, or you'll be up before the beak too. ;)

They'd already stopped paying the rent for four/five months and walked away from the HoT by then. (And seemingly, moved assets out of CCFC Ltd).

I think you're right - though of course this comes six months after SISU have walked away from the HoT and have stopped paying rent to ACL, half owned by AEHC. It would hardly be a surprise that people from AEHC had stopped trusting/liking SISU by then.

Think that's always been the case, imho - hence the option for CCFC Ltd to buy back the AEHC share in ACL at an agreed formula. The email referred to is some 5/6 months after SISU signed HoT (and stopped paying rent) I think. I'm guessing by this point that AEHC considered that the deal with...

ooooh... Says torch, getting all defensive. Better to have your knickers in a twist than your knackers in a mangle, which is where you seem to be today. Anyway, back to the matter in hand...

I think he apologised at the time. I'm sure you've never done anything daft you regret though, have you? Besides, in the scale of crimes, moving the club to Northampton and running CCFC Ltd into oblivion seems somewhat larger to me. Where's the apology for that?

Maybe being straight is the best way to play it - I'm surprised that AEHC's QC is letting them ask questions about stuff that's so long after the HoT, but perhaps that means that it opens the door to asking Fisher about other stuff too. (Asset transfers, I hope!). Either way, good to get as...

P.S. Sincere thanks to Rob and Simon for the updates yesterday, look forwards to more today. :)

There's a really good point in there, OSB - with regard to the specifics of this case, it seems the judge has already said that it's only the six weeks after signing the HoT that's relevant. Why would he need to hear about stuff that's gone on months after that deadline. Saying that I'd like...

Ah, unless they want more than 7,000 there'll be plenty of room for them at Sixfields. Timmy was probably only there today to hand out a few free tickets. ;)

A very good point. I can't see that SISU would have planned it this way. I'm also not sure exactly what benefit they've got out of potentially losing the case; the finance officer's report doesn't sound exactly like the smoking gun, and in any case I can't see how this would have been...

No, that's not quite the case as I understand it. You can simply offer a defence (I don't owe them anything), rather than a counter-claim (they owe me money). http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part15 SISU have chosen to counter-claim, they weren't obliged to if they...

Absolutely - sorry I was talking about the threat to the Trust based on them simply linking to the article. I think it's clear now that SISU aren't going to take The Guardian in court, so clearly it was all about threatening the SBT to keep them quiet rather than actually challenging Conn's...

Keep the juicy stuff coming!

No argument from me there, and even less so when you look at things like how the threat of a defamation claim (for which there is no legal aid) can be used by those with enough money to silence dissent. (e.g. SISU v SBT, and the David Conn article. A scandal.)

If it's true to form then at least three of those lawyers are loans, and one of them will probably have to go back to his parent firm mid-trial to make the tea. ;)

Take your point, but at least in cases like this I'm not sure how much difference it will make. As long as the facts are represented, I think the judge is well placed to make a decision regardless of SISU's (supposed) legal muscle.

So, if I've read this right, the Higgs QC says the timeline is a bit like this. April 2012 - Joint meeting with all parties, SISU threaten to pull out of club unless deal done for Ricoh. (Club stops paying rent). May 2012 - HoT agreed with AEHC, presumably to move along SISU obtaining at least...