I am not sure anyone particularly thought that Sisu would rollover and accept this...
This is just the beginning..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is the beginning of the end. We all said whoever lost the review would be followed up with an appeal. Get that out the way and SISU (we now know are the losers on the review) will now HAVE to make a decision, Do a deal at the ricoh, sell up, liquidate or build a new ground.
But at what point do Sisu realise they are flogging a dead horse? They have public opinion against them, they have judges not falling for their claims, they have businesses not trusting them and they appear to have no clear plan on how to try and sort this mess out.
My concern now in all this is how far they are willing to push this and where the money is coming from to pay for it all. We heard from Ann Lucas that the council are upto six figures so god knows how much Sisu are upto and with the promise of appeals then how much of that money could have been used to pay for rent at the Ricoh or players for the team.
Whereby I agree with most that, Sisu have never indicated that the financing of any Court Case will affect the Club..
Not trying to pick a row, but where else can the money come from Rob? SISU are the only ones financing the club. It would seem odd to me to have two pots of money, one labelled "CCFC Funding", and one labelled "Legal Battles (Misc)".
Whereby I agree with most that, Sisu have never indicated that the financing of any Court Case will affect the Club..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Come on Robo, you believe that like sisu being told firmly by a national judge that they "have seriously mis managed our club and the Ricoh was only wanted on the cheap to sell on for a profit"
Nothing they do is good for me or you. The money is coming out of the wage budget. They will have to pay councils costs as well.
So what we are suggesting is that Sisu plan to use CCFC financing in order to push their legal battles?
I would be very surprised if this was the case, if it can be proved otherwise than I admit I was wrong but I can't see it personally.
No proof mate, but why wouldn't they? You don't go to investors and say we need £9.5 million for the club and £0.5 million for associated legal battles, do you?
I appreciate that view point Duffer and I know the point you are trying to make, however I believe Sisu are funding this out their own pockets, there is no other solid evidence to indicate otherwise..
But there is no solid evidence they they aren't funding out out of their own pockets either?
You are the only person I've know who believe ccf won't foot this bill. Look at this thread and everyone seems to know this. Even if it's not direct it would be ccfc ultimately paying.
In fairness to Robo, I've got no proof that what he says isn't correct, and his opinion is at least as valid as mine (possibly more valid, if you accept that this is also the official line from the club). Happy to agree to differ on this - the only way we'll know for sure is if the legal fees appear in the accounts somewhere, I suspect.
Let's say it's true, why would they take that risk when they know full well that there could be sanctions, such as points deductions or transfer embargoes if they take it to far?
I must admit I have never seen a comment from anyone at the Club who has indicated that this is the case..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In fairness to Robo, I've got no proof that what he says isn't correct, and his opinion is at least as valid as mine (possibly more valid, if you accept that this is also the official line from the club). Happy to agree to differ on this - the only way we'll know for sure is if the legal fees appear in the accounts somewhere, I suspect.
No you're right Robo, Sisu would never take things too far to get us transfer embargo's because that has never happened before..................oh wait, what happened when we were late filing accounts
You can believe what you want to believe Robo, but with Sisu's history and their current path I wouldn't put it past them to lump more debt on us because it's not like they haven't before, is it?
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?