Bias due to link with the Mirror probably is nonsense. Your blatant bias against the football club isn't and your sometimes embarrassing endorsement of Wasps isn't either.
Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
Would you say the Wasps deal was good for the tax payer of Coventry then judging how they paid 5-6 million and it is now worth silly money with millions of pounds being thrown at them here there and every where with food renewals and stadium rights renewals? Surely that's worth saying hold on a minute, how has that happened?
Can the media make a difference with what the general public think?
Surely it won't go back to Hickinbottom after he has has such criticism.
I also believe the financial projections used by the council to determine the value of ACL might not have been suitable.
I thought wasps paid £20 million ,£5.5million cash plus the loan of 14.5 million ,all the figures quoted in the press are just spin and projections, if you remember acl constantly said they were profitable without ccfc (that didn't last long) I seriously doubt that with the amount of debt and repayment of the bond issue that wasps will survive long without the football club there as well
The bond issue had a valuation of 48m I believe.
Read this article:
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-taxpayers-could-lose-millions-9616342
The judge seemed to criticise a lot judging from his quotes of the Council and the past judge.
Now, if a judge was saying something about SISU doing something wrong. How many cases of "rubbished claims" or "criticised" would there be in the article? Maybe a couple of "damning" in there too.
I am by no means saying the SISU are going to win billions of pounds or even the case, but imagine how that article would have been if the judge had been as "damning" at SISU and not the council in those quotes?
To be honest, it'll be a relief not to see Astute, Tony and a few others quote him constantly as a bastion of truth. Now, if we can only stop them from putting "smoking gun" in every other sentence....
The other judge seemed to disagree with him didn't he?If SISU lose are we alowed to quote him again as a bastion of truth? Out of interest what do you think lied about?
The other judge seemed to disagree with him didn't he?
Either could well be wrong.
Not saying he did "lie". Im saying two judges yestersay seem to think he was incorrect in his judgement. Maybe i am doing you a disservice and you will be quoting what they said too.If SISU lose are we alowed to quote him again as a bastion of truth? Out of interest what do you think lied about?
So if it is REALLY worth 48 million, why sell for what they did? That's the question?
ask the other judges who obviously have a bit of doubt about the judgement?In what sense? They think that SISU have a case for appeal. They havent ruled on that appeal. The appeal might give exactly the same result.
Not saying he did "lie". Im saying two judges yestersay seem to think he was incorrect in his judgement. Maybe i am doing you a disservice and you will be quoting what they said too.
Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
No one has said he got it wrong have they, just SISU have the oppurtunity to prove he did. If he did.
That's because there's no clear right or wrong party here.
Didn't one of the Judges say he was "troubled" by Hickinbottoms original view and judgement?
Nice Telegraph Comment titled
I still don't get if (and it is a huge if) SISU win then why it isn't the council that are baddies for doing something wrong?
Surely it should be "Council messed up and cost the tax payers hundreds of millions"?
I honestly don't know. I haven't read everything on it yet. But equally it doesn't mean he got it wrong. It could be that this judge has got it wrong. I would think that if there was the doubt you're trying to portray the original JR would have been called a mis-trial and the JR would have been run again. That didn't happen. All yesterdays ruling tells you is that these two judges don't believe it's as black and white as the JR judge said it was and SISU have the right to appeal.
Everytime their is a court case, I sit here in utter amazement.
We sign one of the best DCM's in the division yesterday and it gets a measly 7-10 page thread - Football related, new signing, exciting, paid a fee for the first time in like forever.
Then SISU go to court over something that they think they are owed and it is discussed to death all over again with 38 pages and counting.
Amazing.
It is not about right or wrong (black or white if you like). It is about making a judgement based on the evidence presented.
At the moment the most recent judgement states that Sisu may have the right to appeal, and no more than that.
And that another judge was troubled by it.
But aren't SISU trying to say CCC did something wrong?
The first judge said no JR, That was appealed and a judge said JR, The JR happened and a judge spent 3days being presented evidence, hearing arguments and counter arguments then after a long period of time presented his judgement in favour of the council and ruled no right to appeal. Another judge then upheld that ruling, now two judges have ruled an appeal can take place and now a seventh judge (if I'm keeping count correctly) will hear the appeal. That shows you how complicated this is and of all those judges I would think that only one has heard ALL the evidence and heard ALL the arguments and counter arguments. Did CCC even have representation yesterday? Did they present any counter arguments or are the two judges only presented with a skeletal argument from one side?
The first judge said no JR, That was appealed and a judge said JR, The JR happened and a judge spent 3days being presented evidence, hearing arguments and counter arguments then after a long period of time presented his judgement in favour of the council and ruled no right to appeal. Another judge then upheld that ruling, now two judges have ruled an appeal can take place and now a seventh judge (if I'm keeping count correctly) will hear the appeal. That shows you how complicated this is and of all those judges I would think that only one has heard ALL the evidence and heard ALL the arguments and counter arguments. Did CCC even have representation yesterday? Did they present any counter arguments or are the two judges only presented with a skeletal argument from one side?
This is an appeal on a point of law and that is the judgement they made - counter arguments against the original ruling would not be very helpful.
Isn't the appeal a counter argument against the original ruling?
No it's based on the original ruling that the loan purchase was an appropriate use of state aid.
Frankly the original judgement regarding this appeared bizarre. There is little doubt it was not appropriate, especially given the sale of the asset now to another organisation.
By doing it the council created an unfair competitive envoronment. Acl should have funded via another commercial lending source or gone into administration.
It's not that surprising that the appeal is granted.
In a normal envoronment it's likely sisu will win the case. The stumbling block though is the rent strike as that created the financial issues for Acl. Why they didn't just go into admin declaring they can't afford rent I don't know.
They may win but I can't see much hope of a payout of any significance.
Sounds like you're edging your bets there. You're saying on one hand SISU should win but on the other hand that they wont win. I guess in your head that means you're right regardless of what happens at the appeal. No wonder you think you're always right.
No it's based on the original ruling that the loan purchase was an appropriate use of state aid.
Frankly the original judgement regarding this appeared bizarre. There is little doubt it was not appropriate, especially given the sale of the asset now to another organisation.
By doing it the council created an unfair competitive envoronment. Acl should have funded via another commercial lending source or gone into administration.
It's not that surprising that the appeal is granted.
In a normal envoronment it's likely sisu will win the case. The stumbling block though is the rent strike as that created the financial issues for Acl. Why they didn't just go into admin declaring they can't afford rent I don't know.
They may win but I can't see much hope of a payout of any significance.
Can the media make a difference with what the general public think?
Of course they can Nick. The media and an institution like the telegraph have a real duty to report stories based on facts and not based on political bias of their owners.
This is what disappoints me most about the paper's handling of the whole saga. Its clearly taken the side of the labour council which when you see that its owned by the mirror group is no real surprise really.
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?