Back to Court on Wednesday 8th July 2015 (4 Viewers)

James Smith · Jul 9, 2015

Nick said:
Would Wasps moving in take the value up 40 odd million in a couple of weeks though? Surely that would need looking at before touting the Wasps stuff in the paper?

Didn't the council / ACL say it was doing well when it was empty though?

It might have been at the moment they said it but business then tailed off shortly afterwards. Awhile back we had the best start to a week we've ever had and the MD phoned as we were cashing up at the end of Wednesday to say well done. Sales tanked after that and we were marginally down on our normal weekly takings. It's now referred to as the call of death.
Bloody tube strike has been a pain today both in getting to and from work and the number of customers.

Specs WT-R75 · Jul 9, 2015

Raggs said:
It's been ruled appropriate once already. It doesn't have to be considered a typical commercial loan, due to the councils stake.

The argument the appeal for the appeal was that the council would have been better off letting ACL go bankrupt. Leaving them with 100% ownership of the freehold and the ability to create a new management company. However, it then has to be proven that the disruption of losing the ACL, and cost of creating a new management company, would lead to greater benefit than giving a loan that has been successfully repaid. Any new management company would be entirely owned by CCC, meaning if the Ricoh is losing money, they'd have been accountable for 100% of that, as opposed to merely 50% as with ACL. The new management company may have been in no more of a hurry to work with SISU than the ACL appeared to be.

And of course, had ACL been allowed to go under, Higgs would have lost absolutely everything from their investment. Won't someone think of the children etc etc.

Unfortunately sometimes in business your head has to rule your heart... Higgs ended up getting [less] screwed either way...

Raggs · Jul 9, 2015

Specs WT-R75 said:
Unfortunately sometimes in business your head has to rule your heart... Higgs ended up getting [less] screwed either way...

£2.77M, plus a stand named after the charity, plus 50p of every ticket sold in that stand, minimum £40k donation a season, sounds a lot less screwed than sod all.

skybluetony176 · Jul 9, 2015

fernandopartridge said:
Tony, it's 'hedging' your bets.

Whatever. The point stands.

Grendel · Jul 9, 2015

Raggs said:
It's been ruled appropriate once already. It doesn't have to be considered a typical commercial loan, due to the councils stake.

The argument the appeal for the appeal was that the council would have been better off letting ACL go bankrupt. Leaving them with 100% ownership of the freehold and the ability to create a new management company. However, it then has to be proven that the disruption of losing the ACL, and cost of creating a new management company, would lead to greater benefit than giving a loan that has been successfully repaid. Any new management company would be entirely owned by CCC, meaning if the Ricoh is losing money, they'd have been accountable for 100% of that, as opposed to merely 50% as with ACL. The new management company may have been in no more of a hurry to work with SISU than the ACL appeared to be.

And of course, had ACL been allowed to go under, Higgs would have lost absolutely everything from their investment. Won't someone think of the children etc etc.

The charity angle is a very cheap shot. Ultimately your lot sensed a killing and devoured the carcass

If Richardson could have got the Higgs share for 10 pence please do not tell me he wouldn't. Anyone who is prepared to desert his natural fan base and whore the club to another town clearly has profit high on the agenda and morality not even registering as an agenda.

State aid has zero to do with rescuing charities as I suspect you know.

I suspect you are slight worried.

Good. I hope so. We as a city need you out of here.

Sick Boy · Jul 9, 2015

Raggs said:
£2.77M, plus a stand named after the charity, plus 50p of every ticket sold in that stand, minimum £40k donation a season, sounds a lot less screwed than sod all.

Bore off you franchise loving Wasps tosspot

James Smith · Jul 9, 2015

torchomatic said:
Didn't one of the Judges say he was "troubled" by Hickinbottoms original view and judgement?

But was he basing that on the new skeleton arguments or the full facts of the original case?

Raggs · Jul 9, 2015

Grendel said:
The charity angle is a very cheap shot. Ultimately your lot sensed a killing and devoured the carcass

If Richardson could have got the Higgs share for 10 pence please do not tell me he wouldn't. Anyone who is prepared to desert his natural fan base and whore the club to another town clearly has profit high on the agenda and morality not even registering as an agenda.

State aid has zero to do with rescuing charities as I suspect you know.

I suspect you are slight worried.

Good. I hope so. We as a city need you out of here.

I'm sure he'd have purchased it at that price as well, if he could have. But I've noted the Higgs line trotted out multiple times here (in reference to SISU and Wasps), and didn't want the potential impact of CCC letting ACL go bust to be missed, it's another consideration that CCC may have taken into consideration before giving the loan.

I genuinely cannot see a scenario in which Wasps will be required to do anything more than pay a little bit more on the loans interest, interest rates were at historic lows, how much is a commercial loan rate going to have been? Not enough to finish Wasps off.

Grendel · Jul 9, 2015

Raggs said:
£2.77M, plus a stand named after the charity, plus 50p of every ticket sold in that stand, minimum £40k donation a season, sounds a lot less screwed than sod all.

I repeat - that's what the pariah Richardson had to pay - he'd pay nothing if he could. He is a guttersnipe and you are vermin.

Crawl back in the sewer where you belong.

skybluetony176 · Jul 9, 2015

Sick Boy said:
Bore off you franchise loving Wasps tosspot

Oooo, you showed him. I bet he'll cry himself to sleep now tonight after that intelligent and witty put down.

dongonzalos · Jul 9, 2015

SimonGilbert said:
The van we took to the HQs of all the major protagonists prior to Wasps' arrival?

We've been here and had this conversation before. We will always speak out for what's in the best interests of Coventry.

We spoke out against CCFC being removed from the city because there is clear evidence that the move was detrimental to the city of Coventry and its people. There was also obvious widespread opposition.

There is no such clear evidence that Wasps moving to Coventry is bad for the city or its people. There was also nothing like the level of opposition we saw to CCFC being moved. If evidence emerges that the move is bad for Coventry, we will no doubt change our position.

The Wasps deal might be bad for the football club, but the city is bigger than the Sky Blues. That's not to say the club is not an important part of its fabric.

There are undoubtedly moral questions about whether a rugby team should be moved from its homeland, and whether the move facilitated by our local authority. But, again, there's hardly been widespread anger to the move in the rugby community from what I can tell.

To be fair Nick has stated he does really care much about Coventry as a City. Just the football club.

I know where you are coming from Simon and the Telegraph does represent the views of the majority of Coventry folk. Who are passionate about both their city and their football club

Grendel · Jul 9, 2015

dongonzalos said:
To be Nick has stated he does really care much about Coventry as s City. Just the football club.

I know where you are coming from Simon and the Trlegraph does represent the views of the majority of Coventry folk. Who are passionate about both their city and their football club,

Any evidence to support that tripe?

dongonzalos · Jul 9, 2015

Grendel said:
Any evidence to support that tripe?

He said in a debate with me in this forum.

Grendel · Jul 9, 2015

dongonzalos said:
He said in a debate with me in this forum.

No evidence then given that hardly anyone reads the dreadful paper then.

Nick · Jul 9, 2015

dongonzalos said:
I know where you are coming from Simon and the Telegraph does represent the views of the majority of Coventry folk. Who are passionate about both their city and their football club

And court cases? Seems the majority are passionate about the football club when it suits.

In terms of not caring about the city, I'm not on otis level. I wouldn't get all sentimental and defensive if somebody said they saw a homeless person in coventry. Some bits are shit, some are nice.

Grendel · Jul 9, 2015

Seems Raggs has left the building. Good I hope its permanent and he goes back to his crappy wasps forum relaying what true ccfc fans think of him and his type.

SimonGilbert · Jul 9, 2015

James Smith said:
Newspapers can* actually express bias think of the red tops that come out in favour of a particular party before and on the day of a general election. Now your TV and radio media can't do that in this country and stations have been had up for bias relating to this before.
*although I am not suggesting that the Telegraph have shown any bias before you decide to get all legal on me Simon.

It kind of proves my point.

If we are being biased, why wouldn't we just say we are? We don't have to be neutral.

Hobo · Jul 9, 2015

fernandopartridge said:
Tony, it's 'hedging' your bets.

You mean like a hedge fund?

martcov · Jul 9, 2015

Raggs said:
It's been ruled appropriate once already. It doesn't have to be considered a typical commercial loan, due to the councils stake.

The argument the appeal for the appeal was that the council would have been better off letting ACL go bankrupt. Leaving them with 100% ownership of the freehold and the ability to create a new management company. However, it then has to be proven that the disruption of losing the ACL, and cost of creating a new management company, would lead to greater benefit than giving a loan that has been successfully repaid. Any new management company would be entirely owned by CCC, meaning if the Ricoh is losing money, they'd have been accountable for 100% of that, as opposed to merely 50% as with ACL. The new management company may have been in no more of a hurry to work with SISU than the ACL appeared to be.

And of course, had ACL been allowed to go under, Higgs would have lost absolutely everything from their investment. Won't someone think of the children etc etc.

wouldn't letting a half council owned company go under have an effect on the CCC credit rating and possibly mean higher interest rates on their borrowing in the future? Genuine question.

Raggs · Jul 9, 2015

martcov said:
wouldn't letting a half council owned company go under have an effect on the CCC credit rating and possibly mean higher interest rates on their borrowing in the future? Genuine question.

No idea whatsoever. Could argue that ACL is separately run company (albeit 50% owned) so therefore it shouldn't effect the councils credit rating, as it's not the council making the financial decisions for the ACL. Guess it depends on the management structure of the ACL?

Grendel · Jul 9, 2015

martcov said:
wouldn't letting a half council owned company go under have an effect on the CCC credit rating and possibly mean higher interest rates on their borrowing in the future? Genuine question.

Nothing to do with state aid and distorting s natural market - actually is a case against if anything.

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 9, 2015

SimonGilbert said:
If we are being biased, why wouldn't we just say we are? We don't have to be neutral.

Because everyone believes themselves to be neutral and objective, whereas we are all biased and subjective.

It's the way of the world/human nature/our habitus, call it what you will.

All I know is that I'm neutral and objective, where nobody else is

wingy · Jul 9, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
Because everyone believes themselves to be neutral and objective, whereas we are all biased and subjective.

It's the way of the world/human nature/our habitus, call it what you will.

All I know is that I'm neutral and objective, where nobody else is

And sometimes verbose.

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 9, 2015

wingy said:
And sometimes verbose.

Maybe.

wingy · Jul 9, 2015

I'm still Intrigued as to the fact It was only heard by two Judges rather than the stipulated three.

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 9, 2015

wingy said:
I'm still Intrigued as to the fact It was only heard by two Judges rather than the stipulated three.

[video=youtube;k5hWWe-ts2s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5hWWe-ts2s[/video]

James Smith · Jul 9, 2015

wingy said:
I'm still Intrigued as to the fact It was only heard by two Judges rather than the stipulated three.

Maybe the hypocritical council will hire Mr Loophole to get them out of it.

wingy · Jul 9, 2015

James Smith said:
Maybe the hypocritical council will hire Mr Loophole to get them out of it.

Is he related to Wimpole?

Terry Gibson's perm · Jul 9, 2015

Judge Fisher was out looking for land for a mythical stadium.

oldfiver · Jul 9, 2015

wingy said:
Is he related to Wimpole?

Rumpole?

wingy · Jul 9, 2015

oldfiver said:
Rumpole?

Leo McKern
Where did that come from,?Yes Rumpole of the Bailey , wonder who will end up on the Gibbet

skyblueinBaku · Jul 9, 2015

How the hell can a company wash it's face? What is that nonsense supposed to mean?

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 9, 2015

skyblueindorset said:
How the hell can a company wash it's face? What is that nonsense supposed to mean?

Break even.

armybike · Jul 9, 2015

skyblueindorset said:
How the hell can a company wash it's face? What is that nonsense supposed to mean?

It means to balance the book and guess it means to keep the company presentable. Nothing fancy but also not dowdy. However, it's a bloody stupid expression.

James Smith · Jul 9, 2015

skyblueindorset said:
How the hell can a company wash it's face? What is that nonsense supposed to mean?

Have you never seen Bargain Hunt?

Back to Court on Wednesday 8th July 2015 (4 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Telegraph Tea Boy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency