Given the judge's decisions each party agreed to meet their own costs
Given that it was SISU and not CCFC that incurred costs it would be nice to know if they've paid it or it's been lumped onto our debt.
So can PWKH now freely speak or are SISU still suggesting he is part of a conspiracy
Higgs paying their costs? WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN.
Why would you give a fuck anyway you hate the charity as much as CCC.
Why would you give a fuck anyway you hate the charity as much as CCC.
I am totally disentrested in them. They persued an action against another organisation that a court of law deemed was not owed, not very charitable.
When will get your head round their obligations when they are owed a debt?
I wonder if pr companies from either side post on here
I am totally disentrested in them. They persued an action against another organisation that a court of law deemed was not owed, not very charitable.
To be perfectly honest Nick I don't know but would guess so.
I am totally disentrested in them. They persued an action against another organisation that a court of law deemed was not owed, not very charitable.
They bailed out a failing football club to the tune of £6m so it would avoid self-inflicted administration, sounds quite generous to me.
They bailed out a failing football club to the tune of £6m so it would avoid self-inflicted administration, sounds quite generous to me.
You do a good enough PR job for Sisu as it is Nick. Don't be shy about it.
There's one thing in that that always made me slightly uncomfortable however, and if the desire to avoid administration was actually to the benefit of the club... or the shareholders at the time.
I'd suspect the latter.
A club in administration that owned an option to buy back Highfield Road, and a stake in an (albeit convoluted) setup for a new stadium, would be infinitely more saleable and attractive.
But maybe not helpful to those who owned it at the time than muddling on.
Higgs paying their costs? WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN.
Something that should never have happened.
Perhaps it was part of a desperate attempt to retain power rather than some other buyer coming in. It's very easy to look back more than 10 years on and say they made a mistake selling it-for all we know there may not have been any interested parties and that £6m kept the club in business.
My point was the charity stumped up that amount in the belief that they were preserving the club, which most certainly is 'charitable' in my eyes.
My point was the charity stumped up that amount in the belief that they were preserving the club, which most certainly is 'charitable' in my eyes.
My question has always been why a charity loaned money to a loss making basket case of a football club in the first place!
But within the charitable aims of the founder?
Keeping multi-millionaire owners and players of a failing football club from having to lose money surely not his original intention?
tbf, in this instance it appears they weren't owed a debt.
My question has always been why a charity loaned money to a loss making basket case of a football club in the first place!
My question has always been why a charity loaned money to a loss making basket case of a football club in the first place!
Suppose if the club had gone out of existence it would've had a hugely negative impact on the city which is how they would've justified it.
Ouich ,refrain yourself man.Of course, don't you remember me from pr school? You went off to do the advertising for scope didn't you? Wasted really as you are a great advert for contraception.
Well one reason was that the founder was a avid CCFC supporter,
Worked out well then!
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?