Explain to me (1 Viewer)

[hill83]

Fuck you lot, I'm starting a thread.

Who is suing who here?

Basically what I'm saying is. Some people are saying Sisu are scum for suing the Alan Higgs, but some people are saying Alan Higgs started the proceedings.
Which is it? Because everyone is being roundly ignored as usual to suit their own arguments.

 

---

[ccfcway]

.

 

[Gint11]

I have read the CET article abour Ryton 3 times and I am completely lost. WTF? Why would we sell our training ground? Is this because they supposedly are planning to build a stadium with the training ground next to it? Surely if they genuinely are going to do that then wthey need land permission first?

 

[Captain Dart]

I have read the CET article abour Ryton 3 times and I am completely lost. WTF? Why would we sell our training ground? Is this because they supposedly are planning to build a stadium with the training ground next to it? Surely if they genuinely are going to do that then wthey need land permission first?

Or asset stripping in in progress (allegedly).

 

[Samo]

Fuck you lot, I'm starting a thread.

Who is suing who here?

Basically what I'm saying is. Some people are saying Sisu are scum for suing the Alan Higgs, but some people are saying Alan Higgs started the proceedings.
Which is it? Because everyone is being roundly ignored as usual to suit their own arguments.

You're right Hill, everyone using the bits they want to suit their position. It seems Higgs have took action to reclaim the 30k they believe they are entitled to and SISU have countered. Am I wrong? Anyone?

 

[jimmyhillsfanclub]

Fuck you lot, I'm starting a thread.

Who is suing who here?

Basically what I'm saying is. Some people are saying Sisu are scum for suing the Alan Higgs, but some people are saying Alan Higgs started the proceedings.
Which is it? Because everyone is being roundly ignored as usual to suit their own arguments.

I have no agenda.....

As I understand it....although I may have dropped off half way through the dull-fest....

Higgs took an age but finally decided to sue sisu to re-coup £30K costs promised to them by Sisu......Sisu didn't fucking like it & launched a counter action believed to be in 6 figures....

 

[hill83]

Cheers guys, back to the pub.

Sick of this shit.

 

[Gint11]

This really is playground stuff.

 

[chiefdave]

Fuck you lot, I'm starting a thread.

Who is suing who here?

Basically what I'm saying is. Some people are saying Sisu are scum for suing the Alan Higgs, but some people are saying Alan Higgs started the proceedings.
Which is it? Because everyone is being roundly ignored as usual to suit their own arguments.

For a while now we have known Higgs are suing SISU. This is for the legal costs incurred by Higgs when dealing with SISU's attempt to buy the Higgs share of ACL. This was, we are told, what was agreed with SISU, that they would cover all costs. SISU walked away from that deal and have since not paid the costs. Todays article shows that to be £30K.

SISU are now suing Higgs for a six figure sum as they say they couldn't complete the deal and it was Higgs fault. This claim seems to have very little basis in fact, at least the facts that are publically known and the timeframe for what SISU are claiming happened doesn't fit in the timeline of events already known.

 

[chiefdave]

I have read the CET article abour Ryton 3 times and I am completely lost. WTF? Why would we sell our training ground? Is this because they supposedly are planning to build a stadium with the training ground next to it? Surely if they genuinely are going to do that then wthey need land permission first?

Same idea as when we sold HR to pay for the Ricoh! Ignoring things like they may sell Ryton then bugger off with the money having not built the replacement the general idea is they want Rugby council to change the status of the land so houses can be built on it. This makes it more valuable and therefore SISU can sell it for more. The land seems to be classed as greenbelt and therefore Rugby council told them to go away.

 

[dongonzalos]

Both suing each other.

Will cost charity more if they lose.

Charity will say they turned to council deal as never heard from SISU again after agreement reached.

SISU will say Charity were doing a sneaky deal with the council behind their back.

I think the charity Uniates the suing and SISU have counter sued.

Which tells me SISU are to blame otherwise they would have sued straight away if they felt they had been done over and their loses were more.

 

[torchomatic]

Presumably though if they lose then there was a case to answer?

Both suing each other.

Will cost charity more if they lose.

Charity will say they turned to council deal as never heard from SISU again after agreement reached.

SISU will say Charity were doing a sneaky deal with the council behind their back.

I think the charity Uniates the suing and SISU have counter sued.

Which tells me SISU are to blame otherwise they would have sued straight away if they felt they had been done over and their loses were more.

 

[Nick]

Both suing each other.

Will cost charity more if they lose.

Charity will say they turned to council deal as never heard from SISU again after agreement reached.

SISU will say Charity were doing a sneaky deal with the council behind their back.

I think the charity Uniates the suing and SISU have counter sued.

Which tells me SISU are to blame otherwise they would have sued straight away if they felt they had been done over and their loses were more.

So if the charity have done nothing wrong, surely they have nothing to worry about? If they lose, then SISU have a point?

 

[Samo]

So if the charity have done nothing wrong, surely they have nothing to worry about? If they lose, then SISU have a point?

In theory. Depends who can afford the best lawyers though.

 

[torchomatic]

The charity are minted aren't they? I'm sure they can afford it. After all they wouldn't have instigated proceedings would there, regardless of the fact they were well in their rights to do so.

 

[Samo]

The charity are minted aren't they? I'm sure they can afford it. After all they wouldn't have instigated proceedings would there, regardless of the fact they were well in their rights to do so.

As a charity, they have a duty to persue the debt. They must have suspected what the response would be though.

 

[dongonzalos]

So if the charity have done nothing wrong, surely they have nothing to worry about? If they lose, then SISU have a point?

Yep

The charity will be quite confident as you can guarantee SISU would fight it and counter sue yet that still went for it.

 

[mark82]

Both suing each other.

Will cost charity more if they lose.

Charity will say they turned to council deal as never heard from SISU again after agreement reached.

SISU will say Charity were doing a sneaky deal with the council behind their back.

I think the charity Uniates the suing and SISU have counter sued.

Which tells me SISU are to blame otherwise they would have sued straight away if they felt they had been done over and their loses were more.

in which case let the courts decide. I don't see everyone's issue if they believe Higgs have a nailed on case.

Are people worried that Sisu might not actually be in the wrong or something?

 

[Nick]

In theory. Depends who can afford the best lawyers though.

Surely they would need lawyers anyway to take SISU to court?

 

[mark82]

The charity are minted aren't they? I'm sure they can afford it. After all they wouldn't have instigated proceedings would there, regardless of the fact they were well in their rights to do so.

With all the money they are making from out of the Ricoh now City have left.

 

[Samo]

Surely they would need lawyers anyway to take SISU to court?

Of course they would, it was thier quality not thier existance I was questioning.

 

[shmmeee]

in which case let the courts decide. I don't see everyone's issue if they believe Higgs have a nailed on case.

Are people worried that Sisu might not actually be in the wrong or something?

No. They just don't have your faith in the justice system. There are loopholes and technicalities all over it and they are Sisus playground.

The message from you, Nick, Torchy, etc. seems to be if its legal then it's OK. That's a valid viewpoint, but expect a lot of people to disagree.

 

[dongonzalos]

in which case let the courts decide. I don't see everyone's issue if they believe Higgs have a nailed on case.

Are people worried that Sisu might not actually be in the wrong or something?

Unfortunately SISU will take action they are highly likely not to win if it suits them such as the JR and taking on price-waters.

Hope the charity get their money back, costs and a bit of compensation on top. .

 

[shmmeee]

With all the money they are making from out of the Ricoh now City have left.

I know you're trying to be funny. But as you well know the Ricoh has paid no dividends to its shareholders since day 1. All profits are put back into the business.

The only people who have made money from it are: CCFC, the casino, the hotel, etc. from commercial activities and Yorkshire Bank from interest in the mortgage (now CCC since Sisu forced their hand).

 

[James Smith]

Fuck you lot, I'm starting a thread.

Who is suing who here?

Basically what I'm saying is. Some people are saying Sisu are scum for suing the Alan Higgs, but some people are saying Alan Higgs started the proceedings.
Which is it? Because everyone is being roundly ignored as usual to suit their own arguments.

Higgs started the legal action against Sisu after they allegedly never paid for the Higgs costs when Sisu walked away (a long time ago) from the negotiations about the sale of the charity share. Sisu felt left out of the Legals and as they hadn't threatened anyone with lawyers/court proceedings for a few days countersued the Higgs.

 

[James Smith]

in which case let the courts decide. I don't see everyone's issue if they believe Higgs have a nailed on case.

Are people worried that Sisu might not actually be in the wrong or something?

There is a theory that Sisu will try and wear everyone connected with the Ricoh, ACL etc. down financially by issuing legal challenge after legal challenge until the other party go bust or give in.

 

[Nick]

IF SISU have no case they why would the courts waste their time? Surely there would be a point then they say "Do one, you are taking the piss" if they never had a case?

 

[mark82]

No. They just don't have your faith in the justice system. There are loopholes and technicalities all over it and they are Sisus playground.

The message from you, Nick, Torchy, etc. seems to be if its legal then it's OK. That's a valid viewpoint, but expect a lot of people to disagree.

I would rather hear the evidence before deciding who is right or wrong though, regardless of the verdict.

 

[chiefdave]

There is a theory that Sisu will try and wear everyone connected with the Ricoh, ACL etc. down financially by issuing legal challenge after legal challenge until the other party go bust or give in.

This was stated several months ago by Joy to the council allegedly. I seem to recall Labovich going mental about it and being outraged that anyone could think SISU would behave like that.

 

[mark82]

Unfortunately SISU will take action they are highly likely not to win if it suits them such as the JR and taking on price-waters.

Hope the charity get their money back, costs and a bit of compensation on top. .

I do too as long as they are innocent.

 

[Samo]

IF SISU have no case they why would the courts waste their time? Surely there would be a point then they say "Do one, you are taking the piss" if they never had a case?

Yes, thats what the judge does at the end when you've lost.

 

[chiefdave]

IF SISU have no case they why would the courts waste their time? Surely there would be a point then they say "Do one, you are taking the piss" if they never had a case?

It's a common tactic for a bigger organisation against a smaller organisation. The hope of the bigger organisation, in this case SISU, is that the smaller organisation, in this case Higgs, either get scared off or run out of money to pay lawyers and therefore agree to drop the initial action.

In most cases they do this as it's cheaper than going to court and being ordered to pay the amount, plus both sides costs, that they were orignally being sued for. Remember big companies often aren't paying by the hour for lawyers so it makes no difference to them how often they attempt to pull people into court.

 

[Nick]

I would rather hear the evidence before deciding who is right or wrong though, regardless of the verdict.

Exactly, I wouldn't say that somebody is immune because they are a charity without knowing what has happened.

 

[Nick]

It's a common tactic for a bigger organisation against a smaller organisation. The hope of the bigger organisation, in this case SISU, is that the smaller organisation, in this case Higgs, either get scared off or run out of money to pay lawyers and therefore agree to drop the initial action.

In most cases they do this as it's cheaper than going to court and being ordered to pay the amount, plus both sides costs, that they were orignally being sued for. Remember big companies often aren't paying by the hour for lawyers so it makes no difference to them how often they attempt to pull people into court.

What I meant is why would it even get as far as court? Surely if all of these court cases are rubbish and without reason then SISU should be done for wasting the courts time?

 

[shmmeee]

What I meant is why would it even get as far as court? Surely if all of these court cases are rubbish and without reason then SISU should be done for wasting the courts time?

You'd think so wouldnt you? But Sisus tactics are very common.

I agree that the law needs to be changed to rebalance the legal system.