Samo
Well-Known Member
'principled morals' ??? Jesus, you don't need any help to look a twat do you?
Says the man with total and utterly childish, misguided, principled morals. lmfao! Grow up son.
So if we kidnapped PWHK gagged him and tied his hands together so he can't talk and can't tie knots we'll start next season at the Ricoh?
This thread proves that sometimes people take things far too seriously, especially someone putting a balloon on a windscreen. Jesus some of the things that go on in the world and closer to home in Coventry and we get 7 pages and counting on this. So what if he is a director, can they not do daft things and if Fisher did it, same applies. We've got bigger things to worry about and disagree on than things like this.
In much the same way I don't believe Mr Labovitch is helping get us back to Coventry with his PR effort and comments on the radio/in the Telegraph. Again this is just my personal opinion.I am taking about him as a director of a management company that in my opinion with his childish pranks and unprofessional comments is not helping in trying to get the club back to Coventry.
Just my opinion of course.
I thought the balloon incident was pretty funny. At least it shows he's human.
Im always suspicious of people who have never got drunk and done something silly. Its like they are scared of letting their true personality out.
Yeh and if Fisher had done it we'd all be saying its just a silly lark. Ah that Fisher! Always messing around!
Get Fisher too and release them into a 'Hunger Games' style arena. Winner gets the Ricoh. No dogs or balloons allowed.
I'm not sure who that is?
Aug 12, 2013, Tim Fisher confirmed this evening he had been told by CBRE that heads of terms were now completed on one site
Didn't fisher make some joke about setting his dog on someone I seem to recall?
They started the court case didn't they? How can you complain about it?
I assume this:
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-charity-values-ricoh-share-7060285
The bottom 3 paragraphs I think.
They ( Higgs ) started a court case for 29000 - a lower court would have been used. SISU could have argued their case with Higgs out of court and maybe met half way or if that didn't work, have gone to the lower court with a lawyer. No, they took seven lawyers and counterclaimed for 290000 - which meant going to a higher court and costing everyone more money. A "hopeless case" said the judge. They tried the line of a "pervid plan" and got rebuked by the judge for the terminology used. Absurd behaviour, especially as they ended up having to pay their own costs for a bringing "hopeless case" - Quote Justice Leggat. That's why Peter is complaining and rightly too.
When SISU launched a counter-claim it could have been settled out of court then - or simply withdrawn.
If Higgs had withdrawn their claim wouldn't it have needed SISU to also withdraw their claim?
@ Samo...I was hoping you'd give me some lessons son? I like learning from the best!
If Higgs had withdrawn their claim wouldn't it have needed SISU to also withdraw their claim?
Given the latest childish comments from our dear friend Peter is this person really helping matters in trying to get the club back to the Ricoh.
He strikes me as egotistical, infantile and unfit for purpose. He also appears to have an unhealthy appetite for cheap publicity.
Just my opinion of course but I do not se how this character is helpful at all.
me too nobody makes me laugh moreAgain. Grendull has as much right to an opinion as anyone and I for one would miss him if he never logged back on.
Given the latest childish comments from our dear friend Peter is this person really helping matters in trying to get the club back to the Ricoh.
He strikes me as egotistical, infantile and unfit for purpose. He also appears to have an unhealthy appetite for cheap publicity.
Just my opinion of course but I do not se how this character is helpful at all.
I am taking about him as a director of a management company that in my opinion with his childish pranks and unprofessional comments is not helping in trying to get the club back to Coventry.
Just my opinion of course.
However on here it would have read as
On here this, on here that. Don't you even bore yourself with that crap lord?
As it was a counter-claim, would you have to have a claim against you to counter against?
In which case if Higgs withdrew their claim they couldn't counter-claim against something that didn;t exist.
However on here it would have read as the big bully Sisu scared of losing the original claim putting the frighteners on Higgs, and if Higgs had withdrawn the majority would be convinced that they would have won if it had gone to court.
Marilyn Knatchbull-Hugessen said this in the Telegraph...
"In fact just after the expiry of the court time limit for lodging a defence, they did so. Then many months later, in January this year, they issued a counterclaim against us for almost exactly ten times the amount of our claim. From that moment we were not free to withdraw from litigation unless we agreed to pay Sisu’s legal costs of the action and at least their £290,000.
Our claim had been issued in the County Court, but the size of this counterclaim meant that it was transferred to the High Court which enormously increased our legal costs. The trustees tried to settle matters out of court both at an early stage and in the period before the trial took place, including a proposal for mediation, but Sisu made no serious attempt to achieve a resolution and so avoid a trial."
The bit I'm confused about is if the time limit for lodging a defence had expired how did it get to Court?
Marilyn Knatchbull-Hugessen said this in the Telegraph...
"In fact just after the expiry of the court time limit for lodging a defence, they did so. Then many months later, in January this year, they issued a counterclaim against us for almost exactly ten times the amount of our claim. From that moment we were not free to withdraw from litigation unless we agreed to pay Sisu’s legal costs of the action and at least their £290,000.
Our claim had been issued in the County Court, but the size of this counterclaim meant that it was transferred to the High Court which enormously increased our legal costs. The trustees tried to settle matters out of court both at an early stage and in the period before the trial took place, including a proposal for mediation, but Sisu made no serious attempt to achieve a resolution and so avoid a trial."
The bit I'm confused about is if the time limit for lodging a defence had expired how did it get to Court?
Marilyn Knatchbull-Hugessen said this in the Telegraph...
"In fact just after the expiry of the court time limit for lodging a defence, they did so. Then many months later, in January this year, they issued a counterclaim against us for almost exactly ten times the amount of our claim. From that moment we were not free to withdraw from litigation unless we agreed to pay Sisu’s legal costs of the action and at least their £290,000.
Our claim had been issued in the County Court, but the size of this counterclaim meant that it was transferred to the High Court which enormously increased our legal costs. The trustees tried to settle matters out of court both at an early stage and in the period before the trial took place, including a proposal for mediation, but Sisu made no serious attempt to achieve a resolution and so avoid a trial."
The bit I'm confused about is if the time limit for lodging a defence had expired how did it get to Court?
Marilyn Knatchbull-Hugessen said this in the Telegraph...
"In fact just after the expiry of the court time limit for lodging a defence, they did so. Then many months later, in January this year, they issued a counterclaim against us for almost exactly ten times the amount of our claim. From that moment we were not free to withdraw from litigation unless we agreed to pay Sisu’s legal costs of the action and at least their £290,000.
Our claim had been issued in the County Court, but the size of this counterclaim meant that it was transferred to the High Court which enormously increased our legal costs. The trustees tried to settle matters out of court both at an early stage and in the period before the trial took place, including a proposal for mediation, but Sisu made no serious attempt to achieve a resolution and so avoid a trial."
The bit I'm confused about is if the time limit for lodging a defence had expired how did it get to Court?
Sounds like Higgs wanted to threaten action then settle out of court.
Whereas maybe SISU wanted the court action on the highest stage so the explosive emails were released. That such emails would panic the council into backing down.
Yet the judge thought very little of said explosive emails.
Everyone marches on to June?
You can always obtain an extension with leave of the court.Need Tonylinc to put his legal expertise to the test.
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?