T
true sky blue
Guest
exactly : Without the council we would not be in the ricoh, we would still be in highfield road, and probably back in top flight by now. The coucil are by no means our saviours
Gary Hoffman’s long-distance attempt to meet Coventry City’s chief Tim Fisher (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sub
- Start date
exactly : Without the council we would not be in the ricoh, we would still be in highfield road, and probably back in top flight by now. The coucil are by no means our saviours
T
true sky blue
Guest
hahaha "INCOME FROM SISU IS 9%" YES BECAUSE SISU WILL NOT PAY. WHAT IS THE INCOME FROM THE REST OF THE ARENA THOUGH INCLUDING THE RENTS, THE FOOD AND BEVS ETC... OF COURSE THE INCOME FROM SISU IS LOW WHEN THEY REFUSE TO PAY!!
duffer
Well-Known Member
I've looked through a few here. They're absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.
Be honest, there's not a single example of a JR being used in the way that you've outlined is there? Not one.
Sorry to catch you out, but with regard to JRs you're going on entirely on opinion and not evidence. You are misinformed.
So c'mon bud. You've made the claim. Back it up.
Last edited:
Seyeclops666
New Member
Doh Doh Doh !!!!! :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
The club had already sold Highfield Road before the Council were forced to step in a save the ground deal (and by the way this was Conservative led Council and not the lot that are in now)!! I didnt want to leave Highfield Road either but you are blaming the Council for that now too - epic fail!!
The Penguin
Well-Known Member
Oh right, so it was the council that sold Highfield Road and paid just shy of a million pounds per season to rent it back!
Bryan Richardson will be so pleased that it wasn't his fault after all!
edit: Seyeclops beat me to it!
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Sorry but in business, especially if you are financial experts, then bad luck or blaming it on the players performance really does not wash too well. They still made the decisions to spend on wages more than turnover to acquire the player for example. They havent detailed the mistakes they made though have they, so do they know or is it a sound bite to try mellow fan reactions?
strictly speaking the council is not a share holder in ACL - North Coventry Holdings is
The document you refer to seems to cover govenment grants - this wasnt
Plus the policy is dated after the refinancing of ACL was completed
That aside the JR action is brought under the European anti competition rules
strictly speaking the council is not a share holder in ACL - North Coventry Holdings is
The document you refer to seems to cover govenment grants - this wasnt
Plus the policy is dated after the refinancing of ACL was completed
That aside the JR action is brought under the European anti competition rules
Seyeclops666
New Member
Even though we have both pointed it out I still don't think he will get it!!
T
true sky blue
Guest
no council can loan to a company it is a share owner in. None. It can grant, it can provide government funding, but it cant simply loan. However if all parties agree on a loan there would be no civil action to prevent it or action to recoup after the fact. There is also tax payer consultation for figures of that amount. To think the coucil have gone ahead and released 14 million pounds without any consultation of tax payers is an absolute disgrace. Wrongful and unlawful. The council must account for each pound - propping up their own company is simply not one of those scenarios
T
true sky blue
Guest
to be clear the issue is that the council are part owners of the firm they have loaned to. That is the sole issue.
RegTheDonk
Well-Known Member
T
true sky blue
Guest
i hope you clicked on the link: There are about 50,000 judicial reviews for you to search - over the last 10 years. Youll need to search further
even the best qc in the uk wouldnt have found one that fast bud: Sorry to catch you out there
T
true sky blue
Guest
Dhinsa's_Millions
Well-Known Member
Clueless post.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
So Swansea Council are just as guilty as Coventry City Council then? Will SISU be going after them too?
The Role of Local Authorities in Delivering Football Stadia by County Council of The City and County of Cardiff said:
(http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/ObjView.asp?Object_ID=5756 - page 28 paragraph 37)
duffer
Well-Known Member
Apart from the fact that technically they're not, where does it say in law that the council can't invest in something that they part-own? If that was the case then Ricoh doesn't even get built.
Regardless, again, show me one single case that backs up your contention.
T
true sky blue
Guest
duffer
Well-Known Member
Mate, seriously, you're making the claim. You prove it. Who has caught who out here, really?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Actually no they own shares in North Coventry Holdings Limited who own shares in ACL. The money has been lent bearing an interest charge to ACL not NCH ltd. ACL being a seperate legal entity over which, based on the issued share capital, CCC has no overall control.
Going to be some interesting legal arguments I think
I would guess that you would call that not actual ownership but "beneficial ownership"........... now where have I heard that before?
T
true sky blue
Guest
it still is not the same as our situation. were the owners of the club and the stadium in a pitch battle at the time? no .. it seems to me the swansea method was agreed by all parties
duffer
Well-Known Member
T
true sky blue
Guest
i havent got the time duffer and i am no where near case judgements. it takes days if not weeks to find case judgement. its easy to discount - and there the difference between a winner and loser in a court trial
RegTheDonk
Well-Known Member
Besides time is money, and you know how much you bleedin' lawyers charge.
Immigration cases make up the vast majority of judicial reviews.
Less than 15% of judicial reviews make it beyond the first stage.
Less than 2% of judicial reviews are ultimately successful.
I wouldn't put a lot of money on SISU's request being successful.
T
true sky blue
Guest
i totally agree - they are, both sides, playing the same game. got to say though judicial reviews are much more expensive than straight forward high court money claims. it is unlikely that sisu have gone down the wrong path on wrong advice, their barristers will have all the case judgements (i do not) but my memory tells me there is one or two cases where the specific against the local authority is the misplaced use of tax monies ---- government grants and incentives from central government and endorsed by central is ok but local authority tax gained monies -- its a big no
duffer
Well-Known Member
So you haven't got anything to support what you said then, other than your opinion. Fair enough.
Total and utter bullshit!
T
true sky blue
Guest
The Penguin
Well-Known Member
Well, according to Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, I'm not sure that SISU can pursue a claim of state aid.
One of the tests is that the aid provided by the State must "affect trade between Member States".
Not quite sure how providing a loan to a stadium management company in Coventry is going to affect trade between other Member States of the EU.
One of the tests is that the aid provided by the State must "affect trade between Member States".
Not quite sure how providing a loan to a stadium management company in Coventry is going to affect trade between other Member States of the EU.
T
true sky blue
Guest
yep thats the kind of clever response i expect from some. its why the council have you so easily believe them
So the results of judicial reviews are not made public and councils keep quiet about the outcome - your imagination is now going into overdrive.
T
true sky blue
Guest
The Penguin
Well-Known Member
Thank you for your erudite and insightful reply.
I assume you have nothing useful to say?
That, I admit, is not my usual sort of response, but it is the only credible response to someone who first claims to be a lawyer and then claims that a judicial review is an expensive way of litigation.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
So what you're basically saying is that your original statement is incorrect and councils can loan money to companies they are part owners in?
All the parties in our case agreed on the loan (namely ACL & a unanimous Cov Council etc.) and seem perfectly happy. SISU are alleging that they were involved in something prior to this but haven't yet proved anything.
I guess we'll have to see whether SISU actually do have the signed papers that Young Timothy has claimed that they do, about distressing ACL.
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Here are the problems I have with all this JR stuff
The loan wasnt from central government it was from the Public Works Loan Board at a favourable rate of interest - nothing I have seen from that body says they can not make the loan
Certainly the PWLB doesnt seem to be acting outside its powers
The Council with unanimous support of the councillors approved the deal in a meeting where you would assume full details were provided
Councillors on both sides represent the local taxpayers
The loan to ACL is at a higher rate of interest than the Council is paying - so in theory no loss to the tax payer
ACL is not just a stadium operator (in the sense that football comes first in terms of turnover or share of turnover) and forms part of a clear documented plan to regenerate North Coventry ie there is more at stake for them than the interests of a League1 football club
The reduction in loan repayments reduced ACL cashflow and increased profits to enable them to pass on the benefits to the club in their reduced rent offer
ACL did not go bust as could have happened under the old loan arrangement - if had there was a minimum £2m loss to the tax payer
CCFC still had a good opportunity to improve their arrangement and finances because of it
So leaving aside whether there is some small print that leaves open a challenge by someone prejudiced by the loan - where is the down side for Taxpayer, Council, ACL even CCFC ?
Unless the prejudice was to stop the club getting hands on an asset valuable to the City of Coventry at below market value:thinking about:Is that a vexacious claim?
The loan wasnt from central government it was from the Public Works Loan Board at a favourable rate of interest - nothing I have seen from that body says they can not make the loan
Certainly the PWLB doesnt seem to be acting outside its powers
The Council with unanimous support of the councillors approved the deal in a meeting where you would assume full details were provided
Councillors on both sides represent the local taxpayers
The loan to ACL is at a higher rate of interest than the Council is paying - so in theory no loss to the tax payer
ACL is not just a stadium operator (in the sense that football comes first in terms of turnover or share of turnover) and forms part of a clear documented plan to regenerate North Coventry ie there is more at stake for them than the interests of a League1 football club
The reduction in loan repayments reduced ACL cashflow and increased profits to enable them to pass on the benefits to the club in their reduced rent offer
ACL did not go bust as could have happened under the old loan arrangement - if had there was a minimum £2m loss to the tax payer
CCFC still had a good opportunity to improve their arrangement and finances because of it
So leaving aside whether there is some small print that leaves open a challenge by someone prejudiced by the loan - where is the down side for Taxpayer, Council, ACL even CCFC ?
Unless the prejudice was to stop the club getting hands on an asset valuable to the City of Coventry at below market value:thinking about:Is that a vexacious claim?
Last edited:
