Gary Hoffman’s long-distance attempt to meet Coventry City’s chief Tim Fisher (3 Viewers)

RegTheDonk

Well-Known Member
i dont charge high rates at all, im in family law and employment law now after becoming bored with money claims. my only interest in this is my love of the club and my past history in judicial reviews. they are a strange animal and council lose more than they publish to the public.

Well they do say a little knowledge is dangerous ;)
 

Seyeclops666

New Member
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
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?

Oh nice, very nice - well said Sir!!
 

RPHunt

New Member
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?

Exactly.

Despite the nonsense spouted by another poster, a judicial review is a very cheap way to delay or obstruct a decision. This has been recognised by the government and there are new measures being introduced to stop the widespread abuse of the judicial review system.

I do hope when SISU's request is thrown out, the judge gives a summary (with sound bites) that will come back to haunt SISU.
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
People who do very little will often staunchly attack those who do a lot.
It says more about them than it does about the person they jealously attack
 

davebart

Active Member
fair points all the way. the only reply i would like to make is regards the previous 4 years. I think sisu have admitted to mismanging the club in those years. they opologised to the fans and sought to move forward, the Ranson years were not good, they were poor, every time a business model was put in place the club had either awful luck or the players turned out to be damp squids.

Are you sure you don't mean damp squits?

Personally I wouldn't take legal advice from someone who doesn't check their english. but I suppose legal experts rely on their secretaries to get the wording right on contracts.

plus the amount of time you spend on here must be costing someone a fortune.
 

BBSB

New Member

cloughie

Well-Known Member
Are you sure you don't mean damp squits?

Personally I wouldn't take legal advice from someone who doesn't check their english. but I suppose legal experts rely on their secretaries to get the wording right on contracts.

plus the amount of time you spend on here must be costing someone a fortune.

Exactly last week he was disabled with a carer looking after him, today he is a lawyer who spends half the day on SBT.

Obviously he could be a disabled lawyer with a carer but I highly unlikely he'd have the time for SBT if doing his Job properly.
 

Nonleagueherewecome

Well-Known Member
you dont think Sisu have shown any good business strategy? they have kept a club alive (when in reality its dead as door nails) with massive debts most companies would have crumbled under. yet we are still alive. you dont think Sisu show good business sense? Sisu have pandered to our fans buy sacking every manager when the fans have a majority asking the manager to go, Sisu have invested in good players with great reputations -only to be let down by the players, Sisu have staved off a proper attempt by the council/acl to have our club liquidated (something our fans seem blind to), Sisu have sought to save this club by manoeuvring the rent issue - wether you as a fan like what they have done or not doesnt matter - the fact is Sisu acted in the best way forward for the BUSINESS .. AND THE CLUB.

You dont think Sisu have kept us from being liquidated? what do you think has just taken place in the last couple of months?

JUDICIAL REVIEW: there is no higher rate of claim than a judicial review. the council have paid 14 million pounds to prop up a business they are partners in!! unless there has been a law change councils can not invest council owned monies into business they have a part in, it unethical and i believe it is against the law. There have been a few cases of council doing this in the past and they have been hammered for doing so. also there is the question : why do the council need to be so closely involved in our club? why?? they have nothing to do with football, they should need to be involved but they are - i am not going to say too much for fear of being sued however do not be surprised to find a proper controversy and scandal hitting Coventry city council in the upcoming months - obviously around the time of the JR

i dont think ive ever heard such a lot of moaning little whiners in my life ... back the owners against the council, the council tried to fuck our club up - when are you deluded mothers going to get it? they started administration proceedings against to liquidate us!!! and yet we still have fans backing the council. pathetic truly.

What a load of bollocks. There isn't one point you make that isn't claptrap, to use Thatcher's favourite put-down.
 

TheRoyalScam

Well-Known Member
.. what i do know is you dont start a judicial review unless you have pretty good QC and barristers thinking they see a winner.

What I do know is that you've completely misunderstood the situation.

This particular JR is unusual: it implies that CCC have somehow broken EU fair competition laws by refinancing a company (ACL) that was itself in the process of being distressed by the company bringing the JR.

In other words SISU are saying 'You've scuppered our chance of distressing ACL so we can get it on the cheap, so we'll do what we do best and take you to court, citing some obscure EU ruling in an attempt to obfuscate the real facts.'

What's to prove that their 'pretty good QC and barristers' have told them they think they see a winner? They might have told them they haven't got a chance. After all, they'll still get paid win or lose, and the whole matter seems to me to be posturing and poor PR by SISU. What's the betting that they withdraw at the last moment? What's in it for SISU even if they win the JR?

What you have done is make this thread come off topic with your usual misunderstanding of the history and facts, together with your blind faith in SISU.

I suspect you are a SISU plant - I'm certain you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.
 

Nick

Administrator
IF GH is serious then I think he should approach the football league with his offer.

Although the way I see it is like refusing to pay high rent on your house and moving away and then getting a loan to come back and pay the high rent again?

At the end of the day it will be a debt they need to pay back, surely it is like refusing to pay for a tenner a pint in a bar and your mate offering to buy you a few as long as you pay him back after? Defeats the object surely?
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
I think GH knows that SISU/TF unlikely to accept. Our owners it would seem are perfectly capable of finding the funds if they wanted to. As you say Nick this is just a loan, and do SISU need loans from GH & Co - No

I tend to think this was an exercise to prove to others including the FL that there were deals that could have been done. As it is portrayed it shows TF as being intransigent and not wanting to do a deal the Ricoh. Which is important because TF has been telling FL that ACL wont deal with SISU and therefore this whole situation is ACL's fault. Coming back from holiday was also a clever move because it has been portrayed as TF refusing to meet someone who was willing to make a deal work at the Ricoh.

Overall it is all still a PR battle if you ask me
 
Last edited:

James Smith

Well-Known Member

duffer

Well-Known Member
What I do know is that you've completely misunderstood the situation.

This particular JR is unusual: it implies that CCC have somehow broken EU fair competition laws by refinancing a company (ACL) that was itself in the process of being distressed by the company bringing the JR.

In other words SISU are saying 'You've scuppered our chance of distressing ACL so we can get it on the cheap, so we'll do what we do best and take you to court, citing some obscure EU ruling in an attempt to obfuscate the real facts.'

What's to prove that their 'pretty good QC and barristers' have told them they think they see a winner? They might have told them they haven't got a chance. After all, they'll still get paid win or lose, and the whole matter seems to me to be posturing and poor PR by SISU. What's the betting that they withdraw at the last moment? What's in it for SISU even if they win the JR?

What you have done is make this thread come off topic with your usual misunderstanding of the history and facts, together with your blind faith in SISU.

I suspect you are a SISU plant - I'm certain you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.

Absolutely.

For what it's worth, as part of a community action I've had cause to discuss JRs with a real, actual solicitor with regard to planning permission and nuisance issues. He said, at a minimum, expect a five-figure biil (not £109.99 btw!) to get it to court.

You could do the pre-planning and submit the initial case bundle (the legal paperwork) with a bit of good will and some hard work for a lot less than that, but once it gets to instructing barristers costs start to rocket.

The council, of course, have their own legal department. So until and unless it gets to an actual court case this I don't think this will cost them too much.

As an aside, the sort of cases RPHunt is mentions, immigration in particular, tend to qualify for legal aid so there's no real cost to the complainant. As he rightly says, the Government is looking at ways to reduce those sorts of cases in particular.

imho, the Judge will bounce SISU's case at the first hurdle, but even if he doesn't, then what?

Even if SISU went all of the way through court, and it was found that CCC had made the wrong decision, it still doesn't get SISU the Ricoh. All it means is that ACL would have to find an alternate mortgage provider/financier. That doesn't of necessity have to be SISU, and in fact it's hard to see that ACL would want to take that option!
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
I think GH knows that SISU/TF unlikely to accept. Our owners it would seem are perfectly capable of finding the funds if they wanted to. As you say Nick this is just a loan, and do SISU need loans from GH & Co - No

I tend to think this was an exercise to prove to others including the FL that there were deals that could have been done. As it is portrayed it shows TF as being intransigent and not wanting to do a deal the Ricoh. Which is important because TF has been telling FL that ACL wont deal with SISU and therefore this whole situation is ACL's fault. Coming back from holiday was also a clever move because it has been portrayed as TF refusing to meet someone who was willing to make a deak work at the Ricoh.

Overall it is all still a PR battle if you ask me
I feel sorry for his family, being left in Spain whilst Daddy heads back to the UK.
 

Nick

Administrator
If I had as much money I'd drive my R8 back from Spain (like on top gear) just because I could...
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
If I had as much money I'd drive my R8 back from Spain (like on top gear) just because I could...
I don't drive, but if I did I'd join you doing that - could do a Top Gear style race. Which reminds me I must get my hair cut, I do not suit a bandana. :D
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
Its costing the Club £100K. for starters ,If It gets past the judge ,there is no guilty case as such ,nothing illegal has happened but can be deemed unlawful ,which can involve the Council having to backtrack ,and find another way to skin the Cat.
 

Nick

Administrator
Can't really moan about how much it is costing the club though can we? Especially with the whole NOPM thing? Surely it is good they are spending money on it.
 

Paxman II

Well-Known Member
There are some very good points raised on here as I read through. TBF true sky blue has raised quite a few valid arguments but I tend to agree with the over view that OSB outlines in a couple of post.
I'm not quite sure where SISU are headed with this JR process but then again we are not fully aware of all the facts.

As for the Hoffman saga. Many on here when it was first muted backed it to the hilt and accused Fisher of being somewhat of a dick to refuse etc etc. I insisted it was wrong and was not a sensible offer for SISU to accept and was among the few. Now it seems many of you have come to realise this.
I only mention this because before you run your mouth think carefully first. Stick with what you believe not change your mind days later.
SISU/Fisher may not be the flavour of the month but I do wish everyone would try and see how both sides have acted consistently badly and both are somewhat culpable for this entire sorry predicament.

As for someone saying ACL's accounts were only affected 9% by the absence of the football club my be correct I don't know but you can't dismiss the damage the footfall has on the other business interest that have to make their money and with the footfall gone that will have a dramatic affect for ACL. If I were a lease holder there I would probably want out or compensating.
There is not a sporting team anywhere big enough to fill the shoes left by the Sky Blues at the Ricoh...a thought that must worry ACL a lot.

How these two sides have failed to find a way forward is beyond me other than to say the Sky Blues need it all to stack up for them or renting a stadium becomes pointless.
 

wes_cov

New Member
Thats the thing SISU can't plead poverty when they are raising things like this as well as the "getting exclusivity" on 2 sites also can't be cheapif this is all just bluster to try to get the RA it's an expesive way to go about it but equally all these costs will just get racked up against the existing debts
 

Evo1883

Well-Known Member
There are some very good points raised on here as I read through. TBF true sky blue has raised quite a few valid arguments but I tend to agree with the over view that OSB outlines in a couple of post.
I'm not quite sure where SISU are headed with this JR process but then again we are not fully aware of all the facts.

As for the Hoffman saga. Many on here when it was first muted backed it to the hilt and accused Fisher of being somewhat of a dick to refuse etc etc. I insisted it was wrong and was not a sensible offer for SISU to accept and was among the few. Now it seems many of you have come to realise this.
I only mention this because before you run your mouth think carefully first. Stick with what you believe not change your mind days later.
SISU/Fisher may not be the flavour of the month but I do wish everyone would try and see how both sides have acted consistently badly and both are somewhat culpable for this entire sorry predicament.

As for someone saying ACL's accounts were only affected 9% by the absence of the football club my be correct I don't know but you can't dismiss the damage the footfall has on the other business interest that have to make their money and with the footfall gone that will have a dramatic affect for ACL. If I were a lease holder there I would probably want out or compensating.
There is not a sporting team anywhere big enough to fill the shoes left by the Sky Blues at the Ricoh...a thought that must worry ACL a lot.

How these two sides have failed to find a way forward is beyond me other than to say the Sky Blues need it all to stack up for them or renting a stadium becomes pointless.
i spoke to somebody the other day ,a big business figure in coventry ,who told me RICOH are looking to pull out of the arena deal (naming rights)as all the negative talk is under their name and not ACL / council etc .
either way that is a 1 million a year deal for ACL ,alot of money,and will not be the only deal they lose over the football club moving
 

RPHunt

New Member
Absolutely.

He said, at a minimum, expect a five-figure biil (not £109.99 btw!) to get it to court.

You could do the pre-planning and submit the initial case bundle (the legal paperwork) with a bit of good will and some hard work for a lot less than that, but once it gets to instructing barristers costs start to rocket.

It, currently, costs just £60 to lodge a request for a judicial review.

If you employ a lawyer to prepare the request, then their charges will obviously depend on how much work they do to refine the case. Dumping a couple of thousand pages at the court is hardly refinement.
 

Paxman II

Well-Known Member
Craig looking at it a slightly funnier way...
I'm ACL so I say to the football team , "hey you can use the stadium for free" paying just match day fees etc. It's a bit like Tesco saying hey buy one get one free.
Have you ever done deals where you have secured money because it was better to get plenty rather than nothing?
I deal with companies everyday that use this tactic for the greater good. With the football club the whole Ricoh arena is viable including the sponsorship name remaining but without them, so much becomes dead in the water and the end game gets harder for ACL. I do feel ACL hit their comfort zone with assumption of 1.2m rent each year would be rolling in unquestioned? That was naïve no matter who owned the football club. You wouldn't believe Haskell would have put up with it either had that been the case.
ACL should look to speculate to accumulate for the greater good.
Still would never let SISU get any ownership though!
 

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
Maybe he came back because Nuneaton was hotter than Spain at the weekend?

Got to be a headline somewhere along the lines of "Britain basking in summer heat, hotter than Barcelona" somewhere?
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
Interesting that. Remind me how much rent do Premier League Swansea pay and how much did they contribute to the stadium construction?

I believe that the construction was funded by Swansea Council and I 'think' that the team pay a peppercorn rent. Anyone who criticises this now that they have hit the big time and could pay the a reasonable rent (even at cost) is shouted down loudly. The stadium finances have come under scrutiny and a PWC report for the Welsh Audit Office in 2011 (which I can't find online) stated that the way it is financed is unsustainable.

PWC report via thisissouthwales.co.uk said:
"financial position of SSMC remains precarious and the current revenue sharing arrangements are considered unsustainable". It also reveals that Swansea Council made a further loan to the SSMC in 2005, for £2.6 million, which it later wrote off, even though auditors "were not aware of any reason why such a loan could not have been sought from a commercial lender".
http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/C...tory-12754243-detail/story.html#axzz2Z8FAOl3H

What a shame we never took the oportunity to buy the charity share when we had the oportunity (and I think we still do).
 
Last edited:

Nonleagueherewecome

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Top