Higgs v SISU Court Document (1 Viewer)

chiefdave · Apr 4, 2014

Haven’t had time to read through all the documents but can I assume these documents have come through official channels and not a leak? Assuming they have will we also get to see the evidence Higgs submitted to form a full picture?

Looking at the exerts people are commenting on I think moving forward towards the JR we will have to keep in mind that there is a difference between things that we may not approve of (CCC potentially not informing SISU they were talking to YB for example) and what is actually illegal. Of course the former may lead people to change their views of the parties involved but in reality we are past it mattering who supports what side and into a more detailed legal argument which will unfold over the summer.

One things that does spring to mind is that, if we take some of these exerts at face value, why didn’t force the issue. Even if they couldn’t agree a sale but able to honestly say they have tabled a fair bid would I suspect change the view of a large % of the fan base. Up until now matters such as SISU not having access to ACLs books etc has been stated as a reason for not being able to submit a bid, ignoring the fact that they could have made a conditional bid without that access, but it seems like SISU may have had more access than we suspected. If they believed Higgs / CCC / ACL were being unreasonable put in a bid and leak it to the press. That would back the other parties into a corner where they have to justify their actions.

lordsummerisle · Apr 4, 2014

chiefdave said:
Haven’t had time to read through all the documents but can I assume these documents have come through official channels and not a leak? Assuming they have will we also get to see the evidence Higgs submitted to form a full picture?

Looking at the exerts people are commenting on I think moving forward towards the JR we will have to keep in mind that there is a difference between things that we may not approve of (CCC potentially not informing SISU they were talking to YB for example) and what is actually illegal. Of course the former may lead people to change their views of the parties involved but in reality we are past it mattering who supports what side and into a more detailed legal argument which will unfold over the summer.

One things that does spring to mind is that, if we take some of these exerts at face value, why didn’t force the issue. Even if they couldn’t agree a sale but able to honestly say they have tabled a fair bid would I suspect change the view of a large % of the fan base. Up until now matters such as SISU not having access to ACLs books etc has been stated as a reason for not being able to submit a bid, ignoring the fact that they could have made a conditional bid without that access, but it seems like SISU may have had more access than we suspected. If they believed Higgs / CCC / ACL were being unreasonable put in a bid and leak it to the press. That would back the other parties into a corner where they have to justify their actions.

It seems that Sisu getting into the PR side a bit late.

ACL/CCC/AEHC have had a concerted PR push to make Sisu look bad and themselves look good for some time from the looks of it.

chiefdave · Apr 4, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
It seems that Sisu getting into the PR side a bit late.

ACL/CCC/AEHC have had a concerted PR push to make Sisu look bad and themselves look good for some time from the looks of it.

It can't be that simple can it? Even if we assume SISU have no clue about PR (although didn't they employ a PR firm at the same time they were taking pot shots at ACL for having a PR firm?) but noone can be that bad at their job they allow 90% of their customers, and nearly all their revenue, to walk away when they could with a couple of easy steps turn that around.

Monners · Apr 4, 2014

Nick said:
A fair few people have been saying all sides have their part to play, they were usually asked to calculate an algorithm to work out exactly what % each were to blame though and ignored.

I agree Nick, 100%

lordsummerisle · Apr 4, 2014

chiefdave said:
It can't be that simple can it? Even if we assume SISU have no clue about PR (although didn't they employ a PR firm at the same time they were taking pot shots at ACL for having a PR firm?) but noone can be that bad at their job they allow 90% of their customers, and nearly all their revenue, to walk away when they could with a couple of easy steps turn that around.

A lot of self-inflicted wounds by Sisu no doubt, but the whole narrative of "Not paying the rent", "Distressing ACL", "Can't agree a deal", "ripping off a childrens charity" could have been changed in peoples perceptions if they had leaked some of the information that came out of the case much earlier.

Something that Hoffman and Elliott were doing quite often with player contracts, Board minutes etc.

Doesn't mean that Sisu are innocent by any means, think they(certainly their appointments) have been a disaster for the club from the start, but maybe not the total ogres that they have been made out to be.

Monners · Apr 4, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
A lot of self-inflicted wounds by Sisu no doubt, but the whole narrative of "Not paying the rent", "Distressing ACL", "Can't agree a deal", "ripping off a childrens charity" could have been changed in peoples perceptions if they had leaked some of the information that came out of the case much earlier.

Something that Hoffman and Elliott were doing quite often with player contracts, Board minutes etc.

Doesn't mean that Sisu are innocent by any means, think they(certainly their appointments) have been a disaster for the club from the start, but maybe not the total ogres that they have been made out to be.

Fair comment, and it would have maybe helped their argument at least in public if they had done this. However, its the hell bent nature to make money for their investors at any cost that causes isues for many of us I suspect. Which pretty much explains the way they go about things in my view - i.e. don't care what anybody thinks, as it carries no influence on thier business decisions.

Sky Blue Dal · Apr 4, 2014

DaleM said:
Why's everyone creaming themselves over a "0-0 draw" ?

Looks like , yes , the council and Higgs may have done the wrong thing but we've only seen the leaked SISU papers up to now.

We're still a mid table division 3 side with no hope of any success with SISU in charge .

This is exactly what I am thinking whilst reading everyone's comments on here .. All we have seen is a court statement collated by SISU. These court statements each parties barristers issue are always used to argue there points and throw accusations at each other. It s is for the Judge to read each of these statements before making a decision.

This statement was a SISU counter claim which was obviously ignored by the Judge and thrown out of court and the if we ever get to see Higgs charities court statement, we will probably see there arguments and accusations regarding there claim against SISU and then I would say we can have a balanced argument here.

The fact is the judge made the verdict that non of the parties were really that serious about this deal and this is why Higgs did not get there claim. It comes across that there was no genuine deal going on between both parties and it was just a talking shop.

There may be a good reason why SISU did not ask for cost against Higgs such as if they had requested this from the Judge, it would have most likely be rejected. Sometimes judges would after there verdict call both parties barristers into his chamber and tell them how it stands what his directions will likely be and what to expect.

That's the way it works in legal courts.

The facts are this case was a total waste of money from both parties especially for Higgs Charity and I cannot for the hell of it understand why they taken this to court.

Maybe the this verdict in the upcoming JR in June will be used to indicate that the deal was not taken seriously, rent was not paid and the CCC had to take action to protect the asset resulting it using public funds used to pay off the mortgage hence was not illegal use of public funding.

Who knows what will happen but we will find out in June.

Nick · Apr 4, 2014

The thing is, even if they had come out and said things, would they have been believed?

Monners · Apr 4, 2014

Nick said:
The thing is, even if they had come out and said things, would they have been believed?

Probably not, but that doesn't worry them. Just look at the new stadium fiasco

lordsummerisle · Apr 4, 2014

Sky Blue Dal said:
This is exactly what I am thinking whilst reading everyone's comments hear .. All we have seen is a court statement collated by SISU. These court statements each parties barristers issue are always used to argue there points and throw accusations at each other. It s is for the Judge to read each of these statements before making a decision.

This statement was a SISU counter claim which was obviously was ignored by the Judge and thrown out of court and the if we ever get to see Higgs charities court statement, we will probably see there arguments and accusations regarding there claim against SISU and then we can have a balanced argument here.

The fact is the judge made the verdict that non of the parties were really that serious about this deal and this is why Higgs did not get there claim. It comes across that there was no genuine deal going on between both parties and it was just a talking shop.

There may be a good reason why SISU did not ask for cost against Higgs such as if they had requested this from the Judge, it would have most likely be rejected. Sometimes judges would after there verdict call both parties barristers into his chamber and tell them how it stands what his directions will likely be and what to expect.

That's the way it works in legal courts.

The facts are this case was a total waste of money from both parties especially for Higgs Charity and I cannot for the hell of it understand why they taken this to court.

Maybe the this verdict in the upcoming JR in June will be used to indicate that the deal was not taken seriously, rent was not paid and the CCC had to take action to protect the asset resulting it using public funds used to pay off the mortgage hence was not illegal use of public funding.

Who knows what will happen but we will find out in June.

Another one who hasn't actually read any of the documents.

Grendel · Apr 4, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
Another one who hasn't actually read any of the documents.

Doesn't need to - already has the answers in his own mind.

torchomatic · Apr 4, 2014

Finally! Yes, everyone has fucked up. It's nice that people are starting to realise that. If nothing else some of the evidence coming out show that all sides were being a little underhand.

lewys33 said:
Chris West certainly has a lot to answer for, but CCC didn't force us out of the Ricoh. Two wrongs don't make a right. Everyone has f***ed up here.

fernandopartridge · Apr 4, 2014

Sky Blue Dal said:
This is exactly what I am thinking whilst reading everyone's comments on here .. All we have seen is a court statement collated by SISU. These court statements each parties barristers issue are always used to argue there points and throw accusations at each other. It s is for the Judge to read each of these statements before making a decision.

This statement was a SISU counter claim which was obviously ignored by the Judge and thrown out of court and the if we ever get to see Higgs charities court statement, we will probably see there arguments and accusations regarding there claim against SISU and then I would say we can have a balanced argument here.

The fact is the judge made the verdict that non of the parties were really that serious about this deal and this is why Higgs did not get there claim. It comes across that there was no genuine deal going on between both parties and it was just a talking shop.

There may be a good reason why SISU did not ask for cost against Higgs such as if they had requested this from the Judge, it would have most likely be rejected. Sometimes judges would after there verdict call both parties barristers into his chamber and tell them how it stands what his directions will likely be and what to expect.

That's the way it works in legal courts.

The facts are this case was a total waste of money from both parties especially for Higgs Charity and I cannot for the hell of it understand why they taken this to court.

Maybe the this verdict in the upcoming JR in June will be used to indicate that the deal was not taken seriously, rent was not paid and the CCC had to take action to protect the asset resulting it using public funds used to pay off the mortgage hence was not illegal use of public funding.

Who knows what will happen but we will find out in June.

Are you saying that the evidence provided (emails from council officers) are made up? I am not sure how come of the clear statements can be misrepresented.

chiefdave · Apr 4, 2014

Monners said:
However, its the hell bent nature to make money for their investors at any cost that causes isues for many of us I suspect.

To be honest when they came in I thought they would be just what we needed. The business side of things seemed to be in such a poor state that the thought of someone coming in, turning that around, and then selling on at a profit was appealing to me. I worked on the basis that the only way you can profit out of purchasing a football club is by improving the fortunes of the football club. To be fair I think this was Ransons idea but it was executed badly and we then went to plan B which seemed to be finding ways to make a profit without success on the field and even at the expense of the football club itself.

I have no problem with SISU making money if they have turned the club around and left us off better than when they arrived - their oft stated aim.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Apr 4, 2014

Just subscribing to this one now - not hiding as Grendy claims - but equally not going to join in the debate without having read all the facts. As that could be pointless.

Edited to add; this looks like the SISU bundle only.....

shmmeee · Apr 4, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
It seems that Sisu getting into the PR side a bit late.

ACL/CCC/AEHC have had a concerted PR push to make Sisu look bad and themselves look good for some time from the looks of it.

You think? Sisu weren't in the press until then? Really?

And again, no proof of what you claim. Just that PR is part and parcel of modern politics. Not exactly news.

fernandopartridge · Apr 4, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Just subscribing to this one now - not hiding as Grendy claims - but equally not going to join in the debate without having read all the facts. As that could be pointless.

Initial question; the court papers like this are normally written by the claimant, or at least jointly; whereas the language in the opening précis is quite 'leaning' of tone. Fisher himself could have written no better. Who wrote it?

Both sides were claimants

fernandopartridge · Apr 4, 2014

shmmeee said:
You think? Sisu weren't in the press until then? Really?

And again, no proof of what you claim. Just that PR is part and parcel of modern politics. Not exactly news.

AEHC would cooperate with the Council in a public relations campaign designed to paint the conduct of the Council, AEHC and ACL in as good a light as possible and to discredit the SISU Group so far as possible.

I raised your 'standard business practice' with 'all part and parcel of modern politics'.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Apr 4, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
Both sides were claimants

Yeah - I now see - as above. So, this is one bundle, associated with one case?!?

lordsummerisle · Apr 4, 2014

shmmeee said:
You think? Sisu weren't in the press until then? Really?

And again, no proof of what you claim. Just that PR is part and parcel of modern politics. Not exactly news.

There's loads of fucking proof.

Try reading with your eyes and mind open.

Sbarcher · Apr 4, 2014

I think I'll back the winning side

lordsummerisle · Apr 4, 2014

shmmeee said:
You think? Sisu weren't in the press until then? Really?

And again, no proof of what you claim. Just that PR is part and parcel of modern politics. Not exactly news.

Sisu really weren't in the press very much until then.

Was always very difficult to find much information about them, what information that was found was of course ignored anyway by yourself and many others.

Hobo · Apr 4, 2014

torchomatic said:
Finally! Yes, everyone has fucked up. It's nice that people are starting to realise that. If nothing else some of the evidence coming out show that all sides were being a little underhand.

From my point of view I think I have always took that view and so have many others. However most my posts are against SISU, mainly because I do not like the way they operate and they are not good for the club. Because they own us they are the biggest influence on us.

I don't agree with them moving us, so I won't go to Sixfields and pay. I go to away matches....no I did not go to Arsenal. But I do not criticise those who have chosen to go and watch their team at Sixfields either.

In the last 10 years I have become more disillusioned with the way football is being run and the way the modern business world and media conducts itself. This mess underlines that feeling.

There are some regular posters who are good at arguing and digging themselves out of a hole; it doesn't make them right. That applies to people on both sides. Also, just because a few post more than others doesn't mean they hold the majority of opinion either.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Apr 4, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
There's loads of fucking proof.

Try reading with your eyes and mind open.

I'm barely past the first few pages; but what I'm seeing is one bundle pertaining to one case. Moreover, when emails are quoted when I've skimmed through, they are edited for emphasis - so in other words will show, perhaps, a different message or ambition when seen in context. Will I see that as I read through?

Are things like the HOT, as referenced at the bottom of page 3 there too? Again, can't see them on first skimming

fernandopartridge · Apr 4, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Yeah - I now see - as above. So, this is one bundle, associated with one case?!?

Yes it is. But the evidence contained therein seems pretty irrefutable but of course there is always two sides to a story.

Hobo · Apr 4, 2014

Sbarcher said:
View attachment 3441I think I'll back the winning side

Just had a Stag night by any chance? Still got your eyebrows?

lordsummerisle · Apr 4, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I'm barely past the first few pages; but what I'm seeing is one bundle pertaining to one case. Moreover, when emails are quoted when I've skimmed through, they are edited for emphasis - so in other words will show, perhaps, a different message or ambition when seen in context. Will I see that as I read through?

Are things like the HOT, as referenced at the bottom of page 3 there too? Again, can't see them on first skimming

Of course this evidence is just from the Sisu side, but nevertheless it is quoting documents, emails, etc from the "other" side as it were, and does look pretty damning.

dongonzalos · Apr 4, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I'm barely past the first few pages; but what I'm seeing is one bundle pertaining to one case. Moreover, when emails are quoted when I've skimmed through, they are edited for emphasis - so in other words will show, perhaps, a different message or ambition when seen in context. Will I see that as I read through?

Are things like the HOT, as referenced at the bottom of page 3 there too? Again, can't see them on first skimming

The emails paint the picture SISU want to paint. However it does say these are three or Four amongst numerous others. I am sure the council will provide the numerous others showing the full context of the emails.
Also they will paint the picture of the background at the time that would have led to emails of this nature.

The bare bones are though you have Higgs saying SISU should pay ( not the council)

You have the council arranging to speak to YB without telling SISU which I am sure they will admit. The Council have always argued they were protecting their assets. There is no legal requirement for them to inform SISU.

They then consider all of SISU's options as a response to their action. Again this is what they should do when making a big decision.

Part of that was SISU agreeing a rent deal. Others were SISU liquidating the club or if the council could convince them sell as oppose to liquidate.

The idea the council attempted to force new owners is undone by the fact the council were still hopefully they would agree a rent deal

dongonzalos · Apr 4, 2014

Hobo said:
From my point of view I think I have always took that view and so have many others. However most my posts are against SISU, mainly because I do not like the way they operate and they are not good for the club. Because they own us they are the biggest influence on us.

I don't agree with them moving us, so I won't go to Sixfields and pay. I go to away matches....no I did not go to Arsenal. But I do not criticise those who have chosen to go and watch their team at Sixfields either.

In the last 10 years I have become more disillusioned with the way football is being run and the way the modern business world and media conducts itself. This mess underlines that feeling.

There are some regular posters who are good at arguing and digging themselves out of a hole; it doesn't make them right. That applies to people on both sides. Also, just because a few post more than others doesn't mean they hold the majority of opinion either.

Top post

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Apr 4, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
Of course this evidence is just from the Sisu side, but nevertheless it is quoting documents, emails, etc from the "other" side as it were, and does look pretty damning.

Cool. I understand. It may well be so. But it appear to quote mails with emphasis, which doesn't always provide context.

You call me a coont. I call you a twat in return.
If you then simply quote I've called you a twat, the context lost doesn't paint the complete picture.

Anyway, I'll read.....

Sky Blue Dal · Apr 4, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
Are you saying that the evidence provided (emails from council officers) are made up? I am not sure how come of the clear statements can be misrepresented.

All I am saying is the Judge did not make his final verdict yesterday from this statement, it was the legal statement he received from Hick trust that he derived his conclusion from.

I could not see the judge even entertaining what the email said on this statement. Looks like this statement we are talking about did not get past the first day of the hearing. What you are reading is SISU statement to argue there counter claim against Higgs of £290,000 which was dismissed by the judge.

Everyone is making conclusions from this counter claim statement which was issued by SISU to the court and the Higgs charity.

Look I am out of here ... this all pointless .. Guys... save your energy for the JR in June ... getting worked up for nothing.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Apr 4, 2014

Can someone summarise whats the general jist of the document for me?

Had a quick read through, basically SISU, ACL and the council had agreed a deal in which SISU would buy out the ACL debt from the bank and purchase the Higgs 50% of ACL. The council and ACL then in secret went and agreed a deal with the bank to pay of the bank loan cutting the club out and sabotaged the previously agreed deal. Is that it? Anything else of note

Rusty Trombone · Apr 4, 2014

Who decides on the people to be questioned? It seems Higgs had all the main players on the stand, and others I'd never heard of. I think SISU just had Deering who was on maternity leave for plenty of the bits they wanted to talk about. She was asked about things Fisher did or didn't say or do, but he was there, why didn't he get called to answer those questions?

Sky Blue Dal · Apr 4, 2014

Grendel said:
Doesn't need to - already has the answers in his own mind.

No Grendal ... Read the Effing top page before you make your common stupid comments. What does it say ..

" SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THEDEFENDANT AND THIRD PARTIES"

and who are the defendants:

SISU CAPITAL LIMITED
Defendant
and
(1)
THE SISU CAPITAL MASTER FUND LIMITED
(2)
ARVO MASTER FUND LIMITED
(3)
SKY BLUE SPORTS & LEISURE LIMITED
(4)
OTIUM ENTERTAINMENT GROUP LIMITED
Third Parties

Look I have been to court more times than you have hot dinners and I can tell you this is a statement from SISU to argue there side of the story.

The fact that everyone here are already making conclusions about the CCC using this statement document is laughable.

Like I said there is another statement like this from the Claimant (Higgs) who have there version of the story and arguments.

The document you have read means jack!!!

What you really want to see is a transcript of the reason for the Judges verdict ... then we can judge.

THERE IS NO ANSWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously ... someone close this thread ... it embarrassing!!

DazzleTommyDazzle · Apr 4, 2014

Hobo said:
From my point of view I think I have always took that view and so have many others. However most my posts are against SISU, mainly because I do not like the way they operate and they are not good for the club. Because they own us they are the biggest influence on us.

I don't agree with them moving us, so I won't go to Sixfields and pay. I go to away matches....no I did not go to Arsenal. But I do not criticise those who have chosen to go and watch their team at Sixfields either.

In the last 10 years I have become more disillusioned with the way football is being run and the way the modern business world and media conducts itself. This mess underlines that feeling.

There are some regular posters who are good at arguing and digging themselves out of a hole; it doesn't make them right. That applies to people on both sides. Also, just because a few post more than others doesn't mean they hold the majority of opinion either.

A lot of common ground.

When SISU came in, I was supportive of them - as I would be of pretty much any new owner - particularly because I expected that they would bring much more rationality and discipline to the running of the business. Hell, I even thought the appointment of Chris Coleman was a good one - young manager, experience of managing in the PL and abroad! I was aware of the "dark side", both generally to hedge funds and specifically to SISU - largely through the postings of LordS - but thought that there was much more likelihood of upside than nightmare......

I had sympathy for them in having to deal with a council (long decision making chains etc) and thought they had a great case for the rent reduction - a strong moral argument, even if it looked like they'd got a pretty weak legal position.

My view started to change when there was the offer to cut the rent from £1.2m to £400k. OK, not as much as they wanted, but more than I'd expected. It might not have come down to the now legendary "League 1 average", but then the 32,000 capacity Ricoh was never quite League 1 average either. At that point, I'd have thought that the time was right to try to finesse that offer, maybe with a lower base figure but some capacity related supplements or something similar, but instead we seemed to move into outright confrontation.

I posted at the time that I was concerned that the "hardball" approach was going to do much more harm than good and - together no doubt with other factors - so it proved.

For me the final straw was the move to Northampton. In my opinion it was totally unnecessary and even worse was the decision to stay there when the "late offers" from ACL came in. Consequently I decided that I wouldn't attend home games until they really were "at home" and that remains (and will remain) my position.

Higgs v SISU Court Document (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency