How are you parsing that? I don't understand the "liquidate or put club on market" bit.
Are they saying the council pulled out because they thought they'd liquidate or sell? Wouldn't that mean they wanted Sisu around?
Confused.
Early???
How are you parsing that? I don't understand the "liquidate or put club on market" bit.
Are they saying the council pulled out because they thought they'd liquidate or sell? Wouldn't that mean they wanted Sisu around?
Confused.
It depends on the reason for not getting things done, doesn't it?
SISU said they thought the early attempt by ACL
to put the club into administration was ACL trying to prompt regime change
Of course but from what is known at the moment, and of course more will come out in court, a HOT was agreed and then nobody heard from SISU to complete. SISU have said this is because another deal went on behind their back but if that didn't happen until after SISU had walked away I would think that puts a significant dent in SISU's arguement.
Sure when we get to SISUs chap speaking we'll get a very different version of the story so it will most likley come down to who has evidence to back up their claims.
Early attempt ????
How long was it that the rent had not been paid over a year ?
the trouble with this is that people will seize on individual points as they occur when the reality is that we wont have a clearer??? picture until both sides have put their case forward.
Even then it is not guaranteed.
As I understand it the Higgs barrister is doing the talking at the moment so you would have to think he would not be disclosing things that damaged their case.
the trouble with this is that people will seize on individual points as they occur when the reality is that we wont have a clearer??? picture until both sides have put their case forward.
Even then it is not guaranteed.
As I understand it the Higgs barrister is doing the talking at the moment so you would have to think he would not be disclosing things that damaged their case.
Yes - it's about building a narrative.
Trouble is that Higgs barrister are doing one fine job proving sisu's claim towards the JR.
I'm reading it as the motive for loaning the money to ACL wasn't about protecting a public asset......that said, I suppose it doesn't necessarily mean it was about trying to get rid of SISU, but the fact the council themselves have recognised that it may have been one of the outcomes is a big point.
Its all about motives.
That statement doesn't say their motive for lending the money was to force a club sale, it just says what might be an outcome of it.
For the council to lend the money with the intention of getting rid of sisu is illegal.
For the council to lend money that might have a knock on effect to sisu isn't illegal.
For the council to have a preferred owner of the football club isn't illegal.
Yes - it's about building a narrative.
Trouble is that Higgs barrister are doing one fine job proving sisu's claim towards the JR.
What's your point?
I'm reading it as the motive for loaning the money to ACL wasn't about protecting a public asset......that said, I suppose it doesn't necessarily mean it was about trying to get rid of SISU, but the fact the council themselves have recognised that it may have been one of the outcomes is a big point.
Simon Gilbert @TheSimonGilbert 16 mins
Report suggests council thought Sisu might continue to negotiate a Ricoh deal despite council / Ricoh loan buy-out from Yorkshire Bank
from Birmingham, Birmingham
Simon Gilbert @TheSimonGilbert 23 mins
Higgs charity claims Ricoh / council loan restructure took place after exclusivity agreement with Sisu over Ricoh negotiations had expired.
from Birmingham, Birmingham
Simon Gilbert @TheSimonGilbert 26 mins
Report suggests council thought Sisu would liquidate club after council/Ricoh loan deal or could be persuaded to put CCFC on market.
the trouble with this is that people will seize on individual points as they occur when the reality is that we wont have a clearer??? picture until both sides have put their case forward. Even then it is not guaranteed.
As I understand it the Higgs barrister is doing the talking at the moment so you would have to think he would not be disclosing things that damaged their case.
SISU QC up now.
Says Higgs guy spoke for 2.5 hours so there's been a lot said we don't know about!
Court Case Latest
The court in Birmngham this morning heard that SISU boss Joy Seppala would with draw funding from Coventry City Football Club if they were not given the Ricoh Arena.
The claim was made during the court case which sees the Alan Higgs Charity suing SISU for £29k and SISU, who turned up with seven legal representatives, counter-claiming for £290k for costs incurred after talks about buying the Ricoh Arena fell through.
According to the Coventry Telegraph's Simon Gilbert, The Higgs Legal Representative John Brennan said "a strategic meeting was held between Coventry City Council, Higgs and Sisu on April 19, 2012. In that meeting Sisu boss Joy Seppala claimed that Sisu would withdraw CCFC funding unless they could agree a deal for the Ricoh Arena."
Simon Gilbert@TheSimonGilbert12sSisu seeking to add costs of Avro, Sky Blue Sport & Leisure and Otium to those of Sisu Capital as part of counter claim for £290,000
The Otium part of that is interesting. from its incorporation in 2011 through to 31/05/13 then the only costs disclosed in the accounts is interest payable to ARVO and the write down of the loans made to CCFC H (they sourced the money from ARVO). The accounts say they have no employees. So how were there any costs during the period of negotiation with the charity in 2012?
The Otium part of that is interesting. from its incorporation in 2011 through to 31/05/13 then the only costs disclosed in the accounts is interest payable to ARVO and the write down of the loans made to CCFC H (they sourced the money from ARVO). The accounts say they have no employees. So how were there any costs during the period of negotiation with the charity in 2012?
I am trying to keep up with this and realise that Simon's twitter updates are only snippets but I have not seen anything obvious on the summary of the Higgs statements actually regarding the £29k that this is meant to be about. Apologies if I have missed it.
Will both sides need to show their list of costs? Invoices, bills etc?
Will both sides need to show their list of costs? Invoices, bills etc?
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?