Higgs vs CCFC Court Row (1 Viewer)

Nick said:

If they thought their actions would make sisu leave, safe to say that is pushing them out?

Click to expand...

That's where I'd like more clarification. It seemed to read that Joy had threatened at relegation to liquidate the club should CCC not give them the Ricoh.

Obviously (for whatever reason, let's put a pin in that) CCC decided not to sell the Ricoh, at which point is it not just taking Joy for her word that Sisu might liquidate?

That quote read to me like "She says she'll liquidate, but maybe we can convince her to sell instead to keep the club alive" rather than "If we do this, then she'll leave, and we can bring in Haskell on a white horse MWAHAHAHA!".

It's all about intent, and from the timeline given so far, it seems Joy showed her hand first.

Nick said:

What's on the court agenda tomorrow?

Click to expand...

Might hear from Sisu lady etc. and then Judge passes sentence and tells Sisu to either pay up or the Higgs to go away.

Deleted member 5849 said:

And alas, the football club is probably the sideshow for them all!

Click to expand...

See that I'm not sure I agree with. The motivation, and one connecting thread, for CCC, ACL & Higgs is the city of Coventry and by extension Coventry City. The motivation for Joy is cash, pure and simple. You can be as cynical as you like, but almost every player on the non-Sisu side was a CCFC fan before this started. So I'm not sure both sides do hold the club in such little regard.

But I suppose that makes me a council fanboy.

Grendel said:

It can in Higgs wouldn't agree to it unless the condition was that sisu were aware. Of course that would be a huge issue.

Click to expand...

No one has come up with the idea that SISU could be lying. They seemed to have lied about every thing so far.

shmmeee said:

That's hardly pushing someone out or looking for a new tenant, it's taking someone at their word.

Click to expand...

And that's the problem when Fisher keeps banging on about SISU never posturing, he can't then turn round and say well we didn't really mean it.

spider_ricoh said:

Disagree - SISU threatened to liquidatae if they didn't get the deal, or at least stop funding the club. ACL didn't agree the deal, effectively calling the SISU bluff. It worked as SISU continued to fund ACL.

Click to expand...

Sorry, how is that disagreeing? Sisu threatened to leave if not given the Ricoh, how is that a threat to push Sisu out?

shmmeee said:

Sorry, how is that disagreeing? Sisu threatened to leave if not given the Ricoh, how is that a threat to push Sisu out?

Click to expand...

Interesting theory but if course a rejection of a voluntary CVA is often a catalyst for a company going into liquidation. Remind me, who rejected it that could influence that decision?

Grendel said:

Interesting theory but if course a rejection of a voluntary CVA is often a catalyst for a company going into liquidation. Remind me, who rejected it that could influence that decision?

Click to expand...

Remind me, who intentionally refused to pay a legal debt? A debt I may add that they demonstrably had the money to settle considering their outlay in other areas.

Your memory is conveniently short.

shmmeee said:

See that I'm not sure I agree with. The motivation, and one connecting thread, for CCC, ACL & Higgs is the city of Coventry and by extension Coventry City. The motivation for Joy is cash, pure and simple. You can be as cynical as you like, but almost every player on the non-Sisu side was a CCFC fan before this started. So I'm not sure both sides do hold the club in such little regard.

But I suppose that makes me a council fanboy.

Click to expand...

The use of 'sideshow' was deliberate, in that those were the exact words one of the councillors used not so long ago. "My frustration is that the whole project up at the Ricoh was never just about the football club. It's a regeneration project and the club is, for me, a bit of a sideshow." Am sure that's not the same for all of them, am sure that for some the club is indeed central... but it's not hard to imagine a prevailing trend where councillors just don't care about the football club, as it's not going to get you elected in Binley, say, as easily as pointing to all the nice projects achieved under their watch, that will be coming to a place near you soon.

To get the whole project through in the first place it had to be skewed away from the club, and towards other considerations. Incidentally, it's why I'd always had big big concerns about a US property developer being feted as next owner; not necessarily best for the club, but good for the wider objectives... I'll see your council fanboyism and raise you my SISU plant:facepalm:

And sure, that may be what a council is constrained to do, I understand that it's harder in the current idological climate to subsidise things that maybe, in a civilised society, need subsidising (I work for one myself that sees its subsidy slashed year by year, and asked to turn a profit on something that, intrinsically, can't turn a profit!) but that climate don't help us!

And the problem is, as soon as it becomes about the cash rather than the culture, it becomes harder to then suggest that SISU shouldn't be about cash, either. They shouldn't be, incidentally, a football club's about more than cash.

The quote about Seppala threatening to stop funding the club, for example, could easily be taken from another perspective. If you've funded a loss making club for a number of years while you see your landlords move into profit, isn't it reasonable to empathise with the thought that goes 'look, we really have to agree a deal for this, because I can't do it on my own?' The fact ACL baulked at the thought of subsidising the club and taking over demonstrates clearly that it really doesn't work. It needs radical change.

Unfortunately, it then became ideological, with Mutton's crazed statements, followed by equally OTT backing up in return from SISU.

Doubly unfortunately, Mutton has been (thankfully) removed, but there's been little in the way of the olive branch in return. There's been some kind of prisoner exchange with Fisher going silent, but Labovitch coming to the forefront... although tbh he's making me wish Fisher had stayed in the forefront(!)

It depends what you call 'city fan' too. Some, undoubtedly. Some, such as Anne Lucas, spent a lot of time being derided by city fans, in fact, for sticking to her principles.

There are some others who the thought remains they became city fan due to circumstance... and it suits them to play that particular tune. That's not the likes of Lucas or, for that matter, Mutton - who I can gladly accept maybe allowed his professionalism to slip because he was a city fan.

But it sure as hell ain't all the decision makers, it just suits the rhetoric to present that.

Good old Robinson was a city fan, incidentally...

shmmeee said:

Remind me, who intentionally refused to pay a legal debt? A debt I may add that they demonstrably had the money to settle considering their outlay in other areas.

Your memory is conveniently short.

Click to expand...

Er no. I am merely pointing out that the last thing I would expect a company to do that is concerned about an organisation that may go into liquidation is to conduct a process that will do that. Unless a Yankee Doodle dandy is waiting in the wings.

If you raised an ainistrafiom order as you expressed threat to the company as the tenant was threatening liquidation would you then reject an opportunity to exit administration under due process via a court approved administrator unless you actually agreed liquidation was an acceptable option?

Grendel said:

Yes but the point is why do it? Did it influence Higgs decision - would they have not agreed to transfer the loan to the Council without West confirming this?

I also assume you are outraged at a councillor lying to a charity? Yes?

Click to expand...

Get your facts right, he is a council officer not a councillor.

No future with SISU said:

Get your facts right, he is a council officer not a councillor.

Click to expand...

Oh ok so if he lies to a charity you are ok with that? So if that's ok I assume lying to a charity is ok from anyone - yes?

Grendel said:

Oh ok so if he lies to a charity you are ok with that? So if that's ok I assume lying to a charity is ok from anyone - yes?

Click to expand...

well apparently not paying one seems to be ok !

Astute said:

I am hoping and looking forward to Timothy taking to the stand. He would have to tell the truth and not spin his way through the questions. We could find some good stuff out. And so far it looks like we have had nothing but the truth so lies from him would stand out.

Grilled Fish sounds good

Click to expand...

Well I'm sure if on oath someone said Timothy assured them he'd told someone something and it transpired he didn't you'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

Would you?

ccfcway said:

well apparently not paying one seems to be ok !

Click to expand...

Surely the judge makes that decision? Or are you the judge?

Nick said:

If they thought their actions would make sisu leave, safe to say that is pushing them out?

Click to expand...

Is not been forced into something yourself pushing someone else out?

Grendel said:

Well I'm sure if on oath someone said Timothy assured them he'd told someone something and it transpired he didn't you'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

Click to expand...

At the moment we only have two sides of the story. SISU have said they didn't know, Higgs have said they were told SISU did know. The key will be what the chap from the council says. He may say he told them verbally in which case its one persons word against another. He may say he informed them formally and produce evidence of that.

Of course at the moment both SISU and Higgs could be telling the truth.

I think looking at track records if you had to pick who you would be most likely to be truthful out of SISU or Higgs you would pick Higgs as they have yet to be found to have been untruthful during the whole process whereas SISU have regularly been found to be somewhat lacking on the truth front before you consider things like SISU claiming not to have received other information such as the lower rent offer.

Grendel said:

Oh ok so if he lies to a charity you are ok with that?

Click to expand...

Surely the judge makes that decision? Or are you the judge?

Grendel said:

Oh ok so if he lies to a charity you are ok with that? So if that's ok I assume lying to a charity is ok from anyone - yes?

Click to expand...

You are certainly making a big thing out of something that we don't know the truth about. All we know is that he said that he let SISU know.

chiefdave said:

At the moment we only have two sides of the story. SISU have said they didn't know, Higgs have said they were told SISU did know. The key will be what the chap from the council says. He may say he told them verbally in which case its one persons word against another. He may say he informed them formally and produce evidence of that.

Of course at the moment both SISU and Higgs could be telling the truth.

I think looking at track records if you had to pick who you would be most likely to be truthful out of SISU or Higgs you would pick Higgs as they have yet to be found to have been untruthful during the whole process whereas SISU have regularly been found to be somewhat lacking on the truth front before you consider things like SISU claiming not to have received other information such as the lower rent offer.

Click to expand...

Yes I am sure that's what you would say.

More pertinently I'm sure if the council announced the world was flat you'd start a thread advising anyone who has booked a round the world cruise to cancel it.

ccfcway said:

Surely the judge makes that decision? Or are you the judge?

Click to expand...

Oh is west on the stand tomorrow then?

Astute said:

You are certainly making a big thing out of something that we don't know the truth about. All we know is that he said that he let SISU know.

Click to expand...

I thought Simon Gilbert's jaw dropped at that point. Why if its not a big thing?

Grendel said:

Yes I am sure that's what you would say.

More pertinently I'm sure if the council announced the world was flat you'd start a thread advising anyone who has booked a round the world cruise to cancel it.

Click to expand...

More pertinently I'm sure that if SISU announced they were building a new stadium you would advise everyone on a thread that you had started going to Northampton.

Grendel said:

Yes I am sure that's what you would say.

More pertinently I'm sure if the council announced the world was flat you'd start a thread advising anyone who has booked a round the world cruise to cancel it.

Click to expand...

pseudo-intellectual drivel

Grendel said:

I thought Simon Gilbert's jaw dropped at that point. Why if its not a big thing?

Click to expand...

Could end up being a big thing. But the bloke can't be taken as guilty before he speaks.

Look at what SISU have done to our club. Yet you say they are not guilty but it is the fault of CCC. Yet SISU get caught out bullshitting frequently. You would need the 100% proof before you see SISU as guilty.

Deleted member 5849 said:

*snip*

Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you say, I guess my point is more that the main players will have Coventry at heart. They may see it as a route to improving the wealth of the City (and why not) but a successful club is still the aim. For Sisu a successful club is a nice side effect if it happens, but secondary to the money. As you admit, Mutton and Lucas, the two with (according to some) ultimate power on that side, along with the whole Higgs setup, are City fans.

Therefore it seems reasonable to me that when you have to decide between he said she said and gut feeling, it makes sense to come down on that side. I want what's best for the club, I'm going to side with those I see who have that aim at heart. And yes, I'd extend that to others who have been involved and been City fans, regardless of what you may think. I'm not saying everyone makes perfect decisions, I'm saying I'd rather (considering no one is perfect) have someone make a bad decision from good intentions, than a bad decision from bad intentions. At least with the former, you'd hope they'd learn their lesson rather than be encouraged.

Grendel said:

Er no. I am merely pointing out that the last thing I would expect a company to do that is concerned about an organisation that may go into liquidation is to conduct a process that will do that. Unless a Yankee Doodle dandy is waiting in the wings.

If you raised an ainistrafiom order as you expressed threat to the company as the tenant was threatening liquidation would you then reject an opportunity to exit administration under due process via a court approved administrator unless you actually agreed liquidation was an acceptable option?

Click to expand...

Again, you memory is short. The process started at least with Sisu withholding rent, arguably with Joy's threat on relegation, at worst with the refusal to pay before admin.

If I hold a gun to your head and say if you don't do X I'll shoot you, it's murder, not suicide.

Grendel said:

Well I'm sure if on oath someone said Timothy assured them he'd told someone something and it transpired he didn't you'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

Would you?

Click to expand...

I'd wait to at least see what Timothy said in reply. And then I'd question what on earth it's got to do with anything TBH.

wingy said:

Does that last line indicate certainty ,and push out SISU from what exactly.

Click to expand...

Well if you believe Harris and PWKH, it doesn't sound as though AEHC and CCC could agree on much, so it rather knocks down the consipiracy theory that Labovitch in particular has been spouting.

Grendel said:

Ah subject change.

Why? Starting to feel the heat?

Click to expand...

£50m invested now playing in a northampton shed, SISU must be feeling the heat

No future with SISU said:

£50m invested now playing in a northampton shed, SISU must be feeling the heat

Click to expand...

So the tenure if your argument is Northampton have an inferior ground - a "shed". So if they had a superior ground the temporary relocation would have your seal of approval?

duffer said:

Well if you believe Harris and PWKH, it doesn't sound as though AEHC and CCC could agree on much, so it rather knocks down the consipiracy theory that Labovitch in particular has been spouting.

Click to expand...

But it makes one other argument very strong doesn't it?

Grendel said:

More pertinently I'm sure if the council announced the world was flat you'd start a thread advising anyone who has booked a round the world cruise to cancel it.

Click to expand...

What the hell are you on about?

At the moment we have one side, who have been proven to be untruthful on more than one occasion, saying one thing and we have the other side, who have never been proven to be untruthful saying something different. Why on earth would anyone presented with those two options decide the most likely side to be telling the truth is the one who have been found to be less than truthful in the past?

How on earth you get from that to announcing the world is flat i have no idea!

shmmeee said:

I agree with a lot of what you say, I guess my point is more that the main players will have Coventry at heart. They may see it as a route to improving the wealth of the City (and why not) but a successful club is still the aim. For Sisu a successful club is a nice side effect if it happens, but secondary to the money. As you admit, Mutton and Lucas, the two with (according to some) ultimate power on that side, along with the whole Higgs setup, are City fans.

Click to expand...

It's equally fair to say however, that it's in our owners' interests to have a successful football club. That may be for the 'wrong' motivations, but despite the most scurrilous rumours, failure hasn't been planned. The money may have been spent wrongly on a quick gamble with players, the foundations may have been neglected, they may have seen the club as a route to improving the wealth of their investors (and why not) but a successful club has still been the aim.

The club... should come first. I can understand it not coming first in a council with a wider objective, I can understand it not coming first in an investment fund with a wider objective... the saddest thing for me is that on a message board for Coventry City Football Club, even in the last bastion where the club should be central, it often isn't. It often reads to me that it's secondary to much of what's posted here, too... and if the club can't be made central here, where can it? Why is there a limited push to make the club come first not just in the eyes of SISU, but elsewhere too? It may be a futile aim, but why isn't that at least attempted? What is lobbying if there is no lobbying for that which should be lobbied for?

Also, Mutton and Lucas don't have the absolute power. I thought it had become apparent this was where Lucas's attempts at resolving the conflict fell down, as she wasn't in a position to make decisions by herself? (Incidentally, I'd be somewhat concerned if she could but then this is where the bipolar nature of so much comes in - I can quite happily say it's ridiculous for SISU to expect resolution by sure, swift, one-off meetings! Being critical of some elements doesn't make me a SISU plant in the slightest!)

As for other city fans who have shown themselves incompetent, repeatedly (such as Joe Elliott) then they should never darken the club's doors again. I don't care how well intentioned, his track record is either incompetent or... worse. What's best for the club is all failures of the past to have nothing to do with the club in the future. They have all had their chance, and blown it.

Clean slate, root and branch surgery. Drastic change so all those who have helped destroy the club don't get a chance to do it again.

And again.

And again.

Anyway, Masterchef's on now. I may have no football club, but I can at least watch presenters gurn ridiculously while people come up with (s)wanky dishes for them!

duffer said:

Well if you believe Harris and PWKH, it doesn't sound as though AEHC and CCC could agree on much, so it rather knocks down the consipiracy theory that Labovitch in particular has been spouting.

Click to expand...

glad you cleared that up .

the way you phrased It left It a tad ambiguous .

Re MUTTON For NW and others ,he was Flooded with E-mails at the time he was making comments in public that were personal and should never have been made as a council leader.

shy_tall_knight said:

SISU's expertise is in the court room, I think from what I've read the £29k & £290k counter-claim are a smokescreen to flush out into the public domain information that will help their case in the JR in a few months. Not sure how this will help them but although I despise them for moving the club to Northants I expect that they have a tactic and will achieve their objectives - their tactics and objectives will become clearer over the next few months.

Click to expand...

You think they will achieve their objectives, let us look at how far they have got. We will close the club down if you do not give us the RICOH (playing in league one at northampton). Defending a court case for £29,000 which they can not pay, no sign of a new stadium.So called £50m invested and in third tier of english football. How much did Liverpool spend on players in the last 5 years.

Deleted member 5849 said:

It's equally fair to say however, that it's in our owners' interests to have a successful football club.

Click to expand...

I'm yet to be convinced of that.