lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Soon to be followed with:
"Three weeks"
"Pie money" and "Standard business practice"
There you go, your very own mix and match ccfcway comment kit.
Nice, is that because it's going to be a few years before we come home? Like it.
sisu win and than show mercy to acl
thats nice...real nice.
I think so because they have said they are not insignificant
Soon to be followed with:
"Three weeks"
"Pie money" and "Standard business practice"
There you go, your very own mix and match ccfcway comment kit.
There have been people maligning CCC and ACL all the time and gleefully waiting for the final proof that it is all their fault that CCFC is in the present position. Always seeking an alternative argument to the obvious point that SISU are in charge and that they carry the can. There are now more swear words coming from some posters and their attempts to turn everything against ACL and Higgs are becoming more desperate as the case goes on. I think it is clear that SISU will be shown the door again and then the bitching will really start on here. This is a shame as we all theoretically want CCFC to somehow survive this ignominous reign by SISU.
Is that not the same as significant?
Yes but barristers like to use more words
Which means a lot?
Soon to be followed with:
"Three weeks"
"Pie money" and "Standard business practice"
There you go, your very own mix and match SISU comment kit.
Judge has obviously seen all the evidence and decided accordingly, we've only had tweets but thanks Simon and Rob for those they've been great.
Would be nice if we now got to see the evidence.
Which means a lot?
well, the right side of the fence will soon be confirmed by the judge !
Exciting finish! Only winners are the lawyers. Shows considerable lack of judgement by both sides. Hopefully we as fans are a bit wiser as to what SISU's position is and what their aims are. Generally speaking I am not impressed with their business strategy. It all seems pretty desperate to me and they are not the "hard-nosed" business people that we may have thought, but a rather pathetic bunch of chancers.
Sorry.
The conspiracy has to be after August 2012.
This is when he says both sides lost interest in the deal.
SISU claimed in this they lost interest because of the conspiracy (the same conspiracy that is the crux of the JR)
So I ask again can this case be used in evidence for the JR?
Compare the football threads with the "legal / politics" threads and the posters. Even bloody BHSB and LAST are actually interested in the football and they are mental!
ACL would be putting their hands in their pockets for 290k plus costs if SISU had won.
Their conspiracy case was kicked out in a couple of hours.
let this be a lesson to ACL too
dont be greedy
That is a surprise. Makes you wonder how the HoT was worded then - because it seems clear that the deal wasn't completed within the six week exclusivity period.
Regardless, you've got to trust the judge to make the right decision in law, and I think he's probably right in saying that by August 2012, for whatever reasons, Higgs no longer wanted to deal with SISU.
Tricky to make a call on the costs thing - it could be that SISU know they won't get them so there's no point in pushing, or it could be a genuinely decent act. Maybe SISU are trying to improve their reputation.
As for the JR, is there anything here that helps SISU's case? If they can show that the council deceived the Higgs Trust, maybe that points to less than honest action with SISU too. I think the big problem here, for SISU, is that it's clear they threatened the well-being of ACL as far back as April 2012 and the Council will argue they had a right to protect their investment.
Interesting times ahead!
in football terms we have seen the equivalent of a 0-0 draw with a stonewall penalty denied the home side in the final minute of stoppage time. two sent off for the visitors!
They're not trying to prove a conspiracy!
The thing is, if Higgs had taken them to court and didn't win (ie SISU weren't the ones taking to action), what chance would SISU have of claiming their legal bill for that? I guess the "counter claim" would have muddied it a bit.
The conspiracy has to be after August 2012.
This is when he says both sides lost interest in the deal.
SISU claimed in this they lost interest because of the conspiracy (the same conspiracy that is the crux of the JR)
So I ask again can this case be used in evidence for the JR?
Another interesting fact is that Seppala actually valued the Higgs share in Acl as worthless!
So that's pretty much sisu demanding Higgs hand their share to them for nothing!
Sound familiar?
We won't buy Coventry unless all fans hand in their club shares.
ACL would be putting their hands in their pockets for 290k plus costs if SISU had won.
Their conspiracy case was kicked out in a couple of hours.
We got a taster. Whoever won or didn't win on costs from a fans perspective is irrelevant. What's interesting is how both sides will fare in the Judicial Review, and the evidence we've learned.
I would say that SISU need to keep Laura Deering in a box for the summer to stand a chance
Who is greedy? Did ACL ask for 290000 or SISU?
in football terms we have seen the equivalent of a 0-0 draw with a stonewall penalty denied the home side in the final minute of stoppage time. two sent off for the visitors!
But Higgs did take them to court. In most cases like this I think the judge would have awarded costs to SISU, they were forced to offer at least a defence (though not a counter-claim) and that costs money. I'm surprised that SISU haven't asked for costs.
Both sides must have costs running into five figures here, possibly more.
The argument that the council is protecting their investment is not that strong. I am sure i read that the lease reverts to the council if the leaseholder is insolvent. What are they protecting?
I thought the JR was proving that it was that the council were in the wrong by doing the deal because of legal aid and stuff?
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?