Higgs vs CCFC Court Row (5 Viewers)

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
Just got a feeling that this is the start of a quick resolution now.

Would be nice to think so. Unless SISU are confident on winning on a technicality, their evidence and witnesses to date don't seem to point towards certain victory. Loss is unthinkable for them; so common sense has to prevail, surely?
 

Samo

Well-Known Member
Not a wasted day though. We have learned that SISU did not sanction the club's rent withdrawal and that they were gonna donate £2 million to a local charity! :whistle:
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
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.

Although SISU may, as already speculated, have thought this case was a price worth paying. Or, I hope, are trying to be a bit more conciliatory.
 

hill83

Well-Known Member
Would be nice to think so. Unless SISU are confident on winning on a technicality, their evidence and witnesses to date don't seem to point towards certain victory. Loss is unthinkable for them; so common sense has to prevail, surely?

Cheers for quickly putting an end to my thoughts of us coming home.
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
Look like a lot of deflated baloons on display tihis evening. Still I am sure the same experts will judge that the Judicial Review will be lost as well.

This will have cost Higgs a pretty penny. Tut Tut should have done their due dillegence MMM?

What did today cost them?
 

Nick

Administrator
I think a charity has to seek legal advice when someone owes them a debt. Then whatever the legal advice says they have to follow it.

What I mean is, if SISU had claimed their expenses what would the chances be of getting them? Or would the judge have been that fed up of the tit for tat he just told them to just both sort their own out.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
What did today cost them?

According to them taking it to court cost more than £29.000 and also I would assume the costs for their side of the court action.

Nice touch from Sisu to waiver their costs given that would have been significant as they clearly had no case to answer, don't you agree?
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Look like a lot of deflated baloons on display this evening. Still I am sure the same experts will judge that the Judicial Review will be lost as well.

This will have cost Higgs a pretty penny. Tut Tut should have done their due dillegence MMM?

I wouldn't include the top one in your paragraph. To me that's a hammer blow for SISU no conspiracy. Maybe the SBT can take the part of the other conspiring party.

I said in the middle of this thread I will not take too much Glee from this woeful performance from SISU this is just the main targets mate they are bullying.
 

duffer

Well-Known Member
Thats what I mean, so it was quite likely sisu could have had them?

I'd have thought so, unless they've read it that the judge really did think that both sides were as bad as each other and they were wasting their time asking for costs. But then you're in court - what's one more question, 'We would like to seek costs'.
 

blueflint

Well-Known Member
According to them taking it to court cost more than £29.000 and also I would assume the costs for their side of the court action.

Nice touch from Sisu to waiver their costs given that would have been significant as they clearly had no case to answer, don't you agree?


no don't agree i don't see it as a sisu win just a draw to me
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
What I mean is, if SISU had claimed their expenses what would the chances be of getting them? Or would the judge have been that fed up of the tit for tat he just told them to just both sort their own out.

Personally I think no chance as they counter claimed and it was kicked out of hours.

If they had just defended themselves and said ACL also lost interest like us around August I bet they would have got full costs.

Instead they said we still really wanted to do the deal we wanted to pay 2 million to charity for something that is worthless and whilst we were trying to sort that out. Despite having no evidence to show we were still trying to sort it out) ACL had entered a big conspiracy with the council to force us out and get new owners in.
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
I wouldn't include the top one in your paragraph. To me that's a hammer blow for SISU no conspiracy. Maybe the SBT can take the part of the other conspiring party.

I said in the middle of this thread I will not take too much Glee from this woeful performance from SISU this is just the main targets mate they are bullying.

The truth is out there Scully.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
According to them taking it to court cost more than £29.000 and also I would assume the costs for their side of the court action.

Nice touch from Sisu to waiver their costs given that would have been significant as they clearly had no case to answer, don't you agree?

No case to answer tends to get kicked out pretty quickly you know like the first day.

Three days if debating and a judge saying you both list interest. Says there was a case to answer.
 

Samo

Well-Known Member
Does this put an end to "ripping off a poor Coventry Children's charity" ?

I should say so! They were going to pay that charity £2 million for something they'd valued at zero until the silly charity ruined everything!
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Does this put an end to "ripping off a poor Coventry Children's charity" ?

Surely it also puts to bed that deal fell through solely because Sisu walked a way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Does this put an end to "ripping off a poor Coventry Children's charity" ?

Yes it is a fact or me now no longer under debate.

They tried to rip them off for 3.5 million by under valuing their shares whilst not paying the rent. Then announcing in the public that ACL were going out of business
 

Nick

Administrator
So a coventry children's charity haven't been ripped off? In fact, they have only been ripped off by their legal team who advised them to do it and will be paid nicely for this week too?
 

Nick

Administrator
Yes it is a fact or me now no longer under debate.

They tried to rip them off for 3.5 million by under valuing their shares whilst not paying the rent. Then announcing in the public that ACL were going out of business

Making an offer isn't ripping them off is it? I could offer you £1 for your house, that isn't me ripping you off is it? I am not holding a gun to your head am I?
 

Nick

Administrator
Was it said what happened about the Higgs fees for this week and if they would try to claim them? What chance do they have if the reason they were in court wasn't successful?
 

martcov

Well-Known Member
So a coventry children's charity haven't been ripped off? In fact, they have only been ripped off by their legal team who advised them to do it and will be paid nicely for this week too?

Don't forget the counter claim of 290000 which ran up the lawyer's bill.
 

mrtickle

Member
To me, this result makes me think sisu are favourite to win the JR. From what I've read but I could be wrong, Sisu seemed to have shown that the council were trying to get another party to buy the club. Does that not in some way prove the conspiracy?
 

Nick

Administrator
Don't forget the counter claim of 290000 which ran up the lawyer's bill.

Which surely wouldn't have happened if the Higgs hadn't taken them to court? (I am not saying they were right or wrong to take the to court in the first place as I have no idea on what they were advised and what outcome they expected etc)
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
Making an offer isn't ripping them off is it? I could offer you £1 for your house, that isn't me ripping you off is it? I am not holding a gun to your head am I?

But if you incur legal costs in preparing any sale document, only to then be subject of the derisiry bid, you would feel ripped off, no?
 

duffer

Well-Known Member
What's the value of that? What did they pay for their share?

Well, there's all the money they put in to enable the build. Initially around £30m, the £10m grant and £20m loan. (The latter became the mortgage, in effect). It's fronting up that cash that gave them the share in ACL.

And then the actual value of ACL. Higgs put their half at £5m - £7m didn't they. Which would seem to value it then at around £10m - £14m. You can't deny it's an investment, and you can't deny that SISU's actions threatened it.
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
To me, this result makes me think sisu are favourite to win the JR. From what I've read but I could be wrong, Sisu seemed to have shown that the council were trying to get another party to buy the club. Does that not in some way prove the conspiracy?

So the conspiracy was with Haskell?
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
This is the most exciting day of my life!

113.gif


To be fair, I really don't know how I feel about this. But purely from an internet forumming point of view, this is gold.
Surely jr is about state aid not conspiracy
 

Mary_Mungo_Midge

Well-Known Member
To me, this result makes me think sisu are favourite to win the JR. From what I've read but I could be wrong, Sisu seemed to have shown that the council were trying to get another party to buy the club. Does that not in some way prove the conspiracy?

Ha ha. Which bit?
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
first off if SISU have said they wont seek costs against the Charity, as is their right too as defendant against an unsuccessful action, then you have hold your hands up and to say fair enough.

Next the possible implication of what the judge has reportedly said. The deal had failed by the end of August 2012 because of both sides not having an appetite for the deal. If that is the case then harder for SISU to take that deal forward as part of a conspiracy by the stakeholders in ACL to stop them getting ownership of ACL i would have thought. Therefore they are left with the negotiations essentially between SISU and CCC and that proposed deal that the Charity were not part of (Laura Deering said it was a separate deal going on along side the Charity one I believe). The thing about that is though is that the Charity had power of veto (same as CCC) and the judge today has said the Charity had no interest in doing a deal with SISU and there was no legal right to compel the Charity to do the deal. So having got to a non contractual agreement with CCC of some sort the reality is there was actually no deal to be done.

What have we learnt for the JR. Not a lot. There is the apparent "Westgate" but did that kill or prejudice a deal, doesn't look like it from the twitter summaries of what the judge said. Perhaps that SISU are not all conquering in the court .... didn't get beat as such but certainly didn't win or batter anyone. That perhaps things are not or were not all sweetness and light between Charity and CCC so conspiracy is much harder to prove. That a big part of the bigger overall deal was actually dead by end August 2012. Those would appear to be most of the major things

Nothing to do with the Club & fans I know but where does this leave the relationship between Charity and Council at the Ricoh now?

The thing that really bothers me though is that i get the feeling that the clock has just ticked closer to midnight for CCFC

Certainly has not helped to bring the club back to Coventry that's for sure
 

AFCCOVENTRY

Well-Known Member
@TheSimonGilbert: Miss Deering says offer for charity's share was considerably less than agreed in original discussions due to 'increased risk' to Sisu.

@TheSimonGilbert: Ms Deering confirms Sisu thought charity's share was worth nothing.

@TheSimonGilbert: Mr Harris previously claimed original deal was £5.5m for charity's share. New deal around £2million.

@TheSimonGilbert: Higgs barrister asks if Sisu were seriously going to pay £5.5m for share worth nothing. Deering says Seppala recognised Higgs were a charity

@TheSimonGilbert: Justice Leggatt intervenes 'but you're not a charity are you'.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top