How will CCFC benefit from Sisu /Arvo getting compensation from the JR ?
I am just thinking ahead CCFC are not even listed on the JR. So the way I see it is that compensation would go directly to Sisu Arvo. Does this mean that CCFC will still be saddled with 50-70 million debt ???
I could maybe get on board if I thought that the CCFC debt to Arvo would be cleared !!
Why is that important now?
Isn't it more important what will happen to ACL if the loan is found unlawful and must be repaid?
Why is that important now?
Isn't it more important what will happen to ACL if the loan is found unlawful and must be repaid?
Its important because shouldn't the fans know exactly how CCFC will benefit from this potential windfall ?
Especially when Sisu are using the club as a front for the JR !!
Wouldn't worry.. Think ccc will win easily anyway.
I have no clue if the judge will go further than to order the loan repaid. Any damages would likely be a subject for a seperate hearing. In that case I think it will never go further as the council will be forced into new negotiations with the club.
Still, the judge haven't ruled on the loan yet, so quite premature to start a debate on how sisu will spend money they may or may not be awarded.
Hardly premature with yesterdays article in CET. And you for one are convinced it was an illegal loan.
So I for one would like to know if the money would be used to pay off or reduce existing debt !!!
Hardly premature with yesterdays article in CET. And you for one are convinced it was an illegal loan.
So I for one would like to know if the money would be used to pay off or reduce existing debt !!!
If we can return to planet earth just for one minute I would suggest even if the council loan was deemed illegal its unlikely compensation will be awarded.
Does anyone genuinely believe that if Acl are forced to pay back the loan it will end up with liquidation ?
Also that it will end up with Sisu with the lease and bringing in AEG to run the Ricoh ?
Which in turn will end up with the existing contracts in relation to services to the Ricoh being torn up and lost jobs ?
Does anyone genuinely believe that if Acl are forced to pay back the loan it will end up with liquidation ?
Also that it will end up with Sisu with the lease and bringing in AEG to run the Ricoh ?
Which in turn will end up with the existing contracts in relation to services to the Ricoh being torn up and lost jobs ?
The discretionary nature of the remedies means that even if a court finds a public body has acted wrongly, it does not have to grant any remedy. Examples of where discretion will be exercised against an applicant may include where the applicant’s own conduct has been unmeritorious or unreasonable, for example where the applicant has unreasonably delayed in applying for judicial review, where the applicant has not acted in good faith, where a remedy would impede an authority’s ability to deliver fair administration, or where the judge considers that an alternative remedy could have been pursued.
Sorry but I can't see past this, even the people who ardently agree with SISU's actions agree that they are as much to blame as the council.
No remedy = no forcing of the loan to be repaid or a second hearing for damages
I was agreeing with everything until the very last sentence.
In my understanding - ordering the repaying of the loan is not a remedy but an obligatory action if unlawful state aid is the ruling.
Then I agree again - damages would probably need a seperate hearing, but the judge may rule if he will allow such a hearing or not.
I was agreeing with everything until the very last sentence.
In my understanding - ordering the repaying of the loan is not a remedy but an obligatory action if unlawful state aid is the ruling.
Then I agree again - damages would probably need a seperate hearing, but the judge may rule if he will allow such a hearing or not.
Anyway we know whatever is ruled that one side will appeal, meaning at least another season at sixfields. Another year of our lives lost and no negotiations on a return to Cov.
I would guess the issue on compensation will be that sisu contributed to the issue by not paying rent and so compensation will not be considered.
I was agreeing with everything until the very last sentence.
In my understanding - ordering the repaying of the loan is not a remedy but an obligatory action if unlawful state aid is the ruling.
Then I agree again - damages would probably need a seperate hearing, but the judge may rule if he will allow such a hearing or not.
No the order is a remedy
The following remedies are available in proceedings for judicial review:
Quashing order
Prohibiting order
Mandatory order
Declaration
Injunction
Damages (only available is sought on non-Judicial Review grounds)
These are all remedies (including paying back the loan) if the judge feels SISU's actions caused the council to make the decision. He can rule the decision was wrong, but leave it in place.
No the order is a remedy
The following remedies are available in proceedings for judicial review:
Quashing order
Prohibiting order
Mandatory order
Declaration
Injunction
Damages (only available is sought on non-Judicial Review grounds)
These are all remedies (including paying back the loan) if the judge feels SISU's actions caused the council to make the decision. He can rule the decision was wrong, but leave it in place.
The Judge will have reside over the decision as to why the Council did not take the option to put ACL into Administration as this would have been a better option that would also have meant that they still did not have to deal with SISU and they would not have had to use taxpayers money.
Separately to the above addressing your point is it now an agreed fact that if the council did not refinance the loan ACL would be liquidated?
They could have agreed to a restructuring of the YB loan.
Or followed the roadmap they agreed to.
Or indeed, let ACL go bust.
They had options!
Yes, and I think the CCC QC said that those options were considered, not simply discarded out of hand.
If you read the transcripts ACL going bust was not an option.
They could have agreed to a restructuring of the YB loan.
Or followed the roadmap they agreed to.
Or indeed, let ACL go bust.
They had options!
According to the judge it was very much a commercial option! The actual quote is somewhere in the ACL valuation thread.
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?