olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
Agreed (not the old and cynical bit...)
Are you not curious about the deluge of information suddenly coming out of a club this week? The timing the purpose? In the past it has always meant something else has been going on when such things have happened. Perhaps I am getting too old and cynical about all this.
I think SISU are doing a remarkable job in destroying the club.And Lucas would only sell as long as it didn't damage the football club or CRFC.
They are potentially chucking out of the Higgs and CRFC have stated promises haven't been kept.
Still as long as Wasps are doing ok.
Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
Couldn't agree more, as someone who lives away from Coventry I have found this forum
invaluable as a viewer for about 3years ,and been posting since Xmas.
But there's a little " click " on here who behave like a group of schoolboys huddling together
And sniggering at everyone else .pitty really if it was just about the football it would be a good
forum, but this is CCFC and if there is one thing we know about CCFC its that it's hardly ever
about the football.
So you don't see the incompetency of the council in the day to day running of the city?
As I 've always said, no time for SISU, but one day they will be gone. As a Coventry resident I'll always be saddled with the council.
True, but people are getting a tad excited over something that will probably never, ever happen.
I wouldn't get the least bit excited until the first breeze block went in.
So if the ducks were already in a row it is pretty much safe to say that it was pointless CCFC bidding anything as they were always going to accept Wasps bid anyway? So all of the crap about "come and make an offer, it is down to the club" was all a bit cheeky. Somebody from Wasps was posting on here saying that it was always about 100% for Wasps, I very much doubt Wasps would have come here for 50%.
I am more curious about what part Cov Rugby have to play in it, as they seem to have kicked it all off.
Come on Nick. Of course it was all about Wasps getting 100%. They wouldn't come here without getting control and do you honestly see either Wasps or SISU wanting to partner up? That's what I mean about ducks in a row, there was a process to get round potential problems to Wasps getting 100% everything done in a certain order.
CRFC (perhaps CCFC / SISU) I suspect need to attract interest in order to attract finance and gather momentum with or without CCFC. It looks to me that CCFC are pretty keen on this and are at least publically backing away from a deal at the Ricoh. I am just guessing but the first BPA article helped them gauge initial fans reaction and gave some confidence to the scheme. CRFC has since submitted 3 year plans to CCC and it is only right a proper that the leaseholder to the site drives this project ..... at least to begin with
Higgs had an agreement which on the face of it looked reasonable.
The fact I've been prevented from being able to post here
All very interesting but to what purpose nearly 2 years after the event. Why would he have seen it yesterday?
The thing I don't get in all this is, we don't believe Maton, we didn't believe Mutton, we didn't believe Lucas, we don't believe the council, we don't believe Fisher, we don't believe Seppala, we don't believe Sisu, we don't believe Joe Elliot, we don't believe Simon Gilbert, we don't believe the Telegraph, but we believe Kieren Crowley?
Didn't Higgs lose their claim?
yes. did both parties know when they signed that something would happen that wasn't covered? Was there any malice in asking for what appeared on the face of it to be agreed? So they lost a normal claim. What was the 200000 GBP about which the judge said had no chance of succeeding? was that malice or being "a prick" by TF?
Because the repetitiveness comes about because the same points are gone over again and again and again and again.......
If someone (like the forum moderator maybe!?) stood back from posting in such away the problem would be greatly reduced.
If Higgs hadn't taken SISU to court would there have been a counter claim? The simple fact is, that unlike all the other legal action, this wasn't initiated by SISU. It was initiated by Higgs and the court decided the case bought by Higgs was not valid.
So what you're saying is the agreement that was made did not require SISU to pay the bill in the situation that unfolded. Higgs then took them to court to try to get them to pay it anyway but its still SISU who are in the wrong?SISU were asked to pay the bill as agreed.
No there wouldn't have been. SISU were asked to pay the bill as agreed. They didn't. If they felt the bill was not justified they could have said so and suggested a compromise as the situation had not been foreseen by either party. Higgs had incurred costs - in good faith - in preparation for a sale that didn't happen. Most situations were covered by the agreement. It was neither Higgs nor SISUs fault in this case, as both sides lost interest in the deal. Why not say "let's split the costs down the middle and call it a day"? No. Let's make a big deal out of half of 30000 and go to a high court thus raising the stakes and the costs. Let's have a laugh at the old guy's expense and drag some dirt through the courts. Loads of lawyers, loads of costs, loads of bad feeling. What tossers.... and then they go to the same people and say we want to buy your share - here's less than 1% more than Wasps and some waffle about working together. Actually "fuck off" would have been too polite as an answer in this case.
No there wouldn't have been. SISU were asked to pay the bill as agreed. They didn't. If they felt the bill was not justified they could have said so and suggested a compromise as the situation had not been foreseen by either party. Higgs had incurred costs - in good faith - in preparation for a sale that didn't happen. Most situations were covered by the agreement. It was neither Higgs nor SISUs fault in this case, as both sides lost interest in the deal. Why not say "let's split the costs down the middle and call it a day"? No. Let's make a big deal out of half of 30000 and go to a high court thus raising the stakes and the costs. Let's have a laugh at the old guy's expense and drag some dirt through the courts. Loads of lawyers, loads of costs, loads of bad feeling. What tossers.... and then they go to the same people and say we want to buy your share - here's less than 1% more than Wasps and some waffle about working together. Actually "fuck off" would have been too polite as an answer in this case.
Concerning council decisions around CCFC and the Ricoh, I'm sure they were all cross partySo you don't see the incompetency of the council in the day to day running of the city?
As I 've always said, no time for SISU, but one day they will be gone. As a Coventry resident I'll always be saddled with the council.
Spoken like a true fan if CCFCConcerning council decisions around CCFC and the Ricoh, I'm sure they were all cross party
decisions weren't they ! Everyday decisions about running the City is a different matter, every
local authority in the country are having to cut vital services, more so in labour controlled areas
we are not really all in it together. You call it incompetency really it's just trying to make the best
out of a bad lot.
So are you saying that I'm not.Spoken like a true fan if CCFC
So are you saying that I'm not.
Ha Ha came across you before in a different place, you were very much a (junior doctor)No I don't. I think your an idiot.
Concerning council decisions around CCFC and the Ricoh, I'm sure they were all cross party
decisions weren't they ! Everyday decisions about running the City is a different matter, every
local authority in the country are having to cut vital services, more so in labour controlled areas
we are not really all in it together. You call it incompetency really it's just trying to make the best
out of a bad lot.
Can't disagree with that, I visit all of Britain's larger Cities & some smaller ones and CoventryI
I'm talking about bad strategic decisions and lack of fore sight, been going on since long before austerity.
So what you're saying is the agreement that was made did not require SISU to pay the bill in the situation that unfolded. Higgs then took them to court to try to get them to pay it anyway but its still SISU who are in the wrong?
No, they should have negotiated and, if that failed go to court. The 200000 counterclaim was a joke though - although most would come up with a counterclaim in such circumstances - the 200000 was probably to raise the stakes by going to a higher court. PWKH - although tbf I don't know if he is that old - probably younger than me...You are losing it. So sisu should have agreed to pay costs that Higgs were not entitled to?
Who is the "old guy" out of interest?
No, they should have negotiated and, if that failed go to court. The 200000 counterclaim was a joke though - although most would come up with a counterclaim in such circumstances - the 200000 was probably to raise the stakes by going to a higher court. PWKH - although tbf I don't know if he is that old - probably younger than me...
If the attitude is court first, Higgs were the ones taking people to court..
Why would SISU offer to pay if they believed they didn't have to pay them?
Negotiated what though?
"Give us this money"
"No we dont think we need to pay"
If I don't think I owe somebody money, I don't then offer to give them half.
The deal that the costs were incurred for never took place - a good starting point I would have thought.
Of course they said why, they said they weren't paying it because they weren't the sole reason the deal fell apart. Highs disagreed which is why they took sisu to court. The judge agreed with sisu.There was an agreement which they both signed. If they knew that it was no longer valid, did they say why? Why did we have to go to court to find out? How much were their costs? At a guess? The time, the stress and the costs to save a share of the original claim plus the bad blood. Was it worth it? Doubt it. I don't know what Higgs attitude was. Maybe they thought they had a 100% case, but did SISU attempt to negotiate? There are sometimes alternatives to going to court. Most of the things going on are caused by bad blood. Other businesses make compromises - and no, I don't think SISU are always to blame, but the battering people in court attitude seems to be prevalent.
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?