skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Is this some of the "professionalism" that you're going to bring to the Sky Blue Trust when you're running it?
No I don't. I think your an idiot.
Costs had been incurred and they could have shared them
Professional what !Is this some of the "professionalism" that you're going to bring to the Sky Blue Trust when you're running it?
Mirror, Mirror on the wall.......No I don't. I think your an idiot.
That's what was happening. SISU were paying their costs and Higgs were paying theirs. Then Higgs decided to take SISU to court to get them to pay Higgs costs as well.
No. The agreement was that SISU covered the extra costs of due diligence or whatever -with the view to a sale. The clauses were to ensure that SISU paid Higgs for the work even if the sale didn't go ahead. Several reasons for possible failure were listed to ensure that SISU had to pay for the extra work involved. The judge said that none of them covered what actually happened - both parties losing interest. One could say, ok let's go 50:50 - either Higgs or SISU - neither did. So waste of time lots of bad feeling and costs etc. Question: are SISU better off now than if they had tried to negotiate a fair compromise and in the worse case pay the 30 grand - taking into account SISU need a football stadium in Cov?
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.
I agree about the counter claim, but short of wrongly paying higgs the money, I don't know what sisu could have done to avoid going to court.
I don't get why you're being a like dog with a bone on a tiny issue that was resolved 3 years ago. Its just deflection.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
You're right of course, but if they had paid some or all of the amount without court, maybe just maybe, they could have to started to build bridges.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sisu-v-higgs-court-battle-6916957
Barking up the wrong tree here mart, keep going though. Had sisu paid the £30k it would have made no difference to where we are now because they would have still done the Jr against the council, they'd have still moved to sixfields, the council would have still sold their shares to wasps, wasps would have still bought higgs share and we would still be fucked.
And personally, I wouldn't pay £30k or even £30 to someone I believed shouldnt have to pay, which the judge completely agreed with sisu.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
I
I'm talking about bad strategic decisions and lack of fore sight, been going on since long before austerity.
Sometimes its about a point of principle, had higgs not been a charity they would have made them pay the costs. I agree o have no idea why they needed so many lawyers though.The irony being that there legal possibly bill cost more than £30K to fight it. Especially when you consider they made sure it went to Crown Court with the size of their counter claim and how many were present in their legal team sitting on the bench on the day. Five in total wasn't it? Not sure they had that many for JR itself. What was that all about?
Is this some of the "professionalism" that you're going to bring to the Sky Blue Trust when you're running it?
Sometimes its about a point of principle, had higgs not been a charity they would have made them pay the costs. I agree o have no idea why they needed so many lawyers though.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Sometimes its about a point of principle, had higgs not been a charity they would have made them pay the costs. I agree o have no idea why they needed so many lawyers though.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Tbf, I couldn't remember.The judge ruled that both parties would pick up their own costs. SISU were never given the option to pass their costs over to Higgs. You really shouldn't take Mark Labovich seriously.
The judge ruled that both parties would pick up their own costs. SISU were never given the option to pass their costs over to Higgs. You really shouldn't take Mark Labovich seriously.
I am not in that position. If I was I would not post other than on a separate section on this Forum which would be designated to the Trust and aim to seek responses to ideas and to gauge opinions and take those forward.
For this reason alone he should be appointed NOW !!Given that the chairman or whoever is is has said "say that to my face" in a provocative manner this is an ironic statement.
I am not in that position. IF I WAS I WOULD NOT POST other than on a separate section on this Forum which would be designated to the Trust and aim to seek responses to ideas and to gauge opinions and take those forward.
Also and lets be clear about this, I would not accept the nonsense LAST spouted about all Sixfields attendees kissing Fishers hand. That is devisive and unacceptable. It assist no-one in achieving the ultimate mission statement. He would need to apologise or face exclusion.
Just like to say hi everyone have you missed me.
And lol at this thread !!!!!!
Awesome the Council must be struggling. GPE soon
They thought SISU were payingA charity that spend 30K on legal advice for a deal that never happened is not a particular efficient charity.
Did they?They thought SISU were paying
So using your theory, the council should give sisu some money to prevent court, even thigh they don't need to?You're right of course, but if they had paid some or all of the amount without court, maybe just maybe, they could have to started to build bridges - they are the ones who needed a stadium and the goodwill of people in Coventry. 30000 in this saga is really peanuts. It is done and dealt, but the effects of the whole saga are that we may not have the Ricoh in 2 years and may have to accept investing a smaller stadium for the next few years, making life difficult should we ever be successful again.
Makes no sense - if the deal had been done they'd have paid for themselves.They thought SISU were paying
No, but that may be SISUs aim and there may yet be some compromise ( unlikely though ).So using your theory, the council should give sisu some money to prevent court, even thigh they don't need to?
No I don't. I think your an idiot.
Makes no sense - if the deal had been done they'd have paid for themselves.
Unless of course you're suggesting they never had any intention of doing a deal.....
Did they?
Not really a smoking gun that sisu offered more than Wasps. Its a shame Sisu left it so late in the day to negotiate. Maybe withholding the rent and legal action might not have helped their cause ?
But the agreement obviously didn't cover that situation, so they didn't have to pay.According to the agreement both parties signed.
But the agreement obviously didn't cover that situation, so they didn't have to pay.
I will watch out for you calling for the council to negotiate with sisu to prevent court cases, even though they don't have to.
They decided they didn't have to pay, because they didn't pay...As it happens they didn't have to pay. The court decided that - not SISU. If SISU believed that they didn't have to pay because both sides had lost interest, then they could have pursued that with 1 lawyer in a lower court and without 5 lawyers and a 290000 counterclaim, that was described by the judge as " hopeless ", in a higher court. A - from a reasonable person's point of view - total overkill, time wasting, costly and badwill creating exercise. We are bearing the fruits of such tactics now. Even with Wasps in the Ricoh we should be working with the council to find a solution. It is hardly surprising that CCC is not chomping at the bit to help out though.
They decided they didn't have to pay, because they didn't pay...
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?