Judicial Review date confirmation (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Danceswithhorses
- Start date
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
It does, the thing is negotiations could have been so simple if Sisu had sent someone to buy the Higgs Share, that way then they have access to all the Football Related revenues and can then start to build their foundations using the facillity.
I fear the nightmare is only just beginning, I hope I am wrong.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Judicial Reviews do not have the power to award damages. That would be done by further and separate litigation.
If SISU got an outright victory on the JR I would guess they would make a case for financial damages, loss of trade, damage to the clubs reputation, costs of financing, costs of relocation etc etc plus all the legal and professional fees............. doesn't mean they would win those damages but their case is strengthened if they win JR outright
Of course they could win parts of it ........... there are certain remedies for a JR...... it could simply be the judge says to CCC to look at the process again bearing in mind his advice and see if come up with same solution if they do we are still where we are. If the Judge says the transaction should not have taken place then it all has to be unwound and under EU law CCC could be facing a fine. Then SISU could sue for damages on the parts they won
Of course when the CCC put all their evidence to the court (and they have yet to do so the previous cases did not require them to no matter what some may say, or indeed to agree the details put to the court by the plaintiffs) They could win outright. That leaves SISU with decisions to make but I suspect they could perhaps resort to their weapon of choice in other ways and a lot more litigation take place
If SISU got an outright victory on the JR I would guess they would make a case for financial damages, loss of trade, damage to the clubs reputation, costs of financing, costs of relocation etc etc plus all the legal and professional fees............. doesn't mean they would win those damages but their case is strengthened if they win JR outright
Of course they could win parts of it ........... there are certain remedies for a JR...... it could simply be the judge says to CCC to look at the process again bearing in mind his advice and see if come up with same solution if they do we are still where we are. If the Judge says the transaction should not have taken place then it all has to be unwound and under EU law CCC could be facing a fine. Then SISU could sue for damages on the parts they won
Of course when the CCC put all their evidence to the court (and they have yet to do so the previous cases did not require them to no matter what some may say, or indeed to agree the details put to the court by the plaintiffs) They could win outright. That leaves SISU with decisions to make but I suspect they could perhaps resort to their weapon of choice in other ways and a lot more litigation take place
duffer
Well-Known Member
Happy to stick a tenner on it, edgy.
CCC wins the case, and then wins any subsequent appeal if one is permitted. Not a wind up, it's my honest opinion. Shall we shake on it - loser donates to the winner's chosen charity via something proveable like justgiving, or something like that. At least someone gets something out of this ridiculous mess!
No trickery here. I've got no inside information, just my punt based on what the first judge said and my opinion of what I've seen, all of which is public.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
fans -10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000/1
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
The issue being OSB and it almost fits perfectly on the end of your last statement is that litigation could go on and on for a couple of years, this in itself would cause more damage between the owners and the Fans then there is already.
The first JR hearing dismissed the case too lightly. Which is the reason that we now get a second JR.
The rules that control local and national Government are based on openness and accountability (yes hahaha I know). The first judge acted in a way that could have been seen as not allowing the evidence to come into the public domain, so failing the test for openness.
Does not mean that there is anything 'new' in the evidence from the first hearing.
Court is looking into the actions of CCC not ACL and Not Sisu. The result can only be for or against the actions of the Council. If the court finds against the Council they can't force any action on ACL as it is a private company. The Council can not offer Sisu what they want which is full unencumbered ownership, as the Council and the Court have no power to dissolve separate private companies.
If Sisu losses fully expect appeals, if the Council losses I expect no appeal and for Sisu to turn their legal force against ACL, having seen off the backup.
The result will be interesting for many Councils that have given funding to sports clubs, so if the Council loses expect the wider sporting communities to feel the fall out.
The rules that control local and national Government are based on openness and accountability (yes hahaha I know). The first judge acted in a way that could have been seen as not allowing the evidence to come into the public domain, so failing the test for openness.
Does not mean that there is anything 'new' in the evidence from the first hearing.
Court is looking into the actions of CCC not ACL and Not Sisu. The result can only be for or against the actions of the Council. If the court finds against the Council they can't force any action on ACL as it is a private company. The Council can not offer Sisu what they want which is full unencumbered ownership, as the Council and the Court have no power to dissolve separate private companies.
If Sisu losses fully expect appeals, if the Council losses I expect no appeal and for Sisu to turn their legal force against ACL, having seen off the backup.
The result will be interesting for many Councils that have given funding to sports clubs, so if the Council loses expect the wider sporting communities to feel the fall out.
skyblueinBaku
Well-Known Member
Rob, I honestly believe that the owners are not in the slightest bit worried about causing more damage to their relationship with the fans.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
You got a fair point, but it something they're going to need to think about if they go ahead with the construction of Lego Land..
skyblueinBaku
Well-Known Member
TF will probably give another crass estimate of attendance figures, and off they will go chasing their dream.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
Just opened up a 1st goalscorer market, with a money back special on a SISU Own Goal....
I'd be in more debt than CCFC if I did that one
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
there have not been two JR cases as such .......... the first two hearings were to examine whether there was an arguable case by SISU for there to be a Judicial Review. Does that mean all evidence was presented at the two hearings no but the evidence from SISU's side of things was available for the judge to examine. Neither judge issued anything about who did what ...... one judge felt there was no case after examining the records the second after hearing arguments in court decided there was.
In the interests of common justice it was always likely that the case would be put forward for its day in court
The court application issued by ( SISU ) actually ARVO SBS&L and CCFC H lists CCC as the defendant and lists ACL and AEHC as interested parties
In the interests of common justice it was always likely that the case would be put forward for its day in court
The court application issued by ( SISU ) actually ARVO SBS&L and CCFC H lists CCC as the defendant and lists ACL and AEHC as interested parties
Last edited:
Sky Blue Harry H
Well-Known Member
Yep - Tim Fisher has managed to both overestimate our fans (in terms of numbers at Sixfileds) and underestimate our fans in terms of the stance they have taken. A double whammy, when you add in the high away support this season, it must leave them as confused as us with what to expect next :thinking about:
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I appreciate that, sorry for conflating the JR and any subsequent cases brought.
My point was more how do you make the connection between the loan (which I believe is what the JR is about) and CCFC's status at the Ricoh. It wasn't the loan that forced the rent strike and they've been paying £1.2m for years with no complaint and yet suddenly not buying the Ricoh is a loss?
Seems counterintuitive to me, but as I said nothing would surprise me in our legal system.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
think this is the 1st time i have ever disagreed with you OSB.
Im not sure anyone thinks we will get a clear cut verdict, this is going to run and run
skybluelee
Well-Known Member
They have NO intention of building a new stadium.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
If the club manages to break even (or damn close) at Sixfields, then they'll simply stay there till the FL say that's enough.
That is why a strong boycott is ESSENTIAL if you want the team to come home.
Clearly not, they do not give a stuff.
ccfclinney
Well-Known Member
Can't see any land or any plans to build the new stadium being done before this is sorted ! The 5 year option at sixfields more and more likely
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
For nick If OSB correct then CCC have not put any evidence forward yet. CCC have been silent over the JR but we have heard a lot of allegations from Sisu. Obviously we will have to wait and see.
The preambles to the main course.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/red-button-timely-court-date-6724949
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/red-button-timely-court-date-6724949
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...t-date-6724949
Confused............ why in a case between the Charity and SISU is it that ACL have to disclose its correspondence with CCC (have those two parties been joined in to the counter action against the Charity by SISU?)......... and where is the evidence that it is a knock out blow to the Charity on 1st April? Disclosure happens both ways, so SISU would have made disclosure of many documents to the Charity also that could be equally as damaging or not.
There will have been disclosure in both directions regarding the JR of course but that is a separate action.
The action on 01/04 is not actually about the Ricoh either it is about unpaid fees. Just because the Charity take out the case doesn't mean they will win..... but equally just because SISU challenge with an amount 10 times as big doesn't mean they will win either.
Plus SISU are not now called Otium!? The charity action is not being taken by Otium. CCC did not bankroll the Charities stake in the stadium either. There will be no judgement against CCC on the 1st April in any shape or form. ACL doesn't own the Ricoh it owns a 49year 362 day lease. There was no deal done for SISU to take over the debt - heads of terms are not binding. The Charity can withdraw THEIR asset from sale anytime up to exchange of contract.
I think we all agree that it is the legal profession that profit in this
nothing like getting the facts right though ..............:thinking about:
Confused............ why in a case between the Charity and SISU is it that ACL have to disclose its correspondence with CCC (have those two parties been joined in to the counter action against the Charity by SISU?)......... and where is the evidence that it is a knock out blow to the Charity on 1st April? Disclosure happens both ways, so SISU would have made disclosure of many documents to the Charity also that could be equally as damaging or not.
There will have been disclosure in both directions regarding the JR of course but that is a separate action.
The action on 01/04 is not actually about the Ricoh either it is about unpaid fees. Just because the Charity take out the case doesn't mean they will win..... but equally just because SISU challenge with an amount 10 times as big doesn't mean they will win either.
Plus SISU are not now called Otium!? The charity action is not being taken by Otium. CCC did not bankroll the Charities stake in the stadium either. There will be no judgement against CCC on the 1st April in any shape or form. ACL doesn't own the Ricoh it owns a 49year 362 day lease. There was no deal done for SISU to take over the debt - heads of terms are not binding. The Charity can withdraw THEIR asset from sale anytime up to exchange of contract.
I think we all agree that it is the legal profession that profit in this
nothing like getting the facts right though ..............:thinking about:
Last edited:
Samo
Well-Known Member
I thought SISU asked the judge at the pre JR hearing to force the council to disclose documents relating to the dispute and were refused?
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Link above was broken, this should work http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-date-set-judicial-6726045
Anyway to summarise, it is most likely Jun 10th.
Anyway to summarise, it is most likely Jun 10th.
Last edited:
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The link isn't working but yes, it is frustrating but the whole story from day one is characterised by poor definitions!
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Best guess is that Sisu are going to claim that they pulled out because CCC had gone behind their back. The claim for correspondence will be to look for evidence of said dealings.
The whole thing is a fishing exercise for the JR. Do Higgs legally have to sue to reclaim cash as a charity or could they have left it? If the former I suspect this was Sisus plan all along in not paying and any negotiations with the Higgs were never entered into in good faith.
The whole thing is a fishing exercise for the JR. Do Higgs legally have to sue to reclaim cash as a charity or could they have left it? If the former I suspect this was Sisus plan all along in not paying and any negotiations with the Higgs were never entered into in good faith.
