I see your point mate but another season means another 3 million approx. and what business wants that knowing it could actually make money in Coventry. So so silly. I just cant see it but then it easily could happen. we are all living a nightmare.
Clearly got money to burn witht that second bet duffer.
just received the latest odds
CCC win 2/1
SISU Win 2/1
Appeal 1/10
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
Rob, I honestly believe that the owners are not in the slightest bit worried about causing more damage to their relationship with the fans.
just received the latest odds
CCC win 2/1
SISU Win 2/1
Appeal 1/10
TF will probably give another crass estimate of attendance figures, and off they will go chasing their dream.
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
I think everyone expects a clear cut verdict one way or another......
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..
I can see us being at Sixfields for another season while the JR plays out, I am not sure the first review will be the end of it all, obviously while we are playing at Sixfields we will continue to lose money hand over first. I really hope we return to the Ricoh, I genuinely don't want anything else, if it happens before this time next year I will be absolutely shocked.
Rob, I honestly believe that the owners are not in the slightest bit worried about causing more damage to their relationship with the fans.
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
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:
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:
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?