Judicial Review thread (1 Viewer)

RPHunt · Jun 10, 2014

I fear that SISU winning this JR, however unlikely, could be very bad news for CCFC.

The latest rental offer would surely have to be revised and not just because ACL may have higher interest payments on a refinanced loan. If the loan to ACL is considered as 'state aid', then surely any rental agreement between ACL and CCFC would have to show that it did not contravene these laws and was set at 'market rate'. Setting a rent at 'market rate', to satisfy the EU bean counters, might be difficult, but there are a few starting points:

1. The owners have stated their intention to build a new ground, so one starting point for rental could be the annual cost of financing a new ground.

2. CCFC, at the moment, rent a ground that does not give them exclusive access and is many miles from their fanbase. So exclusive access to a ground more than 4 times larger, with better facilities and more easily accessible to the fanbase could be expected to charge many times the current rental.

So using these starting points, it could be argued that 'market rate' should be in excess of £1m. (Before any one says 'what about this or that council', the EU are already looking at a number of local authority deals with football clubs).

A similar test would have to be applied should a sale of ACL and/or the Ricoh to SISU/CCFC be contemplated.

So quite what SISU expected to gain from this whole muddled process is beyond me, but everything they have done since arriving (and even before) smacks of poor judgement and incompetence.

SimonGilbert · Jun 10, 2014

Rob S said:
WRONG! Did not dismiss a similar argument. Judge dismissed the claim that Higgs was obliged (through agreed terms) not to negotiate with other parties and that the prospective deal had likely fallen apart by Aug 2012 for several reasons inc. council vetoing any deal on Higgs share of ACL.

Strange that I received a text message about this with almost identical wording from Mr Labovitch around the same time as this post...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TheOldFive · Jun 10, 2014

I have a feeling the Sisu "Smoking Gun" is going to be a fuzzy long lens photo of Preston Haskell VI chugging a brewski with Mutton et al in the Prawn at the Ricoh.

I'd say "but seriously" except the more I think about it the more I think it might be true.

In other news - Can anyone explain if the Sisu Brief says today "The club was being funded when the council had no commitment to the project at all"... He is then going to revert to the Council committing to "State Aid" when he eventually gets to the point?

olderskyblue · Jun 10, 2014

SimonGilbert said:
Strange that I received a text message about this with almost identical wording from Mr Labovitch around the same time as this post...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

well, clearly, Rob tipped ML off.....

TheOldFive · Jun 10, 2014

I think it's been admitted already that Rob S on here is Mr Labovitch - have I remembered that correctly?

TheOldFive · Jun 10, 2014

About here is good.

TheOldFive · Jun 10, 2014

Grendel said:
If its more than 6 it beats the number who hold the football league accountable.

I've been away. Are you saying 6 people turned up to demo at FL HQ?

Nick · Jun 10, 2014

TheOldFive said:
I think it's been admitted already that Rob S on here is Mr Labovitch - have I remembered that correctly?

He isn't, 2 different people.

TheOldFive · Jun 10, 2014

shmmeee said:
I think to be honest mate, most people didn't see what you did other than hold a protest against the council when the majority felt the ball wasn't in their court.

You claim you're the only one pressuring all sides, but I know for a fact that's bollocks as the Trust have been doing it since day 1, until the club stopped talking to them.

You also hide your links to Reid, and by association Sisu, while claiming to be unbiased. And that's before today's antics on this thread towards OSB. The one thing that makes GCBTTR stand out from KCIC and SBT is the complete lack of transparency, the lack of fan engagement and the one sided protesting.

Can you really blame people if they don't think you're 100% balanced (in both senses of the word)? The weak claim of "Oh I'm filling gaps in the market" was never going to wash.

I'm sure you're a good bloke who's just taken his mate's word for a few things and been a willing pair of ears for some others, but surely you can see the mistakes you made if the aim was to move things forward? Or did you genuinely think more secrecy and division was the answer?

As the absolutely and certifiably ONLY person I know who favours no side in this whole escapade I can tell you with the greatest of respect you are ALL partial one way or another. As supporters though it is perfectly legitimate to embrace diversity of opinion and celebrate our differences, not be divided by them. We should have as many protest groups and factions as possible bickering and trading internecine brickbats. The concept of Unity is over-rated, and possibly could be construed as an attempt at forming an anti-Sisu protest Cartel ultimately worthy of a Judicial Review in itself.

TheOldFive · Jun 10, 2014

Nick said:
He isn't, 2 different people.

Do we have photographic evidence? It should be sought out, perhaps a new campaign thread. Now we have Joy tagged I think we need another wild goose chase to distract us from all the head-hurty legal stuff.

martcov · Jun 10, 2014

SimonGilbert said:
Strange that I received a text message about this with almost identical wording from Mr Labovitch around the same time as this post...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you get an email on this one, or similar, from M.L.? It is referring to the "conspiracy" between Higgs and CCC. Was it corrected by CT and, if so, how? and indeed why? The judge made it plain that Higgs was not involved in a conspiracy - therefore neither was CCC. CCC cannot conspire with itself, so the CT was right.

From RobS: Useful that you've pulled out this. In Keith Perry's CT article today

Sisu are claiming the council’s decision to make the loan (to be repaid over 40 years) was irrational and motivated by a desire to “drive Sisu out of Coventry and force Sisu to sell to new owners”.

The conspiracy argument was also made in last month’s Higgs v Sisu court case and rejected by the judge as “misplaced”.

Quite serious to misquote a judge. He did not say that claims the council were involved in a conspiracy were misplaced.

Hopefully the Cov Tel will correct this as it is very serious to misrepresent a High Court judge. They don't tend to like that kind of thing

Sky Blue Kid · Jun 10, 2014

RegTheDonk said:
What is this "project" he's referring to? If he means CCFC then surely that belongs to SISU and its up to them to fun/run it? I don't understand why, if it is CCFC, the council should have any reason or responsibility to fund it. Again, and I must be thick, because I can't see why all this whinging and talking about ACL's value has any bearing on the issue of state aid. If CCC were out of order, does it matter how much they paid? I would have thought that if YB were owed X amount of money, they want that money to be paid, regardless of the worth of the product. If I'd had a mortgage before the bubble burst and I was in negative equity, the Halifax wouldn't allow me to re-mortgage to the current value of the house and let me off the difference surely? Not a crime at all, but many people believe Les lost his impartiality once he'd interviewed Joy ... his "reports" after that did seem to change from reporting facts to offering opinions which favored SISU's point of view.

Also the "Blocking" of any "Tweet" from a multitude of "Followers" on Twitter that remotely disagreed with any of his "Reporting or personal views"

King of the Lesbians · Jun 10, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
I gave up reading at page 41 as it had descended into who's the biggest rent boy.

Any place I should bother picking it up again from?!?

#679

Frisky blue · Jun 10, 2014

For Grendel

You really are a twat, why should they offer loans to "all private companies"?
You actually stated that they "happen to part own" ACL !
Did you not notice the clue to the answer, in your question?
I will help you, they part fucking own ACL !
Fucking moron! That is why.

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 10, 2014

King of the Lesbians said:
#679

It was indeed a cracker.

Frisky blue said:
You really are a twat, why should they offer loans to "all private companies"?
You actually stated that they "happen to part own" ACL !
Did you not notice the clue to the answer, in your question?
I will help you, they part fucking own ACL !
Fucking moron! That is why.

Jack Griffin · Jun 10, 2014

Rob S said:
My goal is getting the club back to the Ricoh.

My hope is we get rid of SISU.. much better for CCFC in my opinion.

SkyBlueSid · Jun 10, 2014

Frisky blue said:
You really are a twat, why should they offer loans to "all private companies"?
You actually stated that they "happen to part own" ACL !
Did you not notice the clue to the answer, in your question?
I will help you, they part fucking own ACL !
Fucking moron! That is why.

It might be simplistic, but that's the way I look at it too. They have a vested interest in the company, as they own half, so they make sure it survives.

It's like when I helped my daughter out when she wanted her own house. You help where you can, either with loans or providing s deposit. I was happy to do it for her, but I'm buggered if I'm going to help out anyone else.

Godiva · Jun 10, 2014

I don't think there will be any bomb shell tomorrow.

It seems that the most important information sisu QC has presented today (without having read court transcripts!) is the fact the YB was willing to keep loaning ACL (providing they restructured the long lease).
This means there was at least one private bank who would loan ACL the money - so there was no grounds for state aid.
The point about CCC could have just pulled the plug on ACL and start a fresh also tries to prove there were different options.

All the replay stuff from Higgs vs sisu could be more about potential damages.

skybluetony176 · Jun 10, 2014

key points from the club are now on the offal http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/...ity-coventry-city-council-100614-1629325.aspx

Kingokings204 · Jun 10, 2014

I think we can all agree this whole saga getting to a JR is an act of folly.

How the frig did we get to this situation?

P.s I love the way in the ccfc website it states how they dropped 2 of the 4 cases. Of course they did lol

2nd p.s how was any of today linked to a illegal state aid? It baffles me. From my angle is what a he said she said little playground spat. Bet the judge has gone home and pissed his pants.

Jim · Jun 10, 2014

As I've pointed out to Grendel previously, ACL is not a private company as CCC part own it.

Any parent undertaking is entitled to provide a loan to its own company at preferential rates. It happens all the time.

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 10, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
key points from the club are now on the offal http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/...ity-coventry-city-council-100614-1629325.aspx

Regardless of rights and wrongs, you know the club's utterly fucked when that ends up the main news story on the site!

We need more vacuous soundbytes about WIlson, and looking for players to strengthen.imp:

AndreasB · Jun 10, 2014

shmmeee said:
Who elected Rob?

Where are the minutes of GCBTRR's meetings?

Where are the open meetings?

Cmon dude, you can have a lot of complaints about the Trust, but lack of transparency and fan engagement isn't one if them. You can make all the insinuations you like about my Dad, but the fact is he's a City fan first and was asked to help out considering his experience. Would you turn it down?

Talking to Reid isn't a thought crime, but Reid stuck his flag clearly in the Sisu camp early on, and the anti-council camp even earlier. I just find the whole "We're 'independent'" (implying others aren't) crap laughable.

Like I say, I'm sure Rob's a lovely bloke (well, I was until this thread ) and a City fan at heart, but he really can't complain if people get the wrong impression about his group considering the actions they've taken and the company they keep. If that's a good enough reason for Rob to throw allegations and rumours about about others, why not him?

But overall, my point was: did we really need another fans' group? What has been achieved other than a bit more division? Which I'm sure wasn't his aim, though I suspect it may have been the aim of a few who have his ear.

Your Dad? I genuinely didn't know. If that I was my dad I would be very proud of his achievements and rightly so. Seriously.
Not sure it makes you the most impartial of observers though and I thought your attack on Rob was a bit mean spirited, needlessly personal and a bit beneath your usual intelligent approach.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AJB1983 · Jun 10, 2014

Surprised they feel the need to put it on the website considering the amount of disclosure of events on twitter and forums like this.
Oh wait it's so the CCFC/sisu side can be put across

SkyblueBazza · Jun 10, 2014

Frisky blue said:
You really are a twat, why should they offer loans to "all private companies"?
You actually stated that they "happen to part own" ACL !
Did you not notice the clue to the answer, in your question?
I will help you, they part fucking own ACL !
Fucking moron! That is why.

"Frisky"??? Struth!

Calm down man...don't let it get to you so

PUSB

AJB1983 · Jun 10, 2014

Nick said:
He isn't, 2 different people.

2 different people or 2 different email/IP addresses?

ladespiser · Jun 10, 2014

Sisu have had a very productive day today. I expect the judges words may have caused some to feel positive, however he made it clear the issue here is whether the council used public moneys unlawfully. the rest of the evidence is purely theater and background, if SISU look bad it will make no difference to the outcome, so forget the comments on non payment of rent.

If you look at the law on the use of public monies in private business there are two elements the judge is going to find in the favor of SISU.

First the council must hold public open meetings and inform the public of the intention to put the money into the private business - giving the people the opportunity to object (that would have prolonged the issue and protracted the situation for ACL so you can see why they kept it all secret)
secondly, the money must be accountable, in other words used in a correct and moral basis, ACL were on the ropes, (yes by SISUs actions) but that's business, SISU took action to make a hostile takeover of ACL, council funds -peoples taxes are not used morally simply to prop up a business the council has an interest in

public expenses are not the same as private money and therefore the rules on it are stringent.

My guess is the outcome will be a win for SISU, only because the judge has his hands tied by the law. He has to arrive at the conclusion the council acted unlawfully. He will slate SISU for their aggressive tactics in bringing down ACL by not paying rent, but essentially at the end of the day SISU are looking strong to win, on the information available in the past however long this saga has been going on.

The evidence about Anne Lucas (if accepted as true by the court) is very damning evidence it really is, Mutton said the same thing openly. That showed the council had no intention of allowing the club to by into the stadium... hence the council had an ulterior motive to use public funds - without the public knowledge. The emails prove the matter was kept secret..

all in all a bad day for the council

AJB1983 · Jun 10, 2014

ladespiser said:
Sisu have had a very productive day today. I expect the judges words may have caused some to feel positive, however he made it clear the issue here is whether the council used public moneys unlawfully. the rest of the evidence is purely theater and background, if SISU look bad it will make no difference to the outcome, so forget the comments on non payment of rent.

If you look at the law on the use of public monies in private business there are two elements the judge is going to find in the favor of SISU.

First the council must hold public open meetings and inform the public of the intention to put the money into the private business - giving the people the opportunity to object (that would have prolonged the issue and protracted the situation for ACL so you can see why they kept it all secret)
secondly, the money must be accountable, in other words used in a correct and moral basis, ACL were on the ropes, (yes by SISUs actions) but that's business, SISU took action to make a hostile takeover of ACL, council funds -peoples taxes are not used morally simply to prop up a business the council has an interest in

public expenses are not the same as private money and therefore the rules on it are stringent.

My guess is the outcome will be a win for SISU, only because the judge has his hands tied by the law. He has to arrive at the conclusion the council acted unlawfully. He will slate SISU for their aggressive tactics in bringing down ACL by not paying rent, but essentially at the end of the day SISU are looking strong to win, on the information available in the past however long this saga has been going on.

The evidence about Anne Lucas (if accepted as true by the court) is very damning evidence it really is, Mutton said the same thing openly. That showed the council had no intention of allowing the club to by into the stadium... hence the council had an ulterior motive to use public funds - without the public knowledge. The emails prove the matter was kept secret..

all in all a bad day for the council

Thanks for that Tim/Mark....

AJB1983 · Jun 10, 2014

SimonGilbert said:
Strange that I received a text message about this with almost identical wording from Mr Labovitch around the same time as this post...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You'll have to take a cheeky peek at tim fishers or mark labovitchs phone and see if they're on sky blue talk tomorrow.....

Kingokings204 · Jun 10, 2014

ladespiser said:
Sisu have had a very productive day today. I expect the judges words may have caused some to feel positive, however he made it clear the issue here is whether the council used public moneys unlawfully. the rest of the evidence is purely theater and background, if SISU look bad it will make no difference to the outcome, so forget the comments on non payment of rent.

If you look at the law on the use of public monies in private business there are two elements the judge is going to find in the favor of SISU.

First the council must hold public open meetings and inform the public of the intention to put the money into the private business - giving the people the opportunity to object (that would have prolonged the issue and protracted the situation for ACL so you can see why they kept it all secret)
secondly, the money must be accountable, in other words used in a correct and moral basis, ACL were on the ropes, (yes by SISUs actions) but that's business, SISU took action to make a hostile takeover of ACL, council funds -peoples taxes are not used morally simply to prop up a business the council has an interest in

public expenses are not the same as private money and therefore the rules on it are stringent.

My guess is the outcome will be a win for SISU, only because the judge has his hands tied by the law. He has to arrive at the conclusion the council acted unlawfully. He will slate SISU for their aggressive tactics in bringing down ACL by not paying rent, but essentially at the end of the day SISU are looking strong to win, on the information available in the past however long this saga has been going on.

The evidence about Anne Lucas (if accepted as true by the court) is very damning evidence it really is, Mutton said the same thing openly. That showed the council had no intention of allowing the club to by into the stadium... hence the council had an ulterior motive to use public funds - without the public knowledge. The emails prove the matter was kept secret..

all in all a bad day for the council

Now there is 3 Rob S'.

Seriously is this post for real? Has to be a wind up.

dongonzalos · Jun 10, 2014

Godiva said:
I don't think there will be any bomb shell tomorrow.

It seems that the most important information sisu QC has presented today (without having read court transcripts!) is the fact the YB was willing to keep loaning ACL (providing they restructured the long lease).
This means there was at least one private bank who would loan ACL the money - so there was no grounds for state aid.
The point about CCC could have just pulled the plug on ACL and start a fresh also tries to prove there were different options.

All the replay stuff from Higgs vs sisu could be more about potential damages.

The key thing I would say that stands out, is that the judge felt the decision was taken because SISU withheld the legally owed debt.
That makes SISU's conduct conducive to the decision they dispute.
That now gives the judge an option to not apply a remedy if he finds in SISU's favour.

ccfcway · Jun 10, 2014

ladespiser said:
Sisu have had a very productive day today. I expect the judges words may have caused some to feel positive, however he made it clear the issue here is whether the council used public moneys unlawfully. the rest of the evidence is purely theater and background, if SISU look bad it will make no difference to the outcome, so forget the comments on non payment of rent.

If you look at the law on the use of public monies in private business there are two elements the judge is going to find in the favor of SISU.

First the council must hold public open meetings and inform the public of the intention to put the money into the private business - giving the people the opportunity to object (that would have prolonged the issue and protracted the situation for ACL so you can see why they kept it all secret)
secondly, the money must be accountable, in other words used in a correct and moral basis, ACL were on the ropes, (yes by SISUs actions) but that's business, SISU took action to make a hostile takeover of ACL, council funds -peoples taxes are not used morally simply to prop up a business the council has an interest in

public expenses are not the same as private money and therefore the rules on it are stringent.

My guess is the outcome will be a win for SISU, only because the judge has his hands tied by the law. He has to arrive at the conclusion the council acted unlawfully. He will slate SISU for their aggressive tactics in bringing down ACL by not paying rent, but essentially at the end of the day SISU are looking strong to win, on the information available in the past however long this saga has been going on.

The evidence about Anne Lucas (if accepted as true by the court) is very damning evidence it really is, Mutton said the same thing openly. That showed the council had no intention of allowing the club to by into the stadium... hence the council had an ulterior motive to use public funds - without the public knowledge. The emails prove the matter was kept secret..

all in all a bad day for the council

your 1st post !. welcome, you'll do well on here.

Hobo · Jun 10, 2014

ladespiser said:
Sisu have had a very productive day today. I expect the judges words may have caused some to feel positive, however he made it clear the issue here is whether the council used public moneys unlawfully. the rest of the evidence is purely theater and background, if SISU look bad it will make no difference to the outcome, so forget the comments on non payment of rent.

If you look at the law on the use of public monies in private business there are two elements the judge is going to find in the favor of SISU.

First the council must hold public open meetings and inform the public of the intention to put the money into the private business - giving the people the opportunity to object (that would have prolonged the issue and protracted the situation for ACL so you can see why they kept it all secret)
secondly, the money must be accountable, in other words used in a correct and moral basis, ACL were on the ropes, (yes by SISUs actions) but that's business, SISU took action to make a hostile takeover of ACL, council funds -peoples taxes are not used morally simply to prop up a business the council has an interest in

public expenses are not the same as private money and therefore the rules on it are stringent.

My guess is the outcome will be a win for SISU, only because the judge has his hands tied by the law. He has to arrive at the conclusion the council acted unlawfully. He will slate SISU for their aggressive tactics in bringing down ACL by not paying rent, but essentially at the end of the day SISU are looking strong to win, on the information available in the past however long this saga has been going on.

The evidence about Anne Lucas (if accepted as true by the court) is very damning evidence it really is, Mutton said the same thing openly. That showed the council had no intention of allowing the club to by into the stadium... hence the council had an ulterior motive to use public funds - without the public knowledge. The emails prove the matter was kept secret..

all in all a bad day for the council

I have a different take on the state aid bit. We will wait and see.

Also I don't see the Anne Lucas comment as that key at all, one comment one piece of rhetoric, a flippant comment. Have they hinged a whole case on that?

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 10, 2014

Hobo said:
I have a different take on the state aid bit.

As a general principle, when did we get to the stage where state aid was deemed unlawful anyway?!?

What's wrong with state aid! I'd have a specific issue if it was used to prop up a stadium management company ahead of the football club that played in it... but the general idea that the state can't aid business seems bizarre to me.

Up the workers!

Hobo · Jun 10, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
As a general principle, when did we get to the stage where state aid was deemed unlawful anyway?!?

What's wrong with state aid! I'd have a specific issue if it was used to prop up a stadium management company ahead of the football club that played in it... but the general idea that the state can't aid business seems bizarre to me.

Up the workers!

State aid isn't always illegal.

Judicial Review thread (1 Viewer)

New Member

Telegraph Tea Boy

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Administrator

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency