Legal costs awarded? (1 Viewer)

spider_ricoh · Jul 3, 2014

Note in the BBC report, Ann mentions that the council will seek their ("six figure" - according to BBC) costs back from SISU ... what is the mechanism / timeframe for this to be decided?

I do mean of course that the judge would order SISU to pay up...on the basis of their behaviour over previous bills i.e. rent, CCJ awards and the liquidation settlement, I hope Ann doesn't hold her breath over actually getting paid...

rupert_bear · Jul 3, 2014

If the court orders sisu will have to pay, I think even if they appeal. It will be a fair old wack along with any court costs to boot quarter of a million+ I reckon. Although that will come out of any Callum Wilson fee so won't directly hurt them.

AFCCOVENTRY · Jul 3, 2014

Judging by the damning verdict by the judge... I would think sisu will be laying damages to ccc

wes_cov · Jul 3, 2014

remember somewhere they said the decision for this will be tomorrow 4th July.

Kingokings204 · Jul 3, 2014

Ccc to get fully reimbursed so at least taxpayers money is safe.

Down side is debt gets lumbered into ccfc or selling of a player to cancel out the cost.

letsallsingtogether · Jul 3, 2014

A our friend Grendel said that is what Hedge funds do.
Some you win some you lose they happened to pick on a bigger entity then themselves and got badly burnt
So it is time they moved on.
As for selling players only one left worth anything.

Kingokings204 said:
Ccc to get fully reimbursed so at least taxpayers money is safe.

Down side is debt gets lumbered into ccfc or selling of a player to cancel out the cost.

lapsed_skyblue · Jul 3, 2014

Assuming that the judge awards costs against SISU, if there is any way for proceedings to be dragged by an appeal then the judge should require SISU to pay the awarded costs into the court immediately. The funds can then be returned to SISU if their appeal suceeds or, more likely, passed on to CCC should the appeal fail.
It is about time that SISU provided some proof that they have sufficient liquidity to fund their trips to the court and can afford to finish what they've started.
Any appeal should not be allowed to proceed until the funds are received.

fernandopartridge · Jul 3, 2014

Thank Christ the council get their legal costs back

dongonzalos · Jul 3, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
Thank Christ the council get their legal costs back

Yes to be fair if someone is dragged to court over something ridiculous that even a blind man whose guide dog has run off with a French poodle, can see that they are they are actually the aggrieved party not the claimant. It is worth saying thank Christ in these circumstances the magnanimously cleared party get their money back. ( if that's what the judge decides). It's a rare thing but you have finally got something right Fern.

duffer · Jul 3, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
Thank Christ the council get their legal costs back

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not here - but I'd have thought if you're a taxpayer you would be thankful. Why should the Council have to pay their own costs? The judge decided that the JR failed, and on that basis SISU lost. The loser generally pays the winner's costs.

It's a principle that SISU are well aware of when they threaten to go to court, and they use it to their benefit. Indeed, it could be reasonably argued that the risk of huge costs was used as a blunt instrument against the SBT with regard to the Conn article. The biter bit, imho.

spider_ricoh · Jul 3, 2014

So this is going to be announced some time tomorrow? bet SISU don't cough up on the spot, they'll wait for the appeal process first, the dogs....

SimonGilbert · Jul 4, 2014

Costs won't be awarded until sometime after July 14.

We might know more about the precise date next week.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kingokings204 · Jul 4, 2014

SimonGilbert said:
Costs won't be awarded until sometime after July 14.

We might know more about the precise date next week.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What was/is today then?

SimonGilbert · Jul 4, 2014

Kingokings204 said:
What was/is today then?

Not sure where people got the idea something was happening today?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rusty Trombone · Jul 4, 2014

SimonGilbert said:
Not sure where people got the idea something was happening today?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Says the 4th on the Council website.

http://www.coventry.gov.uk/news/article/1079/council_welcomes_judicial_review_decision

SimonGilbert · Jul 4, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
Says the 4th on the Council website.

http://www.coventry.gov.uk/news/article/1079/council_welcomes_judicial_review_decision

Strange. That's definitely not the case now.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Gentleman · Jul 4, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
Thank Christ the council get their legal costs back

Sorry mate but I will be over the moon if the Council gets their costs back. Especially as it turns out they have done nothing wrong and it is just more Sisu bullshit.

If that means that money goes to much needed areas in the city rather than a hedge funds coffers then every single person from this city should be glad.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jul 4, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
Thank Christ the council get their legal costs back

And so they bloody should. You know the ambition behind this action. Successive judges have seen the ambition behind these cases. Why should CCC be out-of-pocket for defending a case that was practically vexatious?

If SISU want ACL's business they should pay for it. Simple. Their objective of trying to make what should be a simple commercial transaction into this complex game of smoke and mirrors isn't helping anyone; and the most collateral damage is being caused to the football club we all purport to love

Warwickhunt · Jul 4, 2014

The Gentleman said:
Sorry mate but I will be over the moon if the Council gets their costs back. Especially as it turns out they have done nothing wrong and it is just more Sisu bullshit.

If that means that money goes to much needed areas in the city rather than a hedge funds coffers then every single person from this city should be glad.

Totaly agree with your sentiments, also so should the £14million as well and they would not have needed to cut the in the community social care budget and shut down the day centre's as well

Rusty Trombone · Jul 4, 2014

Warwickhunt said:
Totaly agree with your sentiments, also so should the £14million as well and they would not have needed to cut the in the community social care budget and shut down the day centre's as well

They got a loan to give the loan, they are lending at a higher rate than they are borrowing, the excess is presumably helping to give extra funds to the City. Everyone could benefit including the club.

Grendel · Jul 4, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
They got a loan to give the loan, they are lending at a higher rate than they are borrowing, the excess is presumably helping to give extra funds to the City. Everyone could benefit including the club.

What is the difference in the two rates then?

Kingokings204 · Jul 4, 2014

Grendel said:
What is the difference in the two rates then?

Wasn't it with YB it was 4% rate and ccc are offering a 2%. So 2% on 14 mil and that's how much ccc make therefore using taxpayers money wisely as it will earn a few million profit. Perfect sense really.

At least that's how I understand it.

skybluetony176 · Jul 4, 2014

Grendel said:
What is the difference in the two rates then?

And the needle returns to the start of the song and we all sing along like before.

Grendel · Jul 4, 2014

Kingokings204 said:
Wasn't it with YB it was 4% rate and ccc are offering a 2%. So 2% on 14 mil and that's how much ccc make therefore using taxpayers money wisely as it will earn a few million profit. Perfect sense really.

At least that's how I understand it.

I thought they were borrowing at a state aid loan rate which normally are at 3.5%.

Rusty Trombone · Jul 4, 2014

Grendel said:
What is the difference in the two rates then?

From the JR

The loan was of £14.4m, for a similar term to the lease (nearly 41 years, the
final repayment date being 16 December 2053), at a rate of 5% per annum for the first
five years of the facility, and thereafter at the discretion of the Council but no less
than 5% nor more than 2% above PWLB rate (the PWLB rate being, in effect, the rate
at which the Council could borrow money). The annual repayments amounted to
approximately £0.8m, compared with the £1.6m ACL had been paying and the £1.3m
they would have paid under the Bank’s restructuring proposal.

No future with SISU · Jul 4, 2014

Grendel said:
What is the difference in the two rates then?

You should read the Judges verdict it is in there.

No future with SISU · Jul 4, 2014

Grendel said:
I thought they were borrowing at a state aid loan rate which normally are at 3.5%.

The Judge has said it is not state aid, so it will not be at that interest rate.

lordsummerisle · Jul 4, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
From the JR

The loan was of £14.4m, for a similar term to the lease (nearly 41 years, the
final repayment date being 16 December 2053), at a rate of 5% per annum for the first
five years of the facility, and thereafter at the discretion of the Council but no less
than 5% nor more than 2% above PWLB rate (the PWLB rate being, in effect, the rate
at which the Council could borrow money). The annual repayments amounted to
approximately £0.8m, compared with the £1.6m ACL had been paying and the £1.3m
they would have paid under the Bank’s restructuring proposal.

Pointed out a while ago that it means that ACL are paying out considerably more over the terms of this loan(To the tune of 10's of millions) than the original one with Yorkshire Bank which only had about 18 years left to run on it.

No way to treat a local charity that.

Rusty Trombone · Jul 4, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
Pointed out a while ago that it means that ACL are paying out considerably more over the terms of this loan(To the tune of 10's of millions) than the original one with Yorkshire Bank which only had about 18 years left to run on it.

No way to treat a local charity that.

I imagine they, as part of ACL, must be happier to pay more overall but with a lower annual cashflow, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to it. I haven't heard them complaining about it, have you?

lordsummerisle · Jul 4, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
I imagine they, as part of ACL, must be happier to pay more overall but with a lower annual cashflow, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to it. I haven't heard them complaining about it, have you?

I'm just thinking of the poor little kiddies.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jul 4, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
Pointed out a while ago that it means that ACL are paying out considerably more over the terms of this loan(To the tune of 10's of millions) than the original one with Yorkshire Bank which only had about 18 years left to run on it.

No way to treat a local charity that.

Sorry?

Godiva · Jul 4, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
Pointed out a while ago that it means that ACL are paying out considerably more over the terms of this loan(To the tune of 10's of millions) than the original one with Yorkshire Bank which only had about 18 years left to run on it.

No way to treat a local charity that.

Especially as the council took away car park C (worth £1m) as commission.

lordsummerisle · Jul 4, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Sorry?

It's okay, don't think it's your fault.

Kingokings204 · Jul 4, 2014

So yes it is 2% at the councils rate Grendel. It was 4-5% with YB so that's effectively the deal for all.

ACL get to pay back at 2% less than before and council get 2% on their 14 mil. That's why the deal was done as it would of gone bust had they not done that as "sisu legally stopped paying rent." The judges words and mine.

lordsummerisle · Jul 4, 2014

Kingokings204 said:
So yes it is 2% at the councils rate Grendel. It was 4-5% with YB so that's effectively the deal for all.

ACL get to pay back at 2% less than before and council get 2% on their 14 mil. That's why the deal was done as it would of gone bust had they not done that as "sisu legally stopped paying rent." The judges words and mine.

Did you not read any of the above?

The loan was of £14.4m, for a similar term to the lease (nearly 41 years, the
final repayment date being 16 December 2053), at a rate of 5% per annum for the first
five years of the facility, and thereafter at the discretion of the Council but no less
than 5% nor more than 2% above PWLB rate (the PWLB rate being, in effect, the rate
at which the Council could borrow money).

What you're saying would probably have got the loan classified as State Aid, and cost the Council the JR.

Legal costs awarded? (1 Viewer)

New 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

New Member

Telegraph Tea Boy

Well-Known Member

Telegraph Tea Boy

Well-Known Member

Telegraph Tea Boy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency