Mean while back in court (1 Viewer)

oldskyblue58 · Feb 5, 2016

The JR 1 is in the names of SBS&L and ARVO. Compensation will therefore be shared between them if to be granted on this case. That means that ARVO could get repaid its loans and interest and possibly get a distribution on shares. It means that Sconset could repaid its loans and interest and possibly a distribution on shares. Anything left over they could leave in the company or make further loans to Otium (CCFC)

The second JR names Otium as a claimant. Which means that company could share in the compensation. Should that carry the balance sheet in to distributable reserves there is of course the small problem of all those preference shares rolling up dividends rights to the tune of £9m pa

All this is not being done for the benefit of CCFC and the group has been structured to take best advantage of any windfall for the investors.

I assume SISU will claim Otium bought all rights to claims from the administrator in terms of CCFC Ltd. I assume there is some document somewhere covering CCFC H but neither of those companies now exist and it was they that were effectively the football club at the time of the loan. Might be some legal arguments over that should they win a claim.

In terms of the JR2 then Otium had not kind of interest at all at the Ricoh other than a day rent so I assume they will try to argue that JR1 and JR 2 are inextricably linked.

Even they win the right to go for compensation it is by no means straight forward

all just my opinion of course

ceetee · Feb 5, 2016

Wouldn't surprise me if SISU won but were awarded £1 compensation !

skybluetony176 · Feb 5, 2016

Captain Dart said:
i have absolutely no idea, I'm just googling stuff about EU law. If SISU get blocked they will just start JR2 & involve Wasps. That appears to be the strategy, litigation, litigation & more litigation, ethics & justice of cause does not come into it. Just keep plugging away till the other guy surrenders.

Could be right. I did say on here that when a certain someone said "we batter people in court" (talking about SISU) what they actually meant was that they use the court to batter people. Not nearly the same thing.

oldskyblue58 · Feb 5, 2016

ceetee said:
Wouldn't surprise me if SISU won but were awarded £1 compensation !

wouldn't surprise me either but if that were the result I wouldn't see them accepting it and we all know where that will lead ........... back to court

Additionally I would think they would use the verdict on the JR as a basis of other separate claims ...... again back in court

just an opinion though

Skyblueweeman · Feb 5, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Not sure how I feel about this now.
If knew for certain the government would be paying damages. It may change my perspective.
They have taken a lot of my money over the last few years. So may not bother me as much. If it gets SISU's investors their money back and allows SISU to sell up. Or allows them to attempt to run the football side of things correctly then that could be interesting.
If the it comes out of local council funds I wouldn't agree with that. As that could directly affect the people of coventry.
Interesting change of dynamics

So it matters more as to where any compensation would come from as opposed to the rights or wrongs?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

italiahorse · Feb 5, 2016

Nick said:
They used wasps as a reason for it being low risk....

Agree. That's why Sisu played it down and the judge said in the wings was a bit of a stretch.

Nick · Feb 5, 2016

italiahorse said:
Agree. That's why Sisu played it down and the judge said in the wings was a bit of a stretch.

Because it had been discussed then, a couple of years before... Shocking really. Surprised the press haven't picked up on it.

Nick · Feb 5, 2016

Not a mention

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/ricoh-arena-appeal-government-could-10842245

italiahorse · Feb 5, 2016

Nick said:
Because it had been discussed then, a couple of years before... Shocking really. Surprised the press haven't picked up on it.

Informal conversations go on all the time. What was the document ?
I have asked about lots of ideas for different pockets of land as I just test the ground.

Mountain out of a molehill.

Nick · Feb 5, 2016

italiahorse said:
Informal conversations go on all the time. What was the document ?
I have asked about lots of ideas for different pockets of land as I just test the ground.

Mountain out of a molehill.

Ha ok, you play it down because it makes it look like wasps might possibly be lying... As well as the council..

If it was so informal it wouldn't be documented would it?

Fact is, he was interested before he bought the rugby club... Then he bought the rugby club and moved.

italiahorse · Feb 5, 2016

Nick said:
Ha ok, you play it down because it makes it look like wasps might possibly be lying... As well as the council..

If it was so informal it wouldn't be documented would it?

Fact is, he was interested before he bought the rugby club... Then he bought the rugby club and moved.

You can't have it both ways.
Sisu thought it was irrelevant. Shouldn't you tow the party line ?
So what was the document ? Genuine question.

eastwoodsdustman · Feb 5, 2016

Italia, you are playing the ostrich on this one. Everyone can see that collusion was going on except you it seems.

Nick · Feb 5, 2016

italiahorse said:
You can't have it both ways.
Sisu thought it was irrelevant. Shouldn't you tow the party line ?
So what was the document ? Genuine question.

Tow what party line?

It seems like you are the one doing that by refusing to accept it happened.

I haven't personally seen it, again it wasn't denied.

It just goes to show he clearly had an idea before taking them on what to do, and it wasn't to move back to London.

But still, they are your business partner so you won't have a bad word said about them.

torchomatic · Feb 5, 2016

You really do make an idiot of yourself.

italiahorse said:
Informal conversations go on all the time. What was the document ?
I have asked about lots of ideas for different pockets of land as I just test the ground.

Mountain out of a molehill.

italiahorse · Feb 5, 2016

eastwoodsdustman said:
Italia, you are playing the ostrich on this one. Everyone can see that collusion was going on except you it seems.

Nick said:
Tow what party line?

It seems like you are the one doing that by refusing to accept it happened.

I haven't personally seen it, again it wasn't denied.

It just goes to show he clearly had an idea before taking them on what to do, and it wasn't to move back to London.

But still, they are your business partner so you won't have a bad word said about them.

I asked about the document Sisu referred to as I genuinely have missed it.
Can you point me to it ?

Nick · Feb 5, 2016

italiahorse said:
I asked about the document Sisu referred to as I genuinely have missed it.
Can you point me to it ?

It hasn't been leaked has it?

Fact is, he made contact.

italiahorse · Feb 5, 2016

Nick said:
But still, they are your business partner so you won't have a bad word said about them.

So because someone works with ACL they don't have an opinion ?

Nick · Feb 5, 2016

italiahorse said:
So because someone works with ACL they don't have an opinion ?

They do, a biased one. Same as if they worked with sisu.

italiahorse · Feb 5, 2016

Nick said:
They do, a biased one. Same as if they worked with sisu.

Potentially but not necessarily.
I want what's best for CCFC and from where I am it now includes Wasps whether I like it or not.

torchomatic · Feb 5, 2016

You obviously do like it.

italiahorse said:
Potentially but not necessarily.
I want what's best for CCFC and from where I am it now includes Wasps whether I like it or not.

Grendel · Feb 5, 2016

torchomatic said:
You obviously do like it.

I know - why he makes these absurd posts I really don't know.

italiahorse · Feb 5, 2016

Grendel said:
I know - why he makes these absurd posts I really don't know.

You don't know much about anything to be honest ?

letsallsingtogether · Feb 5, 2016

Grendel said:
I know - why he makes these absurd posts I really don't know.

All the posts on this thread are absurd?
He said she said, this document that document, this meeting that meeting, won't buy without will buy without.
Come on are any of us any the wiser about what's going on?

It is still all spin and will still be arguing in court when most of us are dead.

stupot07 · Feb 5, 2016

I still can't believe the council didn't inform Central Government about this.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Nick · Feb 5, 2016

letsallsingtogether said:
All the posts on this thread are absurd?
He said she said, this document that document, this meeting that meeting, won't buy without will buy without.
Come on are any of us any the wiser about what's going on?

It is still all spin and will still be arguing in court when most of us are dead.

We know wasps were sniffing around way before 2014 as the council said..

italiahorse · Feb 5, 2016

Nick said:
We know wasps were sniffing around way before 2014 as the council said..

Just what does sniffing around mean, exactly ?
A speculative comment informally put could mean anything.
With Sisu not buying into the ACL there were probably lots of speculative enquiries about the 'white elephant'.

letsallsingtogether · Feb 5, 2016

Nick said:
We know wasps were sniffing around way before 2014 as the council said..

That's old news though Nick even I knew that and I know that Tim knew so wonder why they have now started to act all shocked. There was more then one suiter apparently?
It was brought in a meeting but hey he said she said again.

Nick · Feb 5, 2016

letsallsingtogether said:
That's old news though Nick even I knew that and I know that Tim knew so wonder why they have now started to act all shocked.

I dont think they did act shocked, I'm just shocked it's not really being picked up on..

It puts a lot of the reasoning and justification into them moving in the bullshit drawer.

letsallsingtogether · Feb 5, 2016

Nick said:
I dont think they did act shocked, I'm just shocked it's not really being picked up on..

It puts a lot of the reasoning and justification into them moving in the bullshit drawer.

Nick it was common knowledge as far as I know talked about it a few times at games and on the hill. Why didn't sisu act on it when they knew that is the strange thing?

Nick · Feb 5, 2016

letsallsingtogether said:
Nick it was common knowledge as far as I know talked about it a few times at games and on the hill. Why didn't sisu act on it when they knew that is the strange thing?

My thinking is to run to court to be the victim, $$$$.

They could have got that in the press sooner for pr reasons surely?

dongonzalos · Feb 5, 2016

Skyblueweeman said:
So it matters more as to where any compensation would come from as opposed to the rights or wrongs?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes SISU are to mostly to blame for this whole situation in my opinion. The JR at this stage is purely about whether the council can use the money in the way they did or not. They were having to do what they did because of the actions of SISU.
So the blame side of it for JR court case for me personally isn't massively important. The three Lords kept stopping all the evidence about each side doing bad stuff and wanted to stay on "can the money be used in this way or not. "
So for me if it can't then the council and all councils in the future will know you can't ( this been the first case of it's kind it setting a precedent)
However if it's council money that compensates SISU I would prefer if they didn't win.
If it's Government money I am not so sure. It's puts a different slant on it for me. Maybe them winning could be a good thing.

skybluetony176 · Feb 5, 2016

letsallsingtogether said:
Nick it was common knowledge as far as I know talked about it a few times at games and on the hill. Why didn't sisu act on it when they knew that is the strange thing?

Despite all the talk of having investors standing by they clearly didn't. They couldn't afford it. There's no other logical explanation. They were publicly invited to make an offer to the council but never did.

Nick · Feb 5, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Yes SISU are to mostly to blame for this whole situation in my opinion. The JR at this stage is purely about whether the council can use the money in the way they did or not. They were having to do what they did because of the actions of SISU.
So the blame side of it for JR court case for me personally isn't massively important. The three Lords kept stopping all the evidence about each side doing bad stuff and wanted to stay on "can the money be used in this way or not. "
So for me if it can't then the council and all councils in the future will know you can't ( this been the first case of it's kind it setting a precedent)
However if it's council money that compensates SISU I would prefer if they didn't win.
If it's Government money I am not so sure. It's puts a different slant on it for me. Maybe them winning could be a good thing.

Surely its about right or wrong? Whether the government or council have to pay.

Will you be spinning it as a good thing then so other councils know for the future?

letsallsingtogether · Feb 5, 2016

Nick said:
My thinking is to run to court to be the victim, $$$$.

They could have got that in the press sooner for pr reasons surely?

Who knows?
Who will ever know what is right here?
Not us that is for sure to many spin doctors on both sides.
It was 2-0 to CCC it is 2-1 at the moment who knows what the final score will be but hey I wouldn't bet on this one.

italiahorse · Feb 5, 2016

dongonzalos said:
Yes SISU are to mostly to blame for this whole situation in my opinion. The JR at this stage is purely about whether the council can use the money in the way they did or not. They were having to do what they did because of the actions of SISU.
So the blame side of it for JR court case for me personally isn't massively important. The three Lords kept stopping all the evidence about each side doing bad stuff and wanted to stay on "can the money be used in this way or not. "
So for me if it can't then the council and all councils in the future will know you can't ( this been the first case of it's kind it setting a precedent)
However if it's council money that compensates SISU I would prefer if they didn't win.
If it's Government money I am not so sure. It's puts a different slant on it for me. Maybe them winning could be a good thing.

Make no bones about it.
Win or loose JR1 they will move straight on to JR2.

JR2 will be different in that it will involve our landlords Wasps.
I not sure how it works when a landlord ends up in court with the tenant and what it means for the future.

Mean while back in court (1 Viewer)

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency